University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Improving math and science education in charter secondary schools through the use of technology

(USC Thesis Other)

Improving math and science education in charter secondary schools through the use of technology

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content IMPROVING MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION IN CHARTER
SECONDARY SCHOOLS THROUGH THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY
by
Bobby Ojose
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2006
Copyright 2006 Bobby Ojose
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3236533
Copyright 2006 by
Ojose, Bobby
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3236533
Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my immediate and extended family: To my
wife Maureen. To my children: Elohor, Kessiena, and Eseoghene, for their solid
love. To my parents: Mr. Paul Epini Ojose and Mama Esisio Onovwede.
And finally to my late younger brother, Charity Ojose, who I know is proud
of my achievement in the great beyond.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I want to express my sincere appreciation to the members of my dissertation
committee— Dr. Priscilla Wohlstetter, Dr. Dennis Hocevar, and Dr. Richard
Brown— for their hard work, support, and encouragement during the conduct of this
study. I particularly want to express gratitude to the chair o f the committee, Dr.
Priscilla Wohlstetter, whose meticulousness prompted me to work harder.
The thematic dissertation group consists of the following members: Amber
Prince, Gary Finkel, Grace Kim, Jennifer Prager, Jennifer Welsh, John Purcell, Julie
Garrett, Kevin Kaemingk, Rayna Cervantes, Scott Anderle, and Tami Pearson.
Thanks to all of you for the team spirit we exhibited in working together.
I would also like to extend thanks to those at the Center of Educational
Governance at USC who in one way or another assisted in the scheme of things:
Vicki Park, for initially structuring the direction of the dissertation with her
suggestions on what the topic should be; Ally Kuzin, for assistance in conducting the
interviews and reading chapters 4 and 5 for completeness; and Cassandra Davis, for
scheduling and performing the “middleman role” of passing documents back and
forth.
I also owe a debt of gratitude to the staff, faculty, and administration of the
schools in which the study was conducted. It wouldn’t have been possible to achieve
this success without their generosity, time, and effort. Particularly, I want to thank
the principals of the schools for providing me access to the sites and making sure I
got support that facilitated conducting the study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Thanks to my immediate family for their love and understanding: Maureen,
my wife, who took care of the children when I was working; and my children
(Elohor, Kessiena, and Eseoghene), who gave me the psychological balance that I
needed to weather the storm.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
List of Tables vii
Abstract viii
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Background of the Study 1
Student Performance Problems 3
The Technology Solution 5
The Charter Angle: Possibilities and Limitations 9
Purpose of the Study 11
Importance of the Study 12
Organization of the Dissertation 14
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 15
Introduction 15
Historical Overview: Technology in the Classroom 15
Benefits of Technology in the Classroom 20
Challenges to Implementing Promising Practices in Technology 30
Summary 35
Chapter Three: Research Methods 37
Introduction 37
Research Questions and Research Design 37
Data Collection Methods 40
Data Analysis 48
Summary 48
Chapter Four: Findings of the Study 49
Introduction 49
Center for Advanced Research and Technology 49
Magnolia Science Academy 73
Figure: Theory of Action for the Promising Practice 79
Chapter Five: Discussions and Conclusions 96
Introduction 96
The Research Questions 96
Discussion of the Research Questions 97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
VI
Major Findings of the Study 111
Implications for Policy and Practice 112
Suggestions for Further Research 114
References 118
Appendices
Appendix A: National Education Technology Standards: Guidelines
for Students 132
Appendix B: National Educational Technology Standards: Guidelines
for Teachers 136
Appendix C: Verbal Script for Teachers 139
Appendix D: Charter School Profile 140
Appendix E: Pre-Site Principal Telephone Interview 142
Appendix F: On-Site Lead Teacher Interview Protocol 145
Appendix G: On-Site Teacher Interview Protocol 149
Appendix H: On-Site Principal Interview Protocol 152
Appendix I: On-Site Teacher Focus Group Interview Protocol 156
Appendix J: Initial Communication With Principal 159
Appendix K: Classroom Observation Protocol 160
Appendix L: Professional Development Observation 162
Appendix M: Document Checklist 165
Appendix N: Content Template of Compendium 166
Appendix O: Nomination Form for Compendium 168
Appendix P: Nomination Advertisement 172
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Triangulating Across Data Collection Instruments 41
Table 2: Profile: Center of Advanced Research and Technology (CART) 51
Table 3: Profile: Magnolia Science Academy 74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to examine the promising practices of using
technology in teaching math and science in charter schools in California. The study
was conducted under the auspices of the Center for Educational Governance (CEG),
which hopes to compile the promising practices into an Internet-based compendium
to be replicated by others. The research employed an in-depth qualitative case study
method. It was conducted in two secondary schools in different school districts in the
State of California over a 2-month period.
The main participants were principals, lead teachers, teachers, and support
staff. Interviews, observations, and archival documents were the main data collection
tools. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with the principals, lead teachers of
technology, teachers, and a support staff person (network administrator). Technology
lab and professional development activities were observed. Interviews were tape-
recorded and transcribed.
The study found that one school (MSA) has the promising practice of using
technology to enhance the subject matter knowledge of students by using computers
to further explore concepts already learned in the regular classroom. The other
school (CART) has the promising practice of applying technology to real-life
situations as a teaching pedagogy. The result of these practices is positive outcomes
in the following areas: increased student achievement in standardized test scores,
increased motivation, growth in mean GPA, less behavior problems from students,
and improved school attendance by students.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The implications for policy and practice include the following: teachers
having knowledge of the benefits of constructive teaching in the classroom;
principals understanding that professional development activities for technology
integration will vary in complexity and depend on the needs of teachers; policy
makers identifying needs and establishing goals; and researchers conducting more
qualitative studies to gather evidence to demonstrate the progression of learning in
the technology classroom.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
Chapter One
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
During the last decade, technology expenditures tripled in K-12 schools in
the United States: estimates suggest that more than $6 billion was spent in 1999 and
2000 (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, 2000). Since no one wants these funds to be wasted,
educators need insight into how to maximize the impact of their investments in
technology. The term “technology” can be used to mean a variety of things—from
pencils to computers.
Technology has transformed nearly every aspect of our personal and
professional lives. Computers, video, television, telephones, and telecommunication
networks have had a significant impact on how we live, work, and play. This is a
time of incredible technological advancement, and computing power is more
available and affordable than ever. For all these reasons, the term “technology” is
defined to include electronic equipment such as calculators, computer-based tools
(i.e., hardware and software), the Internet, and computer-based multimedia.
Many believe the recent changes in instructional technology hold great
promise for revolutionizing education (David, 1994). In fact, instructional
technology is often considered an important tool for bringing about the kind of
systematic changes called for by those involved in reform efforts across the nation
(Means, Blando, Olson, & Middleton, 1993). “When computers, e-mail, and other
high-tech tools are used, many educators believe, students improve their thinking
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
skills. Teachers change the way they run their classrooms. Parents become more
involved. Assessments reflect real-world activities. Children enjoy learning”
(Fatemi, 1998).
One important distinction in studies of educational technology involves
learning “from” computers, as opposed to learning “with” computers (Reeves, 1998).
When students are learning “from” computers, the computers are essentially tutors.
In this capacity, the technology primarily serves the goal of increasing students’
basic skills and knowledge. In learning “with” computers, by contrast, students use
technology as a tool that can be applied to a variety of goals in the learning process,
rather simply as an instructional delivery system.
Raising student achievement is a key reason districts formulate technology
plans to aid instruction. For example, a study on the impact of learning technologies
on student achievement in Illinois reported that scores on state assessment improved
in many areas (e.g., eleventh grade science and tenth grade reading), although gains
were not uniform across subject matter areas (Silverstein, Frechtling, & Miyaoka,
2000). The benefits of technology seem to increase as the use of the technology
becomes more sophisticated (Wenglinsky, 1998). Furthermore, according to the
Commission on Achievement Necessary Skills (1991), “Those unable to use
[technology] face a lifetime of menial work” (p. 5).
A 1997 nationwide study on the use of technology in classrooms describes
the range of activities:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
At one end of the spectrum, computers are used to “deliver” traditional
instruction, e.g., software provides drill-and-practice in multiplication tables.
In other instances, computers provide students with experience in
technologies that adults may use in many work situations— word processor
for writing, data bases for collecting and analyzing information, and desktop
publishing software for publishing. Computers are increasingly being used to
provide students with opportunities to explore “microworlds,” enabling them
to “construct” new knowledge and learn basic skills in useful contexts.
Finally, Internet connections allowing electronic mail, file transfer,
conferencing, and access to remote expertise and information offer
tantalizing promise to educators seeking to prepare students for the 21s t
century. (Coley, Cradler, & Engel, 1997)
Various administrations in the United States have placed a high premium on
the importance of educational technology. For example, in his 1996 State of the
Union address, President Clinton called for connecting every classroom in America
to the information superhighway with “computers and good software and well-
trained teachers.” At that time, the White House announced four educational
technology goals: (a) all teachers in the nation will have the training and support they
need to help students learn to use computers and the information superhighway,
(b) all teachers and students will have modem multimedia computers in their
classrooms, (c) every classroom will be connected to the information superhighway,
and (d) effective software and on-line learning resources will be an integral part of
every school’s curriculum. Subsequent administrations have also lent their support to
educational technology.
Student Performance Problems
The educational system in America is plagued by low performance when
compared with the systems in other countries. Many studies, including those
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
conducted by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), have documented poor
student performance. Further, conclusions from TIMMS suggested that older
students in the United States tested more poorly than did younger students. In 1995,
American fourth graders scored in the upper third of countries, eighth graders scored
near the middle of the pack, and the scores of high school seniors were significantly
behind those of the rest of the world (TIMMS, 1995). More recent results from
TIMSS-R were similar to the 1995 results. Forty-one countries participated in this
study, and students in the United States placed in the middle of all the countries with
respect to achievement. Students from Singapore had the highest scores; students
from Korea, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong, Japan, and Belgium scored near the top.
In California, the story of underachievement and low performance is similar
to that elsewhere in the United States. The performance of students in the CAT-6 has
been dismal in California. Another indicator is the California Standardized Testing
(CST) program. Of all eighth graders who took algebra in the CST in 2002, onlyl 1%
were advanced, 28% were proficient, 30% were basic, 22% were below basic, and
10% were far below basic (California Department of Education, 2003). In other
words, only 39% passed, and the 2003 figures were not very different from the 2002
figures. The definition of passing here means that, for both 2002 and 2003, 39%
were proficient, which is well below half of all who took the test.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
The Technology Solution
The premise of this dissertation is that technology, when effectively used in
the classroom, has the potential to raise student achievement. Various studies of
schools have concluded that technology increases student performance. A high
school in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, implemented a computerized “cognitive tutor” in
its mathematics classes. This tutor presented students with real-world, contextualized
problems and built learning profiles of its users. Evaluations showed that algebra
students who used the cognitive tutor outperformed students in traditional classes by
achieving gains of as much as 25% in skills and as much as 100% in problem solving
(Hubbard, 2000). Retention in mathematics classes and attendance also improved
among students using the cognitive tutor.
During the past three decades, a large number o f meta-analyses have
examined the effects of technology on student outcomes. Several of the studies
investigated the impact of computer-assisted instruction on student outcomes (Lipsey
& Wilson, 1993). Other meta-analyses have examined aspects such as the effects
using microcomputer applications on elementary school students (Ryan, 1991) and
the effects of computer programming on student outcomes (Liao & Bright, 1991).
Overall, these analyses, along with some recent, national studies and narrative
reviews, documented the positive effects of educational technology on student
achievement (Wenglinsky, 1998).
Wenglinsky (1998), of the Educational Testing Service (ETS), used data
collected from the mathematics section of the NAEP of 1996 and from a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
questionnaire completed by students, teachers, and administrators to analyze a
number of different questions about computer usage in schools. Wenglinsky was
particularly interested in
Students’ access to computers in school for mathematical tasks; student
access to computers and frequency of computer use at home; preparedness of
mathematics teachers in computer use; and the ways in which the
mathematics teachers and their students use computers, (p. 80)
He found that those students who used computers primarily for higher-order thinking
activities did better on the mathematics section of the test than did students who used
computers for other activities. In addition, he found that, in eighth grade, lower-order
thinking skills were negatively related to mathematics achievement. The data seem
to suggest that, if computers are used to teach higher-level thinking, then students
will be better mathematics students and thus earn higher achievement scores on
standardized tests than if computers are not used for this purpose.
In addition to examining the effects of technology on student outcomes,
researchers have investigated the impact of technology on classrooms, schools, and
districts. Results of a variety of studies (e.g., Chang, Henriquez, Honey, Light,
Moeller & Ross, 1998) suggest that, over time, technology can serve as a strong
catalyst for change at the classroom, school, and district level. Teaching with
technology, when used appropriately, can bring about benefits other than higher
grades. Students tend to be more engaged and involved in their own learning.
Technology can be effective because it brings about positive attitudes toward
learning and encourages low achievers to succeed. Technology can help rid the'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
classroom of passive learning because use of interactive computers forces students to
make decisions and live by the consequences of those decisions. However,
computers must be used effectively. In order to accomplish this, applications must be
selected that will promote learning and reach individual students where they are
(Hancock, 1993).
The use of technology in teaching changes the role of the teacher from that of
lecturer to that of constructivist. Waxman and Huang (1996) found that instruction in
classroom settings where technology was not often used tended to be a whole-class
approach in which students generally listened to the teacher. Instruction in classroom
settings where technology was moderately used had much less whole-class
instruction and more independent work. Another important finding from the
Waxman and Huang (1996) study was that students in classrooms where technology
was moderately used (more than 21% o f the time) were found to be on task
significantly more often than were students in other groups where technology was
only infrequently used (less than 10% of the time) or in which technology was only
slightly used (11% to 19% of the time).
Swan and Mitrani (1993), for example, compared the interactions between (a)
high school students and teachers involved in computer-based instruction and (b)
those involved in traditional instruction. They found that student-teacher interactions
were more student centered and individualized during computer-based teaching and
learning than during traditional teaching and learning.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
According to past research, calculators are part of the technology that, if used
effectively, can increase student achievement. Because calculators make possible
mathematical exploration, experimentation, and enhancement of mathematical
concepts, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and various
other organizations and individuals recommend that appropriate calculators be made
available for use by students at every level from kindergarten through college.
Research not only proves that the use of calculators results in more positive feelings
and better attitudes about mathematics for both students and teachers, but it also
confirms that calculators improve performance in a variety of areas, including
problem solving (Dunham, 1995).
While the effectiveness of computer technology on science instruction has
been studied extensively, the results are inconsistent. For example, Morrell (1992)
investigated whether computer-assisted instruction (CAI) would improve students’
achievement scores in high school biology. Morrell found no significant difference
between the means of the achievement scores of the CAI group and those of the
traditional group. When Yalcinalp and colleagues (1995) examined the effectiveness
of using CAI for teaching the mole concept in high school chemistry, they found that
students who used CAI accompanied with lectures scored significantly higher than
did those who attended recitation hours, with respect to school subject in chemistry
and attitudes toward chemistry subjects.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
The Charter Angle: Possibilities and Limitations
Charter schools, by definition, are schools of choice that operate with more
autonomy (and fewer regulations) under a performance contract issued by a public
entity such as a local school district. The charter movement has seen progress in
terms of numbers since the 1990s, when they first came into being. Since the first
charter school was founded in Minnesota in 1992, charters have fanned out across
the country. According to the Center of Education Reform (2004), an organization
that advocates for charter schools, nearly 3,000 charter schools existed in 37 states
and the District of Columbia in January 2004, with particularly high concentrations
in urban areas. Charters serve the full range of grade levels, often in unique
combinations or spans. On the whole, they also appear to enroll a diverse student
body. A 2002 survey reported by SRI International, a nonprofit research institute,
stated that, “on average, more than half the students in charter schools were members
of ethnic minority groups, 12% received special education services, and 6% were
English language learners” (Anderson et al., 2002).
As schools of choice, charter schools operate like magnet schools, attracting
consumers who are free to use their sovereignty to select a school that best fits their
needs (Wohlstetter et al., 1995). The autonomy characteristic of charter schools gives
rise to innovation that may affect all facets of schooling, from administration to
curriculum and instruction.
Empowered with the autonomy to make site-based curricular choices, and
free from many rules and regulations, charter schools become more likely to engage
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
in innovation than are other types of schools (Crawford, 2001). The logic is that, if
charter schools can successfully adopt innovations, students will learn at higher
levels and test scores will increase. Further, teachers and student and their parents
will choose the school to attend. Embedded in the concept of charter school is the
idea that they will serve as laboratories for innovation, and that traditional schools
will be interested in adopting what has been proven to work in charter schools.
Most of the studies on charter schools have analyzed the characteristics of
charter schools and charter laws across the states (Anderson et al., 2002; U.S.
Department of Education, 2000). Researchers have also evaluated charter schools in
individual states, including Arizona, Texas, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Regarding
educational practices in the classroom, charter schools employ diverse approaches
that often distinguish them from other public schools in the area, thus offering
choices to parents through a range of classroom-level options (Reynolds, 2000).
Reynolds further asserted that “charter schools focusing on the implementation of
technology exemplify the quality that technology is integrated with the curriculum:
built around mathematics, science, humanities, arts, character, ethics, practical arts,
and skills.” Other researchers have documented the use of technology in charter
schools as a tool to deliver or support instruction or as an instructional theme
(Clayton Foundation, 1999; Corwin & Flaherty, 1995; Gifford et al., 2000, Miron &
Nelson, 2000; Price, 1998; Teske et al., 2000). For example, in their study of charter
schools in Colorado in 1998, the Clayton Foundation (1999) found that teachers used
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
computers and advance computer programs to innovatively teach mathematics and
science concepts.
Although these research studies have examined how technology influences
teaching and learning, little is known about the instructional strategies that occur in
the classroom and how teachers teach with technology. Another shortcoming of past
studies is that they tended to limit the concept of technology to one type. As stated
previously, it is important to consider other kinds of technologies in the teaching and
learning of mathematics and science. For example, calculators are useful in the study
of mathematics (Campbell & Stewart, 1993). A third limitation involves the
tendency of researchers to focus only on measuring student achievement when
exposed to technology, and not on promising practices that can lead to successful
results. More specifically, a key problem with these studies is that research
attempting to answer the question “does technology improve student learning?”
eliminates from consideration everything other than evidence of the computer’s
impact on student learning. Consequently, teacher practices, student experiences,
pedagogical contexts, and even specifically how computers are used have not been
adequately addressed.
Purpose of the Study
Although an adequate knowledge base exists about the impact of technology
on student outcomes, the details of instructional strategies have not been adequately
explored. The basic purpose of the dissertation is to examine how teachers
effectively use technology in the classroom and how student learning is enhanced by
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
technology. The investigation will take place in charter schools in California
because, as noted earlier, charter schools enjoy considerable autonomy and have the
flexibility to innovate. Previous studies (e.g., Reynolds, 2000), have documented the
extensive use of technology in charter schools in Michigan. Reynolds studied the
innovative and unique aspects of 75% of the charter schools in Michigan with
respect to curriculum, instruction, and operation/governance. One aspect of the study
indicated that charter schools using technology exemplify the high quality derived
from multimedia use and use of the Internet.
The purpose of the present study is to identify promising practices related to
how technology is used to enhance teaching and learning of mathematics and science
in the secondary levels of charter schools. The study is an integral part of a thematic
dissertation group that is investigating promising practices across ten different areas.
The data gathered from the twelve studies, including this one, will be incorporated
into an interactive Web site, Multiple Measure of Accountability for California
Charter Schools (MMACCS), which is a project of USC’s Center on Educational
Governance (CEG). In addition to the compendium of promising practices, the
MMACCS Web site will contain a quantitative database of school performance
indices (CEG, n.d.).
Importance of the Study
Two groups of audiences can be identified as the primary beneficiaries of this
study: practitioners and policy makers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
By practitioners, I mean teachers and other educators who can use the
findings to guide their teaching. This research explicates how technology is used in
teaching. Teachers can use findings from this study to create innovative lesson plans.
Teachers need increased and varied opportunities to learn from others’ experiences
in an effort to continuously improve. They need opportunities for ongoing dialogue
about their experiences and for continuous development of their abilities to discover
more powerful learning tools for students. The compendium will provide such a
forum for teachers.
With respect to policy makers, this kind of study can guide decisions by
administrators and other policy makers about what technology to procure. According
to Wendol and King (2003),
Charter schools are funded much like traditional public schools. However,
they do not have the usual district-supported resources to lean on, leaving
charter groups to fend for themselves in many critical areas. This lack of
resources also means that charter groups have to seek other funding and
grants for needs as ... technology support.
This assertion supports the fact that resources of schools— both charter and non
charter— should go to technology that enhances teachers’ teaching and students’
learning. On the other hand, policy makers sometimes rely on research to guide
policy formulation. It is hoped that, when curriculum and instruction matters are
contemplated, policy makers will have deeper knowledge about the attributes of
technology use (promising practices) that demonstrate utility for student learning.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
Organization of the Dissertation
This chapter provided an overview of the study. The next chapter reviews
research and other literature related to the use of technology in schools. Chapter
Three describes the research methods employed in carrying out the study. In Chapter
Four, the results of the study are presented; in Chapter Five, implications of the study
results for practitioners and policy makers are discussed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
Chapter Two
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
This study is intended to finding out how technology is integrated into
science and mathematics education at the secondary level. The goal is to find out
how mathematics and science education can be improved through the use of
technology. This chapter provides a history of technology use in the classroom, the
benefits of technology in the classroom, promising uses of technology in learning
and instruction, and challenges to implementing promising practices in technology.
Historical Overview: Technology in the Classroom
In the 1950s, the noble idea of using computers to assist instruction (CAI)
was realized, with the United States, Japan, and Great Britain contributing
immensely to the field. However, most of the work in this field was completed in
Great Britain and the United States (Kaiser, 1985). After awhile, many European
countries and some Third World countries became interested and later developed
their own coursework or used the programs already developed in Great Britain and
the United States.
The CAI programs developed in the 1950s were influenced by behaviorist
theories. A prevailing theory during this period was the behaviorist theory that, in
order to increase a desired behavior, occurrence of an operant must be followed by
the presentation of a reinforcing stimulus. As a result of this theory, programs in the
1950s were designed to output a frame of text to which students could respond,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
based on their prior knowledge or through trial and error (Yazdani, 1987). After
students responded, the computer informed the students of their correct or incorrect
responses. Students were allowed to work at their own paces and received immediate
rewards for correct responses. Such CAI programs are still used in many classrooms
today.
In the 1960s, most CAI programs were designed to use students’ responses to
control the next material that would be shown on the screen (Yazdani, 1987).
Yazdani called the type of programs designed during this period “branching
programs.” These programs were designed to help students learn concepts at their
appropriate level of difficulty because the concepts a student worked on were
determined by the knowledge that student possessed.
In the early 1970s, Great Britain and the United States witnessed major
breakthroughs in the use of technology for instructional purposes. A five-year project
at the University of Leeds, begun in 1972 and called the National Development
Program in Assisted Learning (NDPCAL), was funded by the British government
(Kaiser, 1985). In the United States, the National Science Foundation funded and
established a consortium called CONDUIT, which consisted of the Universities of
Texas, North Carolina, Oregon, and Iowa, and Dartmouth College (Kaiser, 1985).
Kaiser reported that the primary purpose of the consortium was to establish a
clearinghouse whose job was to acquire, evaluate, and distribute quality CAI
programs. Many other projects funded to develop CAI followed later.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
The design of CAI programs had high levels of sophistication in the 1970s
and 1980s (Yazdani, 1987). This was primarily because of the availability of
research funds for CAI programs and the interest this field had generated. Discovery
and simulation modes common to CAI programs are inherent in most technology
programs today.
Specifically, the literature sheds light on the effect of technology on students’
performance in mathematics and science. Ross, Anand, and Morris (1998) studied
fifth and sixth grade students and found that students who practiced with CAI
personalized mathematics problem solving and achieved better in mathematics
problem solving than did other students. This was because CAI made mathematics
contextually relevant. However, Viteli (1989) studied the ability of fifth grade
students in a private school in Davie, Florida, to do word problems and found that
CAI was not more effective than teachers with respect to teaching word problems.
Computers are highly capable of providing instructions in mathematics
problem solving because they are characterized by contextually relevant materials
and information. Papert (1985) contended that computers can be used to concretize
information. Chailee and Litman (1985) agreed with Papert, saying that the increased
use of computers has provided students with the experience necessary for them to
engage in both the concrete and abstract thinking required in mathematics problem
solving. The provision of experience discussed by these researchers was made
possible with computer simulations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
Computers provide a tool for easy access to large information resources in
various formats, including text, pictures, video, and sound. A popular component of
education that takes advantage of these capabilities is resource-based learning
(Taylor & Laurillard, 1995). The fundamentals of resource-based learning include
question formulation, searching, and finding and integration of information. One
obvious reason that learning how to use these tools seems important is that these
applications are increasingly considered part o f our everyday life because they have
penetrated both the home and workplace (Mason, 1995).
The above review gives an overview of the applicability of computers in
classrooms. However, the results of putting computers into classrooms are
remarkably consistent: the computer has hardly been incorporated into conventional
teaching practices. Most teachers still center their teaching on familiar teaching aids,
such as the textbook and blackboard (Hodas, 1996).
One reason is certainly the worry that computers carry certain risks, such as
the replacement of teachers by computers or the depersonalization of the learning
process through the elimination of human-to-human communication. A further issue
is the fear that use of technology may lead to the domination of a clear, cut scientific
approach to learning, at the expense of more humanistic approaches (Mason, 1995).
A more significant fact is that the evolution of computer use in the classroom
has been very much technology driven, with little attention to factors that go beyond
the theoretical issues of the functionality of the computer. The lack of experience
with computers in schools and the novelty of this technology have left little time to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
establish teacher training schemes that prepare teachers appropriately. Also, many
inservice teachers are known for their reluctance to make use of this new
technology— not only because they do not feel confident, but also because it is
unclear how the wide range of computer applications can be integrated into existing
teaching practices (Collins et al., 1997).
It is important for educators and administrators to look at technology not as a
stand-alone subject area, but as a tool to support and supplement other curriculum
areas. Instructional concerns, not management or technical concerns, should
influence technology plans and purchases. Technology needs to be integrated as a
tool so that curriculum and student needs drive technology, not the reverse
(Dockstatder, 1999).
Moersch (1995) asserted that the aim of technology integration is to find
authentic ways to use technology for concept/process-based instruction, higher level
thinking, and qualitative assessment. Computer technology, he said, should be seen
as a tool that supports and extends students’ understanding, providing a means to
authentic, hands-on inquiry related to a problem, issue, or theme.
In an article titled “Running to Catch a Moving Train: Schools and
Information Technologies,” Becker (1998) stressed the need for informed decision
making and improved planning. Current technology solutions, he asserted, do not
match existing curriculum and/or delivery methods. He noted that hardware and
software acquisition frequently occurs without an educational plan or sound
technological advice.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 0
Most of these recent studies on technology in the classroom emphasized the
need to place learning ahead of technology acquisition in technology planning. In
1999, Rogers asserted that “technology plans that center on technology rather than
on teaching and learning creates more barriers than they prevent” (p. 17). The simple
acquisition of computer hardware and software does not guarantee the appropriate
application of that technology in the classroom; technology plans must remain
focused on academic or curriculum-centered goals.
Benefits of Technology in the Classroom
Much has been documented regarding technology integration and its effect
on increasing student performance. The public seems to agree with the reform effort
aimed at placing computers in the classroom (Education vital signs, 1997). About
81% of the public believes that a computer in every classroom would improve
student achievement.
While more computers have been incorporated into classrooms and schools,
the amount of research on the effectiveness of technology has also accumulated.
Results of these studies vary. Kulik (1994) conducted a meta-analysis in which he
examined more than 500 individual studies about effectiveness of CAI. He reported
that students usually learned more in classes with CAI, and that they learned the
same amount in less instructional time when they used CAI. In addition, students had
more positive attitudes toward computers and toward their schoolwork. Software
Publishers Association commissioned an independent consulting firm to prepare
another meta-analysis on the effectiveness of technology in schools (Sivin-Kachala
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 1
& Bialo, 1994). This study also concluded that educational technology could
improve student achievement, attitudes, and interactions with other students.
As noted in Chapter One, Wenglinsky (1998) used data from the NAEP in
mathematics to study the relationship between different uses of educational
technology and various educational outcomes. The sample included 6,277 fourth
graders and 7,146 eighth graders. For the eighth graders, frequency of home
computers was positively related to academic achievement and social
context/environment of the school; the frequency of school computer use was
unrelated to the social context of the school and negatively related to academic
achievement. For fourth graders, using computers for learning games was positively
related to academic achievement and social context of the school; the frequencies of
home and school computers were negatively related to academic achievement and
the social context of the school. Wenglinsky concluded that computers were not
cure-alls for the problems facing schools, but computers had some impact on student
learning.
Christmann and his colleagues (1997) examined studies regarding the
effectiveness of CAI in grades six through twelve. They reported that, on average,
CAI had positive effects on student achievement. The results were most significant
for science achievement; negative results occurred in English when the effects of
CAI and traditional instruction were compared. Based on this research, Christmann
et al. concluded that the average science student exposed to CAI attained
achievement greater than did science students exposed to traditional instruction.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 2
In a similar way, Middleton (1998) found that, in classrooms where teachers
appropriately integrated technology to augment their teaching, students had
significantly better standardized test scores than did students whose teachers did not
integrate technology. Just using computers for drill and practice was not sufficient,
he pointed out, to produce these results; technology must be integrated as a problem
solving tool in ways that encourage higher-level thinking.
Mann and Shafer (1997) conducted a six-month survey of more than 4,000
teachers in New York, and then reviewed student achievement tests to determine the
effects of increased technology on student learning. Based on the standardized test
scores, the researchers claimed that technology did not have a positive effect on
learning. They found that schools with “more instructional technology and teacher
training” had a 7.5% average increase in the number high school students who took
and passed the state’s college-prep mathematics exam and an 8.8% increase in
college-prep English exam results. They also found a strong relationship between
increased technology and higher scores on state sixth grade mathematics test scores.
Mann and Shafer acknowledged, however, that they cannot conclusively say
increased technology use caused the higher test scores because this kind of scientific
study would require randomized assignment and withholding technology from some
schools, which in today’s society, would be an unacceptable situation.
Additional benefits from technology suggest that students are highly
motivated and enthusiastic when they work with computers. They also are more
engaged in their schoolwork. Past research has some explanations for why this is so
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
(Schofield, 1995). The first is that students respond well to computers because
computers are relatively novel in their school experience. The second is that students
like working on computers because computers introduce variety into the school
routine. The third is that students are motivated because they realize that knowing
how to use computers will be useful to them as adults (Schofield, 1995).
In line with motivation, past studies have documented the effects of
technology on student self-esteem and self-efficacy, attendance, attitudes, and
involvement in learning activities.
Students using technology were found to experience increased self-esteem
and beliefs about their capabilities improve (O’Connor & Brie, 1994). In addition,
teachers who become proficient with technology increased in perceived self-efficacy
(Kellenberger, 1996). With respect to attendance, an eight-year study of one
technology implementation project found that student absenteeism dropped nearly
50% after the project was put in place (Dywer, 1994). With respect to attitudes,
students participating in a technology-enriched program reported more positive
attitudes toward school and more enjoyment of out-of-class activities (McKinnon,
1997). Finally, with respect to involvement, students in technology-supported
programs were more willing to participate in school learning activities (Yang, 1991—
1992).
Therefore, technology opens the door for students to become active learners
and to think about knowledge, rather than having it told to them. In this process,
students actively pursue knowledge, rather than memorizing what the teacher says is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
important. According to Aiken and Aditya (1997), “This enables students to remain
actively involved in their own education, learning not just from the teacher and
textbook, but from each other and experts in the field.”
New programs that make effective use of technology not only offer
promising instructional opportunities, but also present challenges for professional
development because they depart from traditional practice in many ways.
Technology is not a panacea guaranteed to improve test scores. Current
technological innovations offer education two major opportunities: to increase the
role of inquiry in the classroom and to prepare students for a world in which
technology will play an increasingly larger role in their lives.
The National Research Council (NRC) recently called for the teaching of
“fluency with information technology,” by incorporating appropriate technologies at
each grade and course level (1999, p. 80). Standard-setting groups for educational
programs from kindergarten through elementary and middle school strongly
recommend using technology to promote understanding science and mathematics
and to prepare students for new technologies as they become available.
Adding technology to science and mathematics instruction has the effect of
intensifying inequitable stereotypes and reinforcing the view that these are male
domains; however, if used effectively, technology can connect science and
mathematics with problems that interest individuals who have been historically
underrepresented in science and mathematics careers (AAUW, 2000). Some
programs have demonstrated that technological tools can be a force for equity in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
science and mathematics learning because they permit more personalized and
project-oriented undertakings (Linn & His, 2000). Further, educators have opined
that technology also can help teachers introduce disciplines, such as statistics climate
modeling, that connect with a broader array of courses of study. In addition,
technology can increase success for all students by making teachers more effective;
by reducing mundane, repetitive tasks; by offering help on logistical details; and by
freeing teachers to spend their time working with individuals and small groups.
New technologies are changing the nature of science and mathematics
teaching, offering new approaches for learning, changing the definition of basic
skills, and enhancing opportunities for instruction. Judicious incorporation of
technology into elementary and middle school instruction can prepare all students for
lifelong learning of science and mathematics and enable them to use technology
throughout their lives to improve their success with science and mathematics.
Infusing the curriculum with technology can increase the effectiveness of
mathematics and science instruction. Researchers in classrooms, reviews of the
curriculum, studies of learning, and investigations of professional development all
point to the need for widespread, cumulative reform of the educational enterprise
(Athens & Cohn, 1999; Stigler, Gonzales, Kawanka, Knoll, & Serrano, 1999; Stigler
& Hiebert, 1999). Recent research looking closely at how students learn in
classrooms has revealed many obstacles that prevent students from developing their
own scientific and mathematical understanding. Too often, problems are presented in
isolation; students are not encouraged to look for patterns; and instruction
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 6
emphasizes the right answer, rather than critical appraisal of the methods used to
solve the problem. Technologically enhanced curricular materials can address these
shortcomings in the traditional curriculum, while enabling students to think
scientifically and mathematically.
Technology can provide support for students by offering help for complex
investigations. Well-designed help can guide students to figure out alternatives, even
while they carry out complex projects or use open-ended modeling environments
(e.g., Begel, 1998, 1999). Learning environments, such as Web-Based Integrated
Science Environment (WISE), enable teachers to spend more time in face-to-face
instruction and less time “managing,” because the software helps students organize
their investigations and determine next steps on their own. This advance is an
opportunity for students, as well as for teachers, because teachers often avoid
projects, unless they have additional classroom support, and students need to learn to
use available guidance and help systems in many different software applications
(e.g., Ainsworth, Bibby, & Wood, 1998).
According to Howe (1998),
On the most fundamental level, technology requires rethinking not only of
the HOW but of the WHAT we teach in mathematics. It is pretty clear that in
the future no one is going to get a job based on the ability to add long
columns of numbers accurately. Recently we have seen the appearance of
calculators and computer software that can perform much of the repertoire of
undergraduate mathematics and beyond. Even if everything had been fine
with U.S. math education, we would have to pay attention now to how the
availability of sophisticated calculational tools change what is important to
teach. The automation of computation challenges the notion that mastery of
computational technique should be the main criteria of mathematical success.
The relation between computational expertise and conceptual understanding,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
and how each supports the other, is complex and requires careful study and
thought.
With society’s growing need for critical thinking, the National Council for
Teachers of Mathematics (1989) placed a strong emphasis on problem solving. In
order to incorporate computer algebra systems or graphing calculators into problem
solving, teachers need to be versatile when they offer students a method to analyze
data and perform higher-level critical thinking skills. Studies conducted by Heid
(1998) and Trout (1993) suggested that instruction that integrates computer algebra
systems can lead to improved student problem solving ability. However, several
other studies suggested that, in order for computer algebra systems to be effective,
they need to be available to each student in the classroom as well as for homework
(Smith, 1994). According to Barrett and Goebel (1990),
The computer has not had the impact on the teaching and learning of
mathematics that had been predicted since many schools do not have a
computer in each mathematics classroom and since many educators have
trouble defining the role of the computer in the classroom.
Most algebra teachers indicate they use computers for demonstration
purposes only (Demana & Waits, 1992). The computer has had a great impact on
mathematics, but mathematics is being taught in most college courses, just as it was
30 years ago, as a paper-and-pencil discipline (NRC, 1991). Demana and Waits
(1992) were convinced that, if teachers and students relied solely on desktop
personal computers, no meaningful reform would occur in mathematics education in
the 1990s; students needed to use computers on a regular basis for both in-class work
and homework if significant changes were to be made in the mathematics students
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
learned in the 1990s and beyond. Demana and Waits advocated the use of
inexpensive pocket computers (graphing calculators) in mathematics education.
The graphing calculator can affect the nature of the instructional environment
and the avenues for content delivery, but, perhaps more importantly, it can also
affect the nature of the mathematics discussed (Slavit, 1996). For example, many
traditional textbooks simply ask the student to graph a function. A graphing
calculator makes it possible to view the graph of a function as the first step instead of
the last one. Dick (1992) suggested three avenues of teaching mathematics graphing
technology makes possible, including (a) graphing as an exploratory activity, (b)
graphing as a problem solving activity, and (c) graphing as a monitoring device.
However, it is clear that instructional reform initiatives are running well ahead of
data, and instructional changes are often based more on theoretical than on empirical
support (Hiebert & Wearne, 1993).
In a study consisting of 30 fifth grade students in an inner city school, the
effects of computers on mathematics, language arts, and social studies were
measured. The results showed that the students had more positive attitudes toward
the educational experience, and that their attitudes improved during the course of
study in the area of confidence (Kitabchi et al., 1987). Based on a meta-analysis of
199 papers, of which 32 were conducted in elementary schools, 43 in high schools,
101 in universities, and 24 in adult education centers, it was found that students liked
their classes more and developed more positive attitudes toward computers when
they received instruction aided by computers (Kulik et al., 1987).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
Technology has the tendency to be compelling in a constructive learning
classroom. The research literature on constructivism as it relates to technology
suggests a number of applications that are consistent with the constructive view of
learning, including problem solving simulations in mathematics, science, and social
sciences (Cognitive and Teaching Group at Vanderbilt, 1996). When constructing
knowledge with technology, the role of the teacher is to guide the student in
discovering ideas in the classroom. As Aiken and Aditya (1997) put it, “It appears
that technology fits best and most effectively in a constructive classroom.” This
means that instruction is learner centered, not curriculum centered (Ely, 1999). The
curriculum should be tailored to individual learners and fit their background and
skills (Aiken & Aditya, 1997).
The teacher’s goal should not be to cover the curriculum, but to make sure
that students master the content. This mastery can be achieved through open-ended
tasks, rather than making students memorize a predetermined set of facts; by
allowing for student-directed learning; and by allowing students to select tasks and
topics that interest them (Rein, 1999). In this kind of learning-centered instruction,
students use their creativity to research and explain things that interest them. When
the curriculum is based on problem solving and creative research, students have the
opportunity to construct new knowledge and relate it to prior knowledge.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
Challenges to Implementing Promising Practices in Technology
Teachers ’ Knowledge Problem
Woodhouse and Jones (1998) cited the lack o f knowledge of instructional
strategies for integrating technology into the curriculum. Teachers have great
difficulty trying to tie the use of the computer to the traditional lecture approach to
teaching. New instructional strategies integrating computer technology into the
curriculum are a must.
The above need is coupled with a basic lack o f knowledge about how
computers work or how to operate them. According to Woodhouse and Jones (1998),
Most training sessions for teachers are brief and held away from the work site
with little hands-on experience. The way in which training sessions are
conducted can encourage or discourage participants. Sometimes training
instructions move too fast during sessions; consequently, many participants
leave saying the whole experience was a waste of time.
Professional Development Problems
To compound the teacher knowledge issues, most schools do not allocate
adequate funds for staff development training. While the private sector claims to
spend 30% of its technology budget on training, schools typically spend 10% or less
(Mann & Shafer, 1997). Following a 1998 survey of more than 2,000 grade 4
through 12 teachers nationwide, Becker (1999) reported a positive correlation
between staff development, teacher attitude, and the increased professional and
student use of the Internet.
The new understandings required of teachers to include not only technical
skills but an understanding of the relevance of the various features and
information provided by the software to their own instructional and curricular
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
priorities, as well as, pedagogical strategies o f using the software in the
context of other constraint, such as time limitations and prerequisite student
skills, (p. 17)
Even when technology staff development was offered, teachers had many
reasons to not always take advantage of the training. McConnon and Crews (2000)
surveyed more than 170 K-5 teachers and identified six reasons the teachers did not
participate in training offered to them: (a) too busy, (b) too far to travel after school,
(c) release time was not provided during the school day, (d) no stipends were
offered, (e) heavy traffic, and (f) someone else was already providing individual
help.
It is important to note that technology training is not a one-time effort. One or
two computer courses will not be enough to prepare teachers to integrate technology
into their classrooms. It has been estimated that it takes three to five years, with at
least eighty hours of training, for teachers to be able to move into more advanced
levels of technology integration (Anderson, 1998).
Barnett and Nichols (1994) presented two creative approaches to staff
development. The first was to hire an all-day “rover sub” who filled in for a series of
teachers as they received individual computer training an hour at a time. This
training could be provided by an in-house technology staff person or by an outside
trainer. Using this method, five or six teachers could receive personal, customized
instruction in one day’s time. The second suggestion was the “mini-grant concept.”
Mini-grants offered teachers the incentive of release time, equipment software, or
even a stipend to develop technology lessons for their classrooms. Because funding
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
is usually limited, the grant process can help ensure both accountability and
maximization of technology funds.
Professional development programs are emerging that prepare teachers to
truly teach with technology, rather than use computers for personal productivity.
Teachers and students both need to understand information technology and its
benefits for learning. Teachers, especially, need pedagogical content knowledge.
This refers to knowledge about how students can learn—in this case—mathematics
and science from materials infused with technology. For example, to teach functions
with a graphing program or help students understand temperature variation over
time, teachers need to understand the potential confusion their students might
develop that could interfere with success. Studies of students interpreting graphs
revealed that some students see graphs as a picture rather than a relationship
(Leinhardt & Zaslovsky, 1990). Similarly, to teach science with real-time data
collection means we need to understand how students will deal with erroneous data
points and how they detect failures in the equipment. Understanding and anticipating
these confusions prepare teachers to be effective in supporting their students as these
students use technology.
The continuous improvement model of professional development described
above enables teachers to refine their pedagogical content knowledge as they teach a
topic for the second, third, or even fourth time. Ideally, teachers have an opportunity
to experiment with innovative programs that use technology so they can reflect on
their practice and continuously improve their instruction. In situations in which
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
powerful technological programs have been combined with opportunities for
continual improvement, the combination has yielded substantial benefits for learning
and instruction (Linn & His, 2000). This approach has proven successful for
Japanese teachers following a lesson study approach (Lewis & Tsuchda, 1998).
Professional development should not be solely about computers. As research
has pointed out, technology use is most effective when it is integrated into a
constructivist approach to teaching (Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997). After all,
many teachers are being asked to change their entire philosophy of education (Ely,
1999).
Technology is merely one tool to reach students. Therefore, teacher training
should also focus on such aspects of constructivism as interdisciplinary instruction,
alternative assessment, project-based learning, and team teaching. By learning these
different aspects of constructivism, teachers will be more apt to adopt the
constructivist model as a whole, rather than just technology (Sandholtz et al., 1997).
Research has indicated that gains in student performance come from changes in
teacher practices and school culture, not from technology alone (Thorpe, 1999).
Once technology diffusion begins in schools, it comes with unique problems.
Some of the important problems are equity and access, time to plan and implement
the technology, and teacher resistance to change. Knupter (1995) dealt with the
equity issue of computer usage. He wondered if individual students utilized
computers or other technology at the same level and under the same conditions. He
further stated that geographic region, socioeconomic status, gender, race, various
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
kinds of handicaps, and special learner groups within the school are variables that
explain the obstacles that may cause inequity in computer access.
Some other factors also may determine equal access, such as familiarity with
hardware and software, the classroom structure, time, students’ skill levels, and the
location of computers. Becker (1985) found that above-average students are the
primary users of computers. Also, his study revealed that placement of computers
within libraries promoted more equally distributed usage of computers between
above- and below-average students. The literature confirmed that teachers who are
motivated to use computer technology in their teaching are more likely to do so if
time is provided to develop materials (Hardy, 1998).
Psychological Factors
Besides the factors highlighted above, some psychological factors or
variables (e.g., confidence, fear, will, and motivation) may determine teachers’ use
of technology in the classroom. Hardy (1998) indicated that approximately 40% to
50% of teachers avoided using computers because they lacked confidence, felt
uncomfortable, or were frightened and intimidated by computers. Also, some
considered the computer movement to be temporary, rather than a useful trend.
According to Sudzina (1993), “Teachers’ traditional beliefs and experience with
schooling inhibits them from taking instructional risks and implementing
technological innovations in the classroom.”
The literature concentrates on three major personal variables: anxiety about
technology, teachers’ personalities, and attitude toward technology integration. The
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
major indicator of computer anxiety is avoiding interactions with computers (Dusick,
1998). Hardy (1998) found in a study investigating computer aversion that teachers
were very hesitant about computer-related tasks, includes using computers and
related peripherals in teaching; helping fellow teachers when they had trouble with
computers; and applying for a job requiring initial computer training. Some reasons
cited for computer anxiety include inadequate planning for and applications of
technology-based educational change, and ineffective communication between
instructors and administration (George, 1996). Jordan (1993) added that teachers’
lack of expertise with computers often leads to embarrassing situations in which they
feel uncomfortable and subsequently think the inability will undermine their
authority in the classroom.
Summary
This literature review has shed light on the historical perspective of computer
technology and its usage, reviewed the benefits of technology in the classroom,
described the promising uses of technology in learning and instruction; and
highlighted the challenges to implementing technology use in the classroom.
In past studies, little attention has been paid to what was done with
technology that eventually led to positive results. Also, the literature reviewed
highlighted problems that were associated with professional development, but
offered little in terms of effective professional development. This present study is
about the following “hows”: how technology is used in the instruction of
mathematics and science, and how professional development supports these
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
promising practices. In the next chapter, the research methods for investigating the
use of technology in mathematics and science education are explained in detail.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
Chapter Three
RESEARCH METHODS
Introduction
This study is intended to highlight promising practices related to how
secondary charter schools use technology to improve the teaching o f mathematics
and science. The research methods employed are explained in this chapter. The
chapter first describes the research questions and design. In subsequent sections, the
nomination process, the data collection method, and the procedures for data analysis
are explained.
Research Questions and Research Design
This study used a case study method because it is descriptive and exploratory.
Case study research is a qualitative method that concentrates on a small number of
specific individuals or organizations in an attempt to understand many aspects of a
particular case in its unique context (Merriam, 1997). This contrasts with surveys
and quantitative methods that gather information on a limited set of variables from a
large number of individuals and organizations. The qualitative case study approach
chosen here is especially well suited when a phenomenon’s relationship with its
context is not yet understood well enough to generate precise hypotheses (Tillis,
1997; Yin, 2002). In this study, the researcher examined promising practices
employed by secondary schools to improve student performance particularly in the
areas of mathematics and science.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
The study was designed to answer the following four research questions:
1. What promising practices in the area of technology do high-performing
charter schools use to teach mathematics and science?
2. How are resources used to implement these promising practices
successfully?
3. What challenges have charter schools faced in implementing the
promising practices, and how were the problems addressed?
4. What evidence exists that the promising practices have resulted in
positive educational outcomes?
Whereas some considered the case an object study (Stake, 1995), others
considered it a methodology (e.g., Merriam, 1988). A case study is an exploration of
a “bounded system,” or a case (or multiple case) through detailed, in-depth data
collection involving multiple resources of information that are rich in context. The
multiple case studies investigated for this dissertation are bounded by time and place;
each case profiles a promising practice that employed technology to improve
mathematics and science instruction at one point in time.
Case study has its strengths and weaknesses as a research approach, but
according to Merriam (1997), the strengths outweigh the limitations. The case study
approach has proven particularly useful for studying educational innovations, for
evaluating programs, and for informing policy. Collins and Noblit (1978) noted the
strength of this type of research, which they call “field studies,” for policy analysis.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
Field research better captures situations and settings which are more
amenable to policy and program intervention than are accumulated individual
attributes. Secondly, field studies reveal not static attributes but
understanding of humans as they engage in action and interaction within the
contexts of situations and settings. Thus inferences concerning human
behavior are less abstract than in many quantitative studies, and one can
better understand how an intervention may affect behavior in a situation, (p.
26)
The present study hopes to highlight innovations in charter schools that use
technology in the areas of mathematics and science.
On the flip side, some limitations are associated with the case study design.
The main disadvantage of a case study is the difficulty generalizing findings to other
situations. As Hamel (1993) observed,
The case study has been faulted for its lack o f representativeness... and its
lack of rigor in the collection, construction, and analysis of the empirical
materials that gives rise to this study. This lack of rigor is linked to the
problem of bias... introduced by the subjectivity of the researcher, (p. 23)
Guba and Lincoln (1981) noted an additional limitation of the case study narrative.
“Case studies can over-simplify or exaggerate a situation, leading the reader to
erroneous conclusions about the actual state of affairs” (p. 377).
In line with Creswell (1998), compelling reasons must exist for researchers to
engage in a qualitative study. In this study, a qualitative approach is used because the
topic being investigated requires a detailed view. The study uses the explorative
question type: it asks “what” and “how,” as opposed to “why.” Secondly, this study
hopes to examine individuals in their natural settings (schools), and the most
appropriate research for this is qualitative. And finally, this type of research enables
the researcher to tell the story from the participants’ view. This is in line with
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
Creswell (1998), who said, “Employ a qualitative approach to emphasize the
researcher’s role as an active learner who can tell the story from the participants’
view rather than as an expert who passes judgment on participants” (p. 17).
The research for this study was conducted in conjunction with a 10-member
thematic dissertation group that is looking at promising practices in high-performing
charter schools. Each of the other nine researchers has one of the following areas of
investigation: parental involvement, student discipline, arts, English language
development in the primary grades, high school reform, project-based learning,
university partnerships, and special education.
Data Collection Methods
The instruments used to gather information for this dissertation are discussed
in this section of the chapter. The data collection methods included interview
protocols, observations, and document analysis. A template for the compendium was
designed by the thematic group as a whole, and its content guided the development
of all the data collection instruments. Table 1 shows the data collection instruments.
Table 1 describes the research questions, items relating to the research
question, and data collection methods used in the study. The nomination form, on
site principal interview, and charter school profile were used to obtain information
about the background of the school.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
Table 1
Triangulating Across Data Collection Instruments
Nomination
form
Pre-site
principal
interview
On-site
principal
interview
Lead
teacher
interview
Classroom
and
professional
development
observation
Archival
document
analysis
Charter
school
profile
Background of X X X
school
(demographics)
Research Question
1: What are the
promising practices
in the area o f
technology that high
performing charter
schools use to teach
math and science?
• Description o f PP X X X
• Goal of PP
X
• Theory o f action
X X
for PP
Research Question
2: What resources
are used to
implement the
promising practices
successfully?
• Time (start X
up/planning time)
• Time PP has been
X X
in place
• Budget
X
information
• Staffing (level and
X X
expertise needed)
• Facility/space
X X
• Professional
X
development/
training
• Other (e.g.,
X X X
technology)
• Additional
X X X X
resources (e.g.,
books, articles,
Web sites)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
Table 1: Continued
Nomination
form
Pre-site
principal
interview
On-site
principal
interview
Lead
teacher
interview
Classroom
and
professional
development
observation
Archival
document
analysis
Charter
school
profile
Research Question
3: What challenges
have charter schools
faced in
implementing the
promising practices?
• History o f PP in
school
• Lesson learned
(benefits and
challenges)
• Next steps for
sustainability
X X
X
X
X
X
Research Question
4: What evidence
exists to show that
promising practices
have resulted in
positive educational
outcomes?
• Evidence of
impact (e.g.,
evaluation reports)
• Supporting
documents (e.g.,
lessons plans,
parent contracts,
staff development
manuals)
X
X
X
X X
X
X
Data were collected for research question one using the nomination form, on
site principal interview, and teacher interview/focus group. For research questions
two and three, the researcher used a pre-site principal interview, an on-site principal
interview, and teacher interview/focus group interviews to collect data. The
nomination form, pre-site principal interview, and teacher interview/focus group
interviews were used to collect data for research question four. Where necessary,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
observation of professional development activities and that of the classroom and
archival documents were used to triangulate the data.
Nomination Process
The data collection for the study started with the nomination process. An
initial advertisement was placed in the June 2005 issue of the Charter Journal, a
quarterly publication by the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA), with a
circulation of about eleven thousand. There was a follow up of the initial
advertisement in E-Blast on July 11, 2005. E-Blast by CCSA is a list serve of about
four thousand people that sends out information about charter schools. The advert
solicited for those charter schools that are implementing an innovative policy,
practice or program that should be widely disseminated. Those interested were asked
to log on to website and nominate. The advertisement had a deadline of July 15,
2005 for those interested in making nominations.
We received nominations from the following charter school experts: the
California Department of Education, Charter School Division; Charter School
Development Center; and the California Charter School Association (CCSA). All of
these have expertise in charter school affairs, and their nominations were helpful.
The researcher also made his own nominations. He sifted through the profiles of
charter schools on the Internet and encouraged the schools that fit the promising
practices that he is studying to make nominations.
All schools that were nominated for promising practices completed a form on
the Center for Educational Governance Web site (see Appendix O). The purpose of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
the nomination was to have a pool of charter schools that are implementing
innovative activities that could be replicated. A total of six schools were nominated
for the promising practices intended for the compendium. O f this number, two were
finally selected for the study, based on the following criteria: the promising practice
had been in place for one year or more; demonstration of innovativeness; evidence of
positive change; and potential for replicability. One of the schools was not selected
because it is an elementary school (this study is intended for secondary level charter
schools); the other three were not selected because they had been in operation for
less than a year. The schools selected for the study were from Los Angeles, Clovis,
and Fresno Unified School Districts in California.
Pre-Site Interview
The pre-site interview was between the principal and the researcher. This was
initiated and executed prior to the site visits. The pre-site interview was a 15-minute
interview to enable the researcher to obtain background information about the
promising practices intended for study and also to negotiate the logistics of the site
visits. Among the issues discussed were the teachers to be interviewed, the date and
time most convenient to the teachers and administrators, and the days and sites for
professional development. The researcher also requested relevant documents that
pertained to the charter.
Site Visits
Site visits were made to the two schools for two days each, but not
necessarily consecutively. The first day visit was limited to interviews, while the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
second day was only for professional development and observation of classroom
teachers. A co-researcher was involved in the visits to the schools. The job of the co
researcher was to help write down important information, such as gestures, physical
appearances, and other items relevant to the study, while the researcher asked the
questions. Each interview with the principal, lead teacher, focus group, and teacher
lasted for about an hour or less at each school. All interviews were recorded using a
tape recorder. Professional development activities were observed and were recorded
in a log book. Classroom observation lasted for the allotted time of about 50 minutes.
The teacher focus groups were planned discussions to obtain the participants’
perceptions about the integration of technology into mathematics and science
teaching. At the beginning of each discussion, certain procedures were established.
Participants were assured their comments would be kept confidential. Participants
were encouraged to interact with and respond to others in the group. The acceptance
of differing points of view and of both positive and negative comments was stressed.
Four ground rules were communicated to participants to help ensure that everyone
was able to participate: only one person speaks at a time; no side conversations were
allowed; everyone participates, and no one dominates; and all responses were
equally valued.
Open-ended questions were used to allow participants the opportunity to
comment about, explain, and share experiences and attitudes. The importance of
open-ended questions in a qualitative case study cannot be overemphasized. Rather
than closed-ended questions that lead to direct answers, the open-ended format is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
suggested for qualitative research questions (e.g., Creswell, 1994). “These questions
should be open-ended, evolving, and non-directional; restate the purpose of the study
in more specific terms, start with words such as what or how rather than why.'”
Classroom Observations
The researcher assumed the role of a participant observer during the
observation of the classroom teacher. This gave the researcher the room to observe
and interact as necessitated by events. As pointed out by Merriam (1997), it is rare
for a researcher to be a total participant or a total observer. He stated, “The observer
as participant observe and interact closely enough with members to establish an
insiders identity without participating in those activities constituting the core of
group membership.”
Professional Development Observation
A professional development activity was observed and documented in one of
the two schools so the study could triangulate the data collection process. The
professional development was about the use of calculators in graphing linear and
quadratic functions in mathematics. It was held in the library, which is the usual
venue of their professional development activities. The presenter was the technology
facilitator at the school. The researcher assumed the role of a participant observer.
He participated in all of the activities slated for the day.
Calculators were handed to all the teachers present for the professional
development. The presenter has an overhead projector that projected the characters
of his calculator onto a white big screen. The activities for the day involved all
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
teachers developing a lesson plan to be executed using information about the day’s
activities. The facilitator encouraged the teachers to ask questions, especially ones
that would help with clarity about how to present lessons in the future.
Archival Documents
The third method of data collection for this study involved documents. The
documents were obtained prior to the school visitation. They provided useful
information about the school’s population and demographics, status of the school,
year founded, budget information, and charter. The information is necessary if one is
to ascertain how long the promising practices of mathematics and science education
using technology have been in place. The document analysis enabled the
triangulation of sources. The researcher collected and analyzed the following
documents: the charter, curriculum guide, lesson plans of the teachers interviewed,
and relevant student work.
Because a researcher necessarily has biases, the triangulation of data
collection methods assists in correcting these biases. Additional forms of data may
be inconsistent with the initial beliefs of the researcher (Creswell, 1994). The
necessity for triangulation cannot be overemphasized. According to Merriam (1988),
“The rationale for this strategy is that flaws of one method are often the strengths of
another, and by combining methods, observers can achieve the best of each other,
while overcoming their unique deficiencies.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
Data Analysis
As stated before, a template for the MMACCS compendium guided the data
collection and analysis. Because of the qualitative design of the study, data analysis
came primarily from the transcripts of interviews with the principals, teachers, and
the lead teacher that were conducted at the two schools included in this study. All
interviews were taped and transcribed by the researcher. Then codes were
established that corresponded with the different components of the compendium
template. All interviews and archival documents were coded. Templates were
created for each promising practice, based on the data.
Summary
This chapter provided an overview of the study’s research methods.
Interviews and focus groups were the primary sources of data for this study, but a
variety of archival documents were collected to verify and triangulate the data.
Results obtained from the interviews, focus groups, observations, and documents are
presented in the next chapter.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
Chapter Four
FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
Introduction
This chapter provides the findings from two case studies of schools using
technology in teaching math and science. The purpose of this study was to enhance
the compilation of promising practices of high-achieving charter schools. The
compilation was conducted by the Center on Education Governance, which operates
under the auspices of the University of Southern California. Each case study includes
a profile of the school; the goal and description of its promising practice; the theory
underlying the action; and implementation details, including history, lessons learned,
and evidence of impact. Resources that enable the promising practice to be
implemented will also be described.
Center for Advanced Research and Technology
The Center for Advanced Research and Technology (CART) was authorized
by the California Department of Education as a start-up charter school in 1999. The
charter petition was submitted to the State in 1998 and granted in 1999 by the
Department of Education. Students were first admitted in 2000 with a projected
enrollment of about 1350 students, and current student enrollment at CART is about
1200 in Grades 11 and 12. It is situated between the two school districts of Clovis
and Fresno and thus draws students from both school districts.
CART has a half-day program in which students can either attend home
school for the morning session (from 7:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.) and come to CART for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
the afternoon session (from 12:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.), or they can attend CART for
the morning session and go to their home school in the afternoon. CART provides a
state-of-the art research and technology facility where students use hands-on learning
strategies to complete assignments.
The mission statement of the school encourages collaboration with businesses
and community agencies, creating an educational environment that is “cross
curricular,” “academically rigorous,” and “facilitated through a business-based
instructional model” (CART, 1999). Through learning plans, individualized
attention, and a coordinated sequence of work, CART students explore the various
ways they can achieve their career goals. Working with business partners, teachers,
and parents, students design a program of study that qualifies them to pursue the
post-secondary path of their choice, from entry-level positions to industry
certification to university admission. Over 95% of CART’s students choose to
continue their career preparation at four-year colleges and universities, community
colleges, and technical schools, and most choose to major in science and math-
related disciplines. Table 2 offers a profile of the school.
The students, primarily from middle-class families, are not typical of those in
urban schools in California. According to the charter school petition, “the students
that come to CART need support in certain areas of instruction relevant to their
future career focus” (CART, 1999). They are characterized as strategic learners.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
Table 2
Profile: Center o f Advanced Research and Technology (CART)
School Information
School Name: Center for Advanced Research and Technology
Address: 2555 Clovis Avenue Clovis, CA 93612
Chief Operating Officer/Principal’s Name: Mrs. Susan Fisher
Contact Information (if different from Principal): Ms. Alice Chute
Email Address: info@cart.org, achute@cart.org
School Web site: www.cart.org
Promising Practice: Real-life application o f technology in teaching math and science
Charter Information
Type o f School: Start-up
Year Chartered: 1999 Year Opened: 2000
Charter Authorizer: California Department o f Education
Student Population Information
Student Enrollment: Current: 1200 Projected: 1350
Grades Served: Current 11-12 Projected: 11-12
Enrollment by Subgroups (#/%):
Phone#: 559-248-7400 Fax#: 559-248-7423
Ethnicity (#)
African American 77 (6.4%)
Asian American 220 (18.4%)
Special Populations (%)
Free/Reduced Lunch 554 (46.2%)
Special Needs 29 (2.4%)
Hispanic
White
Other
326 (27.2%)
541 (45.1%)
34 (2.8%)
ELL
Other
120 ( 10.0%)
23 (1.9%)
Teacher Information
Number of Full-time Administrators: 3
Number o f Full-time Teachers: 29
Teacher Union Membership: No
Budget Information
Per-Pupil Spending (Year): $3,800.00
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
The vision of the school as stated in its charter is to motivate students by
creating education relevant to the workplace, with the goal of preparing students for
post-secondary education and to prepare them to eventually contribute to the
technology workforce (CART, 1999). To achieve this vision, the school developed a
curriculum that captures student interest by exposing them to a myriad of career
options. CART helps students develop transferable skills that will prepare them to
adjust to an ever-changing work environment. For example, in the engineering
cluster, students who concentrate on bioengineering explore questions about
genetically engineered foods, DNA, microbes, and tissue culture, and they study how
these technologies pose both problems and potential solutions for society.
Students earn credit in four classes (English, science or social science, a
career focus class, and technology) during their daily 3-hour session at CART. The
curriculum in each core academic class is built upon the California State Academic
Standards. All CART classes are college prep, and most are approved and designated
as meeting the University of California A -G requirements. Several technology
classes prepare students to take industry certification exams, while other classes help
students earn college credit through the CSU Unitrack program. In the home school,
students take classes required by the State of California to graduate from high
school, such as math, English, science, social science, and foreign language.
As stated on the school’s Web site, CART is different from a traditional
school because its students are actively involved in their education. They work in
teams to research real-world problems and discover original solutions. Students work
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
on assignments guided by academic instructors and business partners that include
Saint Agnes Medical Center; California Business Furnishings; McCormick Barstow,
LLP; Microsoft Corporation; Haworth Furnishings, Inc; Community Medical Center;
Fresno Business Council; Economic Development Corporation Fresno; Clovis
Chamber of Commerce; Wells Fargo; Kaiser Permanente; Grundfos Pump
Corporation; The California Endowment; SBC; IBM; Intel; and the Central
California Children Hospital. Students have access to the latest technology and are
expected to expand their learning environment to include the community. Their
studies focus on careers such as medicine, engineering, and environmental science.
Description o f the Promising Practice
CART technology labs are organized into four broad career clusters that
integrate math and science. These labs, which are developed by the teachers, are
flexible and change from year to year depending on student interest and
technological trends. Students choose to belong to one of four clusters depending on
their career interests, and they choose a sub-focus or a subject of study within each
cluster for the entire year. A student in the engineering cluster, for example, might
select biomedical engineering as a sub-focus and use the technology lab to study the
impact of poor air quality on lung capacity. The lab time lasts 3 hours, and students
learn math and science skills through their application of technology.
Each cluster is taught by a team of three or four teachers. During the lab each
teacher provides a task in which the students use technology to enhance their math
and science skills. For example, the math teacher may offer a problem that requires
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
students to use the computer, such as finding the average weight of the student body
in the school, investigating the chance of winning or losing an event, or using graphs
to highlight real-life situations requiring calculations of slopes and intercepts of
functions. The biology teacher may instruct students to investigate the life span of
mammals by conducting research through a popular search engine like Google. The
chemistry teacher might ask students to classify the elements in the periodic table
using a taxonomy other than the usual one found in textbooks. The physics teacher
might provide an assignment in which students are required to investigate through
the Internet the factors accounting for cold temperatures in certain regions of the
world.
At times, the teachers collaborate in lab sessions to help students integrate all
the subjects into the learning process. For example, a lesson was observed in which
the class designed a plastic cup or plate with the computer and printed out the design
using the three dimensional printer in the lab. Each of the three teachers in the lab
had distinct roles in instruction: The physics teacher wanted them to use the
computer to calculate the weight of the plastic, the chemistry teacher asked them to
find the chemical compositions of various kinds of plastics and to use the computer
to graph melting and viscosity rates of the plastic when exposed to heat, and the
technology teacher provided them with a software package with design applications
to aid them in the drawing process. At the end of the 3-hour class, most students
working in groups of about four each had designed and printed out plastics from the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
three dimensional printer. As the chemistry teacher stated, “This kind of learning
stays with the students forever” (personal interview, November 29, 2005).
Goals o f the Promising Practice
The goals of using technology in real-life situations and in problem-solving
were addressed in detail in the interviews. The chief operating officer (COO), who is
also the principal, pointed out that a major goal of using technology in teaching was
to motivate and inspire students to do more than minimal work in school. According
to her, the real-life application of technology helped to acquaint students with career
choices that they may be interested in. She stated further that students in traditional
settings, taught only through lectures and the blackboard, are less engaged in the
process of learning. She noted, “They [students in traditional classrooms] do enough
to pass but are not learning, so we are using technology in the way it is used in the
world to inspire and motivate kids to learn” (personal interview, November 29,
2005).
The lead teacher and network administrator* of the school also spoke in the
same vein. The network administrator thinks that the goal of the promising practice
is to emulate what a business is like so that students have some real-life experience.
As a result, they will not be lost when they enter the world to actually perform a job
task; the exposure they received at school will help them to know what is expected of
them in such an environment.
* The network administrator works with teachers in troubleshooting and fixing equipment and
Internet-related problems and also installs math and science programs purchased by CART.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
The lead teacher (who is also the dean of curriculum and instruction) also
thinks that the goal is to be proficient in software use and to be able to operate in the
workplace. According to him,
Our world is technology-based and everywhere you go ... there is specific
software that’s being used to advance that company in the marketplace. So
we feel that the minimum technology need for our kids to get out there, they
have to have their hands on a computer, know what a computer is, know how
to save files, know the general logistics of navigating a computer, and know
some basic applications (lead teacher, personal interview, November 30,
2005).
The goal of the promising practice as explained by the administration and
staff of the school can be readily seen in the work that the students are doing in the
technology labs. For example, the researcher observed the following in a class in the
biomedical cluster: In a class session on calculating Body Mass Index (BMI),
students were asked to offer medical advice to those sampled for the experiment. The
math teacher gave the formula for calculating the BMI using the weight and height
of those in the sample. The students were to use either a calculator or a computer to
calculate the BMI of at least 20 people, as well as to calculate the average BMI of all
those involved in the study. Next, the calculated BMI and other information
pertaining to each of the subjects was entered by students into an BMI/age graph.
The graph clearly illustrated to the students those whose BMI was above average and
thus needed a “doctor’s advice.” The teacher stated, “We have to expose them to
things like these to have a sense of what they will be facing in the future in the
medical profession” (math teacher, personal communication, November 29, 2005).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
Theory o f Action
The design principles at CART are cognition, academics, real-world
application, technology, and personalization. CART utilizes multiple measures to
demonstrate that students have attained the standards, skills, knowledge, and
attitudes outlined in its curriculum and design principles. As indicated in the mission
statement and vision of CART, the implementation of the practice of using
technology in real-life situations will lead to the following positive outcomes:
1. Students will attain a higher grade point average in their CART classes
and home school classes.
2. There will be an overall increase in registration in technology,
mathematics, and science classes.
3. CART students will perform better on all standardized testing when
compared to similar students in neighboring districts.
4. Students will have an improved attendance rate compared to their past
record of attendance.
5. Students will have a higher admissions rate into post-secondary options.
6. Students will be better prepared in the soft skills required by local
businesses.
7. The mean NCE growth rate of CART students on state tests will be
higher than comparable student groups in traditional settings.
8. All CART students will pass the High School Exit Exam.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
9. All CART students will achieve the basic proficiency level or higher on
the California Standards Tests.
10. CART students will have a lower suspension rate.
11. All CART students will graduate.
Evidence of the students’ outcomes will be further discussed in later sections of this
chapter.
Implementation Details
History o f the promising practice. The school has used technology in
instruction since its inception 6 years ago. The principal was involved in recruiting
the first team of 16 teachers to help write the curriculum and plan the design.
According to the principal, the level of technology integration has not wavered or
decreased.
Planning time. Teachers have 2 hours of time in the middle of the day to
plan. This time occurs during the 10:30 to 12:30 period between morning and
afternoon classes. Two kinds of planning take place during this 2-hour break. While
teachers generally plan their lessons on Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and
Fridays, teachers are expected to attend a professional development session on
Tuesdays. In these professional development sessions, teachers identify an area in
which they need help, and a fellow teacher offers a presentation for about four or
five teachers. Recent sessions covered such topics as the use of software in analyzing
student test data and how to create geometric shapes using the Geometer Sketchpad.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
Lessons learned. A common theme in the interviews was that administrators
think that purchases should be made with caution because some of the software
programs may not get used at all. With regard to this, the COO/principal advocates
purchasing only what the school needs. She stated that the technology provider
companies are just there to convince customers to buy their products, and if the
school’s buyer does not get teachers involved in the decision, chances are a
purchased product will be left on the shelf. She gave an example: “A program called
Instrumental Enrichment is a great program that builds cognitive skills but is too
time consuming to utilize and considering the entire curriculum we have to cover, we
never used it” (COO/principal, e-mail communication, March 15, 2006).
From the principal’s perspective, another lesson learned is that professional
development should be an ongoing process. She thinks that because technology is
always changing, efforts should be made to continually upgrade the staffs
knowledge to support instruction in the classroom.
Sustainability
The sustainability of the promising practice at this site depends on a number
of factors. One such factor is the ease with which programs are adjusted to appeal to
the student body, and another is the success of a technology refresh plan. According
to the COO/principal, it is important to add programs relevant to students’ interest:
We should not be offering programs that are no longer relevant, and other
programs need to be added because they ... motivate students. If the program
is not cutting it, we are not doing it. Because we are basically teaching
language arts, science, social science, and math and we are wrapping it into
programs like bioengineering research and all that. We wrap the programs to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
appeal to the interest o f the students. If it is not working, we take the same
subjects and wrap [them] in a different way that will appeal to the interest of
the students. That is what we need to do. So there is the challenge to find out
what’s the next buzz thing out there, (personal interview, November 29,
2005)
A second sustaining strategy is the technology refresh plan for the hardware
and software. The refresh plan, devised by the technology committee and
administrators, is a conscious effort to replace old equipment with relevant software.
They do this by projecting the possible costs of upgrade, and they provide the funds
necessary for such upgrades well before the time of purchase. This is done on a
continual basis.
Also, the lead teacher thinks that the school should build networks to get
people from all over the school involved in planning the program. For example, the
network includes those in an advisory capacity and those in a support capacity. The
advisory people generally meet teachers once or twice a year to advise on the
curriculum and the programs at the school. Support people answer questions from
the staff, helping them to work with the teachers and students and get them in touch
with those who may be able to help them. According to the lead teacher, “Fresh ideas
come out of this kind of networking” (personal interview, November 30, 2005).
Another step in sustaining the promising practice, according to one teacher, is
obtaining both funding and mentors. According to this teacher, the school needs
funding to keep the technology level adequate for supporting the different kinds of
career fields in which the school is engaged. CART obtains the majority of its
funding through average daily attendance paid by the State of California and is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
supplemented by funding from the State of California’s Regional Occupational
Program (ROP) coordinated through the Fresno County Office of Education. Funds
also come from grants from local, state, and federal offices of education as well as
corporations like Intel, IBM, Kaiser, and Microsoft. For example, the environmental
science sub-focus has received $400,000 in grants and an additional $100,000 of in-
kind donations of software, curriculum, training, travel, and lodging during the past 5
years.
The lead teacher also thinks that mentors are paramount. “We need the
mentors to come in and use their time in their workday to work with some of our
students to take on that next generation of people who may go into their field, to
show them what its like to have that kind of work” (personal interview, November
30, 2005). For example, the following is a list of mentors and their backgrounds as
related to the environmental science lab:
1. The educational coordinator for the Fresno Office of the California
Department of Fish and Game critiques the environmental science
curriculum and helps match students’ projects going on in other parts of
the Department of Fish and Game.
2. The Anadramous Habitat Restoration consultant with the California
Department of Fish and Game, who is a parent of one the students at
CART and helps plan the visitation of students to ponds.
3. A research analyst with the California Department of Fish and Game,
specializing in Geographic Information Systems, has mentored students
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6 2
in the past on projects involving the Endangered Species Recovery
Program.
4. A research program specialist with the California Department of
Transportation, whose focus is Geographical Information Systems, is
currently working on establishing internships for some CART students
with CalTrans.
5. An environmental technician and education outreach coordinator with the
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District is the contact for coordinating
students’ access to and study of ponding basins. He constantly visits the
science classes to mentor students on projects involving storm water and
flood control.
6. An education director for the San Jaoquin River Parkway and
Conservation Trust has been a sounding board for the science curriculum
from the beginning. She frequently visits classrooms to let students know
about opportunities for projects involving the river.
7. A public affairs and planning staff officer for the Sierra National Forest
brings project ideas to CART and connects students with appropriate
mentors at the Forest Service.
Benefits to Students, Teachers, and Parents
Those interviewed pointed to the benefits to using technology in teaching
math and science. For example, the chemistry teacher thinks that it creates interest
among the students, and it also helps them store and recall information. The teacher
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
stated that because the students are engaged in constructive learning, they tend to be
more involved, and once they learn by discovering things by themselves, they do not
easily forget.
Another benefit to students is that those who might usually fear or dislike the
sciences are having no such problems, as the learning is tied to real-life situations.
The science teacher stated,
A lot of kids come in fearful of heavy science classes such as physics and
chemistry. And I think the way we teach, they say that they go back to their
home school and tutor other kids. If you look at our grades, I think kids are
more successful here than in traditional science course classes, (personal
interview, November 29, 2005)
The environmental science teacher thinks that the practice is very beneficial
to teachers. He thinks that to have teachers of different disciplines working together
is an asset. Each teacher brings his or her own perspective to the table in planning the
curriculum. He commented,
I think it is better for the students when teachers with different perspectives
work together to plan lessons for them. Also, professionally, it is better for
us; we become better teachers in seeing how other people teach their
curriculum and how we could adapt some of the strategies they use into our
own curriculum area, (personal interview, November 29, 2005)
The network administrator thinks that the technology used by the school is
good for everyone, including the parents. The technology the school uses gives
parents the ability to monitor the progress of their children and wards without having
to personally go to the school or make phone calls. He stated, “Students and parents
can look up homework online. Parents can look up and see what their kids are
supposed to be doing” (personal interview, November 29, 2005).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
Challenges
On the other hand, some challenges associated with using technology in
teaching need to be highlighted. First, all interviewees identified the funding
necessary for replacing old equipment as an urgent problem that needs to be
addressed. According to one teacher, “There is a physical challenge of keeping the
equipment up-to-date. That is, getting replacement computers and equipment repairs
and that sort of thing. The budget doesn’t always provide for that. You might make
initial purchases, but renewal budgets usually don’t exist” (teacher, personal
interview, November 29, 2005). The COO/principal corroborated this when she
stated that they usually get start-up grants, but grants are not available for
maintenance.
A challenge to students is that the curriculum is not worksheet based.
According to the environmental science teacher, it does not begin and end in a finite
time like the periods at their home school. According to the environmental science
teacher,
As teachers, it’s challenging to have to work with two professionals to plan
the curriculum for the class, whereas, in a home school, you might have to
deal with it yourself. So there is extra burden on one’s time; extra meetings
involved are time-consuming, (personal interview, November 29, 2005)
Evidence o f Impact o f Promising Practice
According to the principal, test scores, graduation rates, and anecdotal
evidence have all shown that the practice of using technology in teaching is
positively impacting students’ performance. When asked if the real-life situations for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
learning about and using technology were making a difference with or impact on the
kids, she noted,
We have hard data that shows that grades are higher. We have hard data
which shows that kids who would never have taken physics are taking
physics now. We have graduation data. We have test score data. The test
scores have gone up. On the other hand, we have a lot of anecdotal data:
students who have said, “I never thought I could go to college” are and now
saying, “I am going.” (COO/principal, personal interview, November 29,
2005)
For example, during the 2004-2005 school year, part of CART’s program evaluation
effort was to compare the registration levels of sciences taken at CART to those
taken at home schools. It was found that students “get immersed in sciences when
they get into CART” (COO/principal, personal communication, November 29,
2005).
Information obtained from the school’s Web site buttressed the principal’s
arguments that the promising practice of using technology in teaching was improving
the test scores, attendance records, and cumulative GPA of the students at CART.
Data reveals that the students at CART have a 98.5% rate of attendance compared to
the 96.5% attendance rate at a traditional high school. (A traditional high school in
this context is a non-charter school that does not use technology like CART.)
According to the COO/principal, the students simply want to come to school because
they know that they will not be bored with lectures. They come to be part of a
student learning team that makes discoveries by themselves and with the help of their
teachers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
Data comparing the 2003 STAR Exam scores of the 10th graders in both
CART and traditional high schools showed that the mean score at CART is greater
than 54, while is it less than 52 at a traditional high school. Again, according to those
interviewed, using technology in instruction means that students are learning
constructively. They are motivated. The inspiration that they get from their teachers
is transferred into achievement in the form of test scores. The lead teacher
commented, “I see technology as a hook for students. And with that they are
motivated to learn” (personal interview, November 30, 2005).
The GPA of students attending CART is also increasing from year to year.
Available data compared the cumulative GPA at the beginning of the school year to
that at the end of the school year. There was a net gain of about 0.16 points in
cumulative GPA at CART by the end of the 2004-2005 school year.
Resource Requirements
Budget information. The promising practice of using technology in teaching
at CART requires a yearly per-student budget of about $3,800. The director said that
grants and donations of up to $8 million were used to set up the school. The most
notable donors were Intel and Microsoft. Apart from the initial exorbitant costs,
software needs amount to $20,000-$25,000 per year. The school has recently
embarked on a 5-year plan for technology replacement with costs of about $300,000
a year.
Staffing. The staffing at CART is unique because of the structure o f the
program. As stated earlier, the teachers instruct their students in teams. For example,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
the environmental science teacher is part o f a team that includes a math and an
English teacher in the environmental science lab. Each of the teachers has a
responsibility in teaching the math and science concepts that students need to
complete assignments.
The roles of the COO/principal, the lead teacher, and the network
administrator also need to be highlighted. According to the COO/principal, she has
been involved from the very beginning. She works to obtain support from the
business community in order to finance projects for the school. For example, she
worked with an architectural firm to design the facility. She was also responsible for
curriculum and instruction for the first 5 years before she assumed the role of a
director last July.
The dean of curriculum and instruction (also known as the lead teacher) acts
as bridge between the network administrator and the teachers in the school.
According to him, the network administrator may not understand educational
programs and the teachers do not always know how use the available technology.
The lead teacher stated, “I came on board to play the in-between and find a way to
make the technology work for the teachers and help them understand how to use the
technology in the classroom” (personal interview, November 30, 2005).
The network administrator makes sure that things work for everybody in the
school—teachers, students, and administrators. If students need access to a blocked
Web site to complete an assignment, the network administrator unblocks it. He is
also responsible for setting up the sharing of group folders. He makes sure
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
permissions are obtained, that the Internet is always working, and that everybody has
an e-mail account. According to him, “I just kind of make sure everything works,
and whenever a teacher wants something or a student needs something, I just make it
happen” (personal interview, November 29, 2005).
On the question of the expertise required for successful implementation of the
practice, the network administrator believes that none of the staff has a high degree
of expertise other than knowing more than the students. “Knowing more than the
students” is a theme echoed by more than one interviewee. The COO/principal said
she may find it difficult to hire a teacher for a classroom in which the students know
more about the use of technology. According to her, however, if a teacher is good
and ready to learn, then consideration will be given. She stated, “ ... so with that
being said, there are probably some really good teachers out there who do not have
the technology skills to meet our needs. We’d have to train them” (personal
interview, November 29, 2005).
Facilities and space. According to the lead teacher of technology, whoever is
looking at a project like this should design “smart classrooms” like they have at
CART. The smart classroom consists of a screen and a projector mounted to the
ceiling that enables the teacher to connect the PC to the projector for presentations.
Also, provision should be made for computer labs. Depending on the number of
programs one is planning to have and the availability of funding, the lab should be
cutting edge with features that enhance learning. In the labs, there should be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
individual computers for all students, as well as a teacher computer with a front
screen, electricity backup, conference rooms, and phones.
Professional Development
As pointed out earlier in this chapter, professional development activities are
attended by every teacher on every Tuesday. The school started by having every
teacher attend the same professional development session, but as time went on there
was need to individualize the professional development activities. They have four or
five teachers participate in a professional development activity as identified by their
need, and fellow teachers present the professional development sessions. She said
that it does not make any sense to force a particular training session on every teacher
at the same time. She continued,
The Technology Committee plans who is presenting and what is to be
presented. The Technology Committee is comprised of the principal, the lead
teacher of curriculum and instruction, the lead teacher of
telecommunications, and a representative of each lab. For example, the
biomedicine lab is represented by the chemistry teacher, the environmental
science lab is represented by the environmental science teacher, and the
bioengineering lab is represented by the English teacher. Apart from deciding
on the professional development presentations, the committee also decides on
students’ needs in the classroom. Decisions reached by the committee are
disseminated to all faculty and staff. Recently, the technology committee
decided that prior to purchasing any software, teachers should have an input
on how they are going to use it. (personal interview, November 29, 2005)
Another quality of the professional development sessions at CART is that
teachers have the choice of picking two sessions from a total of four sessions.
According the COO/principal, “All sessions are two hours in length. If there is a
teacher who wants a third choice and they could not get it, we will figure out how to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
give them that” (personal interview, November 29, 2005). She elaborated further that
the reason for the choices is to give every teacher the necessary tools to effectively
use technology in the classroom. It is a way of individualizing professional
development and targeting the specific needs of teachers.
The teachers I interviewed explained how the professional development
structure helps them in the classroom. The teachers think that to have choices in the
professional development sessions is great, and even greater is the fact that fellow
teachers are the presenters. The environmental science teacher shared his excitement
and enthusiasm regarding professional development:
Today, for example, we have a staff development meeting with different
teachers sharing lessons they use in their labs that they feel could work in
other labs. Their lessons involve integration and mixing and grouping the
students so they get more in different group structures and don’t stay in their
cliques. W e’ve had teachers showing how they use different technology
available to us to meet the standards for language arts, math, and the
sciences, (personal interview, November 29, 2005)
All of the interviewees concurred that the quality and quantity of professional
development provided to teachers at CART is adequate to sustain the promising
practice of using technology in teaching.
Supporting Documents
The following supporting documents related to using technology in teaching
math and science at CART come from the school’s Web site.
1. Survey of program monitoring. The school uses the data to guide their
plan of instruction.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
2. Schedule of teachers organized around the cluster or clusters that they
teach in the sub-focus.
3. Instructional calendar for the current school year.
4. The bell schedule for all classes.
5. Sample lesson plans of the physics teacher.
Recommended Resources
Internet resources.
1. Pathfinderscience - www.pathfinder.com
2. Eastproject - www.eastproject.com
3. Technology Learning - www.technologyleaming.com
4. See Net by MIT - www.mit.org
5. Digital Juice - www.digitaljuice.com
The main source of reference for all the teachers interviewed is the Internet.
The teachers depend on the Web sites to gather information about some of the
materials to present to students. According to the environmental science teacher, a
particular Web site that has been very useful to him is Pathfinderscience.com,
published by the University of Kansas. It is a site that blends inquiry-based
instruction with hands-on activities. Eastproject.com is another useful site for lesson
planning.
The lead teacher also uses the Internet for gathering materials to help teachers
plan their instruction. He uses periodicals and educational journals, such as
Technology Learning, that are available online. According to the lead teacher, all he
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
had to do is fill out a form and submit it online for free hard and electronic copies of
the journal to be delivered monthly.
The lead teacher was also able to get was free substitute for a program called
Inspiration. According to the lead teacher, another teacher requested it. He conducted
research and found that it was too expensive to purchase, but he was able to locate a
free software program called See Net by MIT. He tested it and discovered that it did
the same basic things as Inspiration. After sending it to all the teachers, he received
comments from several of the teachers who tried it that it worked fine. Even though
the school will still have to buy Inspiration when funds are available, the substitute
will work for now. This scenario verifies the words of the COO/principal, who
noted, “We cut comers when we have to” (personal interview, November 29, 2005).
Books.
1. Claggit, F. (1998). Cradle by cradle design. Melbourne, Australia:
University of Melbourne Press.
2. Smith, S., Charles, R., Dossey, J., & Bittinger, M. (2001). Algebra
concepts and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3. Larson, R., Boswell, L., Kanold, T., & Stiff, L. (2000). Algebra concepts
and skills. Evanston, IL: McDougall Littell.
Organizations.
1. Tree Fresno - www.treefresno.org. They mentor students and provide
resources to the environmental science lab in the form of space, gardens,
and plants.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
2. Chaffee Zoo Education Department - www.chaffeezoo.com. They
provide access to activities and resources at the zoo for the environmental
science lab.
3. Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District - 5459 E. Olive Street
Fresno, CA 93727. They provide access to ponding basins.
4. River Tree Volunteers - 1509 E. Fallbrook Street Fresno, CA 93720.
They provide information about rivers that the environmental science
students want to explore. They also mentor students on careers that relate
to environmental science.
Magnolia Science Academy
The Magnolia Science Academy (MSA) is engaged in the promising practice
of using technology to extend and deepen students’ knowledge of math and science.
They accomplish this by integrating technology into their curriculum. Magnolia
Science Academy has operated under the Eos Angeles Unified School District for 4
years. It is a start-up secondary charter school serving Grades 6 through 12 with a
curriculum that emphasizes science, math, and technology. Table 3 shows the profile
of the school.
The community surrounding the school is lower- to lower-middle-class;
many residents have incomes below the poverty line. The demographics of the
school’s student population correspond roughly to the demographics of residents in
the surrounding community. In addition, English-language learners comprise
approximately 60% of the student population, and about 85% of the students receive
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
free lunch or reduced meals. In sum, the MSA student population can be classified as
at-risk.
Table 3
Profile: Magnolia Science Academy
School Information
School Name: Magnolia Science Academy
Address: 18238 Sherman Way Reseda, CA 91335
Phone #: 818-609-0507 Fax #: 818-609-0534
Principal’s Name: Mr. Engin Eryilmaz
Email Address: engine@magnoliascience.org
School Web site: www.magnoliascience.org
Promising Practice: Extension of subject matter knowledge o f math and science using technology
Charter Information
Type o f School: Start-up
Year Chartered: 2001 Year Opened: 2002
Charter Authorizer: LAUSD Board of Education
Student Population Information
Student Enrollment: Current: 400
Grades Served: Current: 6-12
Enrollment by Subgroups (#/%):
Ethnicity (#)
African American 28 (7%)
Asian American 8 (2%)
Special Populations (%)
Free/Reduced Lunch 340 (85%)
ELL 240 (60%)
Hispanic
White
Other
240 (60%)
100 (25%)
24 (6%)
Teacher Information
Number of Full-time Administrators: 4
Number of Full-time Teachers: 21
Teacher Union Membership: No
Budget Information
Per-Pupil Spending (Year): $3,881.00
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
The mission of the school, as stated in its charter, is three-fold:
1. To provide a sound educational plan with emphasis on math, science, and
technology.
2. To provide a rigorous, innovative, challenging, and enhanced curriculum
with a focus on preparing students to attend the universities of their
choice.
3. To prepare students to become responsible, educated citizens who have
the skills and understanding to participate and work productively in a
diverse, multicultural, globally-oriented environment and who are ready
to carry the torch, freedom, and prosperity that has been passed from one
generation to another in this great country (MSA, 2001).
According to the principal of the school, “The mission allows students to learn in an
environment in which self-discovery is encouraged and learning that challenges
students to reach beyond their own expectations is routine” (personal interview,
November 8, 2005).
Description o f the Promising Practice
The Magnolia Science Academy deepens the study of math and science by
integrating computer technology into the curriculum. To do this, teachers instruct in
math and science concepts for four periods of the week, while the fifth period is held
in a computer lab where teachers can use technology to enhance the concepts taught
in the regular classes. The principal gave an example of using technology to teach
science: After the science teacher teaches about volcanoes, the students have the
opportunity to further learn the material in the computer lab. They investigate
currently erupting volcanoes online, which shows the regions of the world where
such volcanoes can be found (principal, personal interview, November 8, 2005). The
lead teacher added that this design helps students who are close to understanding a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
concept finally “get it,” and those who already understand have the opportunity to
deepen their knowledge.
Another example of technology usage was observed in the computer lab
when the concept of cell structure was taught by the science teacher. Prior to this
day, the researcher had also observed this concept being taught in the regular
classroom. In the lab session, students were able to do things that the regular
classroom could not accommodate: compare the sizes of cells, view a pictorial
representation of how cells divide and reproduce, witness the time it takes to produce
a certain number of bacteria cells, and so on. The science teacher stated, “No matter
how much explanation one does in the regular classroom, they need this practical
aspect and exploration to better grasp the concepts” (personal interview, November
8, 2005).
One of the features of this promising practice is that the teacher can reinforce
concepts taught in the classroom by providing an activity that tries to address the
weaknesses of students in a particular class. For example, the teacher may assign an
exploratory activity to those students who need to further their understanding of a
concept, while quiz activities may be given to students who have a better grasp of the
concept.
Take, for example, a lab session taught by a math teacher who asked the
students to navigate links related to the concepts of absolute values and additive
integer operations (concepts taught earlier in the week). The five links were absolute
values, adding two-digit integers, two-digit integer equations, adding positive and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
negative integers, and adding equations with three-digit integers. For each of the five
links, students were asked to “learn, practice, or play” depending on their knowledge
of the concept. The “learn” page defined and explained the concept, as well as
offered examples and help on how to use the concept in solving math problems. The
“practice” page, which gave problems with which the students could test their
knowledge of the concept, had two different settings. The first gave students enough
time to do the problems and to see how many they could get right in a set time
frame; the second recorded how long it took students to complete the problems. The
“play” page provided games, puzzles, and riddles related to the concept of absolute
values and integer operations. In this way, computer instruction can be
individualized and targeted toward the student’s specific needs.
Goals o f the Promising Practice
As stated earlier, the promising practice at this school is extending students’
knowledge of math and science through the use of technology.* The goal of this
promising practice is in line with the charter established by the school and its
mission: To prepare students for academic success in their post-secondary education,
to enable them to maintain a broad spectrum of options for their future endeavors,
and to prepare them to be responsible and productive citizens. In pursuit of these
goals, the school has consciously included teaching with technology as an
instructional strategy. The school planned their teaching in such a way that for every
unit covered by the math and science teacher, a technology lab time is set aside to
* It is important to note here that this promising practice includes all subjects offered in the school, but
this study focused only on math and science.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
reinforce the concepts covered in traditional classrooms. The computer lab class is
the last session of any unit or concept taught by the teacher. The lead teacher stated,
“Apart from giving students the technology skills they need during their college
years, we are also affording them more career opportunities by the exposure we give
them in the area of technology” (personal interview, November 8, 2005).
The principal pointed out that students learn constructively when they leam
with computers. According to the principal, instead of the teacher providing
information to students, the students should be guided toward discovering things on
their own. “This is a goal that technology integration hopes to achieve” (principal,
personal interview, November 8, 2005). The activities observed by the researcher
attested to the fact that students are really learning by discovering. The researcher
observed excitement and motivation as students navigated through the lab work for
the science class. The importance of this kind of learning was summed up by the
math and science teacher in reference to his technology lab lesson: “You can get an
idea of the relative sizes of the cell structure and of the things we are talking about in
the class right now ... in a way that I couldn’t do without the advantage of the
technology” (personal interview, November 8, 2005).
Elaborating on the goals of the promising practice, the lead teacher stated that
another goal is to teach students how to use computers so that they are computer
literate by the time they graduate from middle or high school. He noted, “They
should be able to use computers in their daily life tasks. They should be able to do
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
everything on the computer. So our first task is to teach them computer and
technology skills” (personal interview, November 8, 2005).
The principal further pointed out that in today’s job market, computer
knowledge is necessary; the school is producing graduates who can compete
favorably, having been given the advantage of computer training in school. He
commented, “Being in a disadvantaged area in terms of affluence, you can only think
of raising their hope by giving them the best, and instruction using technology will
give them such hope” (personal interview, November 8, 2005). He concluded by
saying that we should not consider the use of computers in instruction as a luxury but
as a necessity that will enable every student to function well in society.
Theory o f Action
The figure below illustrates the theory of action upon which Magnolia
Science Academy’s promising practice is based.
Figure. Theory of action for the promising practice.
Long-Term Goals
1. Increase test
scores
2. Success in post
secondary
education
3. Prepare students
for future careers
Extending subject
matter knowledge
of math and
science through
the use of
technology
Promising
Practice
Short-Term Goals
1. Increased student
motivation.
2. Deepen
understanding of
concepts.
3 .Increased
computer
skills
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
The premise here is that the promising practice will lead to the acquisition of
short-term goals, including increased student motivation, increased computer skills,
and a deeper understanding of math and science concepts. When students learn by
discovery as they do at MSA, students are more involved in their learning.
According to the math and science teacher, “It is easier to have them complete tasks
in the computer lab because of the motivation provided by technology” (personal
interview, November 8, 2005). The understanding and skills acquired by the students
manifest in higher test scores and success in other long-terms goals (such as those
highlighted in the figure). As the principal noted, “The education we give to our
students here gives them an edge to be more competitive in the job market. They also
graduate to further their education in science and technology related fields” (personal
interview, November 8, 2005).
Implementation Details
History o f the promising practice. The principal stated that the promising
practice has been in place since the inception of the school; the original charter
defines the school as math-, science-, and technology-oriented. The MSA drew on
the Dialogue Foundation (a group of community activists) to enhance instruction and
learning at the school. The Dialogue Foundation, which initiated the MSA project in
2001, focuses on the use of technology in teaching core subjects.
According to the lead teacher, although the focus of the school was
technology, the actual integration of technology into math and science instruction
started after the school had opened. As the lead teacher explained, a single
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
technology teacher started and implemented the integration, and the staff was
amazed by what he did.
He divided the academic year into weeks and designed all of the technology
assignments accordingly. Every week, we covered a certain computer
concept which was appropriate to the student’s age level and the content area.
Then we created some math and science assignments to accompany the
computer concepts. In a short time, we had a database of assignments that all
teachers of math and science could choose from. As time went on, all
teachers became involved in designing and implementing assignments, but it
wasn’t so from the beginning (lead teacher, personal interview, November 8,
2005).
Planning time. This promising practice of using technology in teaching math
and science is working well at MSA, in part because there is time allocated for
planning between the core teacher (math and science teacher) and the lead teacher of
technology. The teachers meet on a weekly basis to select materials that the
technology teacher will use in the computer lab based on the week’s math/science
concept. During the week of the researcher’s visit, the teachers met mid-week after
regular school hours. According to one of the teachers, “We meet at least once a
week to create and select materials, but there is no regular schedule” (teacher,
personal communication, November 8, 2005).
In terms of replicating this practice in other schools, the principal believes
that it will take only a few months to train the teachers and another month or so to
design the assignments. The lead teacher agreed:
The first thing is to plan the curriculum in which you will need one teacher
from each core subject area. The teachers should be conversant with the State
Content Standards in the core area and what should be covered the next year.
You should also have the computer teacher who has a basic understanding of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8 2
the subjects. It takes maybe a month to design the curriculum, (personal
interview, November 8, 2005)
The lead teacher also suggested that the program needs constant evaluation
each year to assess what needs to be changed. According to the lead teacher, “You
continue to evaluate and design and change the things when you implement the first
year. The second year you will have a little bit more stable program because you
have the experience of the first year” (personal interview, November 8, 2005). In
general, the lead teacher thinks a month is enough to come up with assignments, but
you cannot design everything at once because you have to know the level of the
students first before you design. He stated, “It may be too easy or too hard for them.
You should aim for the middle. You should modify the assignments if they are too
easy or too hard for the students” (personal interview, November 8, 2005).
Lessons learned. The lessons learned in implementing the promising practice
have helped the school refine and improve upon the practice of technology
integration into the curriculum. According to the lead teacher, one lesson learned is
that it is doable. Even though it was difficult at first, after they redesigned and
implemented, they understood that it is an effective program that they can stick with.
According to him, “... all those challenges are lessons you learn: Give teachers the
initial professional development activities before you ask them to integrate; you
provide technical support to teachers, administration, and others; and you have to
update equipment, both hardware and software” (personal interview, November 8,
2005).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
The principal sees the teachers as the most important factor in making the
implementation of the practice successful. The teachers design and implement the
program. The principal stated, “So you see that without the input of the teachers, we
are nowhere. We have very young staff members. Most of them are Internet or
computer savvy” (personal interview, November 8,2005). The lead teacher also
agreed that the teachers are key to the success of the program.
Another factor helping to explain the success of the program is the student-
computer ratio, which is one-to-one. According to the lead teacher, “As you saw in
our computer lab, there are 28 computers and each class period has 25 students or
less. This enables the students to have a computer to work with during the lab
sessions” (personal interview, November 8, 2005). The lead teacher remarked
further, “If you have fewer numbers of computers than the students, then the students
have to share computers, and the system wouldn’t work” (personal interview,
November 8, 2005).
Administrative support is a factor that both the lead teacher and classroom
teacher think has aided the promising practice. The administration of the school has
made available the necessary funds to buy math and science software programs,
upgrade equipment, and purchase other necessary items like floppy disks, memory
disks, and headphones that are useful in the computer lab. According to the lead
teacher, based on the fact that this is an independent charter school, the teachers have
access to whatever will aid instruction without having to wait a long time, unlike
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
district-run public schools. In fact, as the lead teacher noted, the principal “acts with
dispatch.”
Related to the above point is the technical support that is provided to
teachers. The math and science teacher attested to the fact that the urgency with
which technical support is provided gives impetus to the successful implementation
of the practice. According to the teacher,
We have a dependable IT team that is quick to fix any computer problems
that teachers experience. They also respond quickly to requests for installing
software in the computer lab. From my experience, once they are notified of
problems, they promptly take action. For example, you saw in the computer
lab that I could not see the flash in the teacher’s computer but all students
were able to see their flash. When I called the IT people to fix, it was done by
the end of the day. (math and science teacher, personal interview, November
8, 2005)
Benefits to Students
According to interviews with the teachers and administrators, using
technology in teaching math and science helps with retention, constructive learning,
hands-on learning, increased computer skills, and varied learning approaches. The
science teacher explained that as a result of the promising practice, his students seem
to better retain the information that they learn. He stated that the practice makes the
student overleam, and when they overleam material, their capability of retention and
retrieval of the information is enhanced. The teacher gave an example of a lab
activity in the science class where a bacteria camera enabled them see how much
bacteria was produced in a given period of time. The teacher argued that no matter
how much one tries to explain a concept like that in the regular classroom, students
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
typically do not understand it thoroughly. But as soon as students actually see the
reproduction process on the monitor, the concept stays with them forever.
On constructive learning, the principal explained that because computer
instruction does not involve lecturing, the students have opportunities to discover
more facts on their own in the learning process. Students become problem-solvers.
On the other hand, the teachers’ roles and methods are also changing; teachers are
more like facilitators for learning, and they work to provide open-ended
investigations of problems.
Computers also offer a hands-on approach. According to the principal,
... this is the good thing about computers. Instead of putting in place a really
expensive physics lab for students to have hand-on experience, you can
create a high quality physics lab on your computer. By using technology this
way, you have avoided the cost of creating a state-of-the-art physics lab and
the cost of supervising students that usually goes with working in such labs.
Once the physics lab is created on your computer, students can work
individually. It is no secret that when students are starting to leam on their
own, they are more successful, (personal interview, November 8, 2005)
According to the lead teacher of technology, students’ computer skills are
increased as a result of this promising practice. He stated that because of the school’s
mission to train students in useful skills, students are proficient in computers by the
time they graduate MSA. To this end, the school’s graduation requirements mandate
that students take and pass at least 5 units of computer education.
The math and science teacher pointed out that the practice of using
technology in teaching also provides the students with the opportunity to leam
through various avenues. The teacher feels he is reaching more students through
technology, especially those who are visual and kinesthetic learners. According to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
him, . .if a kid doesn’t understand the concept in one way, then they might
understand it in another way, and the computer presents such opportunity” (personal
interview, November 8, 2005). For example, in one session in the computer lab, I
observed the students exploring the concepts of absolute values and integer
operations by using tables, graphs, and even words to elucidate the solutions to the
math problems.
Sustainability
On the question of the practice’s sustainability, the principal thinks that
because the mission of the school includes technology, it will not be difficult to
sustain the practice. However, the school will need to keep seeking funds and grants
to update, repair, or replace both hardware and software. The school raises about
$100,000 per year to cover these costs.
Another change that needs to occur for sustainability is to modify the
program according to individual student needs. According to the lead teacher, the
present system does not have something for everybody:
Some students are more advanced than others. When you give an assignment,
for some it takes the whole class period. Some students can finish it in 15
minutes. Some take 20 or 30 minutes. The next step will be to design
assignments so that everybody has something to work on for the whole class
period. This will entail modifying the program for each individual student so
that every student can benefit from the program, (personal interview,
November 8, 2005)
Another effort in the direction of sustainability is geared towards having a
wireless computer system that can move computers into classrooms and thereby save
the time of going to the computer lab. According to the math and science teacher,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
... we recently wrote a grant to IBM and Microsoft [for] a cart that can be
rolled around to classrooms to present lessons via the computers. The cart
will be wireless and there are plenty of laptops on the cart. You just pop up
the laptops and open them. Your kids could use them for 15 minutes and then
you close them. So that is an example of where we are going, (personal
interview, November 8, 2005).
Challenges
One of the school’s major challenges was the lack of computer experience of
teachers during the first year of operation. The lack of computer skills hindered the
teachers in preparing assignments and lessons. The computer teachers at MSA had to
do a lot of teacher training to enable teachers to plan and deliver the computer lab
lessons. The lead teacher stated, “It happened in the first year, some of the teachers
were not up to the task. If you are teaching something in computer first as a teacher,
you have to be at the master level so you can teach” (personal interview, November
8, 2005). He said that to alleviate the problem, they had to emphasize computer
competence in recruiting prospective teachers.
Another challenge associated with the promising practice is related to student
admissions. According to the principal, it would have been considerably easier to
implement the practice if students were admitted into sixth grade only. But the
problem was that the school also recruited for the other grades (seventh through
twelfth), and this created an “imbalance” between those who entered the school at
sixth grade and those who entered later. Those who have been at the school right
from the start of middle school perform better because they have been exposed to the
practice of using technology in extending what they learned.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
According to the principal, the school has created two solutions to address the
imbalance. First, the orientation given to new students coming from other schools
stresses computer technology. There is also remediation provided by the computer
teachers, so students can catch up to their grade level. The other solution that was
mentioned earlier (and is still in the planning stage) is to create assignments for
students on an individual basis. According to the lead teacher, when assignments are
tailored toward individual students, the students will be able to work at their own
pace and develop stronger conceptual understanding.
The third challenge confronting the school and its implementation of the
promising practice is financial concerns. The principal mentioned that technology
equipment needs to be replaced on a yearly basis, software programs need to be
bought and installed, and people need to be trained to use the new equipment and
programs. The school also needs to construct more computer labs because having
only two labs limits the number of students at the school. According to the lead
teacher, as soon as more labs are constructed, the school will be able to increase its
student population.
The final challenge facing the school concerns monitoring students during lab
classes. The classroom teacher explained that because minimal supervision is done
during the lab session, there is the tendency for students to log into “forbidden” sites.
The teacher’s solution to this is to be more vigilant during lab sessions by constantly
walking around the classroom to see what students are doing. The school also plans
to buy a software program that enables the teacher to monitor student activities in the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
computer lab on the teacher’s own computer. The program has a feature that allows
the teacher to freeze a student’s activity on the computer if s/he goes off task or if
s/he logs into sites that are not going to help her or him leam the given task.
Evidence o f Impact
Interviews and documents analyzed in this study point to the fact that using
technology for instructional purposes is positively influencing the school’s Academic
Performance Index (API) scores. The scores have jumped from 636 in 2003 to 749 in
2005 and, according to the principal, “the progress can be attributed to parental
involvement, giving teachers more flexibility to teach, and heavily incorporating
computers into the core classes, math and science” (personal interview, November 8,
2005).
Resource Requirements
Budget information. The Magnolia Science Academy has a student
population of about 400 and a yearly budget of about $2,062,500. The per-pupil
spending is approximately $5,500 per year. The interview questions in this study
centered on how much money another school would need to set up a similar
promising practice of using technology in teaching math and science. The principal
and the lead teacher generally agreed that it is not expensive to set up a program like
this. They said that it is easy because after the initial set-up, you do not have to spend
much money to sustain the computers for a number of years.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
Based on what MSA has, the lead teacher stated that $50,000 to $60,000
would be enough to replicate the equipment they presently have in their school. He
noted,
Nowadays you could buy a computer for $600 to $700. One lab will cost
$20,000 plus the server. One server would be for the whole lab. If you have
two computer labs it would be about $50,000 plus about $10,000 for server
and other equipment. The other costs that you have to think about after
purchasing hardware would be training teachers (if your staff is not already
computer competent) and the cost of maintaining the network. Also there are
additional expenses like buying some math and science software programs
and other peripherals. But in general, with a little over $60,000 you could
achieve what we have here at Magnolia Science Academy, (personal
interview, November 8, 2005)
Staffing. The role of the math and science teacher can be multi-faceted. In
coordination with the lead teacher and other computer teachers, s/he plans, selects,
and implements the lessons. S/he also recommends to the school administration the
math and science programs that need to be purchased.
The role of the computer science teacher is synonymous with that of the math
and science teachers. Apart from their computer classes, the computer science
teacher helps the math and science teachers in creating and selecting activities that
math and science teachers use in the computer lab.
On the question of teacher expertise needed for the practice, the lead teacher
stated that the computer teacher should have knowledge of the California Content
Standards, and the core subject teacher should have knowledge of computers so that
they can work together in creating educationally rich assignments for the kids. He
stated,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
You have to have one person, preferably one who has an education
background about core class requirements relating to math and science. He
should also have the computer expertise: knows commonly-used programs,
how to use the Internet, [and] also have additional skills like basic network
concepts and maybe a little Web design knowledge. But for the core teacher
(math and science teacher), they should be computer literate. They should be
able to use a computer for research and to do daily tasks. They should feel
comfortable with Microsoft Office programs. They should feel comfortable
also with word processors, spreadsheets, and other programs so that they can
design assignments with knowledge of all these pieces, (personal interview,
November 8, 2005)
In addition to classroom teachers, a lead teacher needs to have a technology
background. S/he is responsible for making sure that the math and science teachers
adhere to the teaching schedule and gives any support, both in content and in
technology, when the need arises. The lead teacher also offers technical support in
the form of program installation and fixing minor problems that the core teacher
cannot immediately deal with on her or his own. There are two technology personnel
assigned to MSA under the supervision of the lead teacher that are responsible for
trouble-shooting, fixing minor wear and tear on the computers, and assisting teachers
in installing licensed programs that the school computers should have.
In the area of technology, the lead teacher also has the responsibility of
evaluating and making recommendations for modifications in the practice of using
technology in instruction. He stated, “Beginning from the second year of operation, I
have always made recommendations. I decipher what is effective and what needs to
be improved upon” (lead teacher, personal interview, November 8, 2005).
The role of the school principal is purely supervisory with respect to the
promising practice. He checks constantly with the lead teacher and the math and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
science teachers on their needs. If software requests are made, he contacts the math
and science teachers to find out their needs and how the software would be used in
the computer lab. He also keeps track of how the computer teachers are working with
the math and science teachers.
The assistant principal is concerned with the transition between the core
classes and the technology lab. He creates the schedules for teachers to use the lab.
All inquiries on the availability of the labs go through the assistant principal. He
keeps track of what is happening in each lab session in terms of activities,
assignments, and student behavior.
The promising practice of technology in teaching math and science at MSA
requires collaboration between staff and administrators. According to two of the
teachers, it takes the concerted efforts of the math and science teacher, the lead
teacher of technology, and the computer teachers of the school to create lab
activities. As one teacher explained, “In our prep time, we map out the matrix of
what we want to accomplish for the week and use the following resources: 1.
Combining existing math and science software, 2. Combining existing websites, and
3. Self created activities” (personal interview, November 8, 2005).
Facilities and space. The principal and the lead teacher pointed out the
critical need for facilities to start this kind o f program. The first thing to consider,
according to the lead teacher, is the space in which to set up the computer lab. Any
school interested can convert an old classroom into a computer lab, but it will require
wiring and the installation of a server. If one is designing a lab from scratch, it can
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
then be designed to accommodate all computers. If converting an already used
classroom into a lab, the number of computers will be limited by the available space.
As of present, MSA has two computer labs to accommodate 28 students per session.
After space considerations comes the wiring and installation of the firewalls,
filtering system, and the units. According to the lead teacher, the filtering system
filters out inappropriate content so that students are not endangered through the
Internet. He also noted the option of using either regular electric wiring or a wireless
system. According to him, even though the wireless technology is more efficient, it
is also more expensive. He did not recommend it because o f the considerable start-up
cost, which is usually higher than maintenance costs. After installing the units and
connecting them to both servers and the Internet, the next phase will be to plan the
implementation. This will involve designing the assignments and activities for the
teachers to use.
Professional Development
The Magnolia Science Academy conducts minor professional development
activities during the school year and a major one during the summer. According to
the principal, the staff comes together for a week or two during the summer, during
which time the math and science teachers work with the computer teachers to create
student assignments that will be used in the coming school year. For example, during
the last summer the faculty met to discuss how new teachers that the school hired
would be trained so they can teach with technology. The session also involved an
orientation for the new teachers on school regulations pertaining to use of computers
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
by both students and teachers. Also, during the school year teachers collaborate to
create more assignments and activities for use in the computer lab depending on the
needs of students.
Supporting Documents
The following supporting documents related to the promising practice of
using technology in teaching at MSA can be found on the school’s Web site,
www.magnoliascience.org (MSA, 2001):
1. Schedule of teachers
2. Description of courses and programs
3. The bell schedule for classes
4. Policies governing technology integration
Recommended Resources
Math and science programs.
1. Brain Pop - www.brainpop.com
2. United Streaming - www.unitedstreaming.com
3. Hey Math - www.heymath.net
4. Geometer Sketchpad - www.geometersketchpad.com
5. Carnegie Algebra - www.camegie.com
6. Math and Science Gizmos - www.exploreleaming.com
Internet resources.
1. California Department of Education - www.aaamath.com
2. Quill Graphics - www.cellsalive.com
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
3. Educational Helper Associates - www.edhelper.com
4. Pittsburgh Public Schools - www.math.pghboe.net
Organizations.
1. FEDCO Grant - www.calfund.org/6/fedco.php. The MSA has secured
technology grants from this organization.
2. Dialogue Foundation - www.dialoguefoundation.org. The foundation is a
non-profit that gives advice on the technology program implementation.
They also recommend other organizations to which grant applications can
be sent.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
Chapter Five
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
This study investigated the promising practice o f using technology in
teaching math and science in charter schools with the aim of improving both
teaching and learning. Insights were gained into the process of implementing the
promising practices by considering the actual teaching, resources involved, and
challenges faced in the implementation o f the practice in the two case studies. Data
were collected and analyzed from each case, which allowed the researcher to explore
and examine issues and conditions within and between cases.
This following discussion first reexamines the original research questions
posed at the outset of the paper. Next, the major findings are discussed in terms of
the current literature. The last sections focus on the implications of the findings for
policy and practice, offer suggestions for further research, and summarize the
conclusions.
The Research Questions
The questions that guided the research included the following:
1. What promising practices in the area of technology do high-performing
charter schools use to teach mathematics and science?
2. How are resources used to implement these promising practices
successfully?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
3. What challenges have charter schools faced in implementing the
promising practices, and how were the problems addressed?
4. What evidence exists that promising practices have resulted in positive
educational outcomes?
Each of these questions will be discussed, taking into consideration the case studies
that were outlined in chapter 4 as well as the background information and context of
the study.
Discussion of the Research Questions
1. What promising practices in the area o f technology do high-performing charter
schools use to teach mathematics and science?
Each of the two charter schools in this study has a distinct promising practice.
The Magnolia Science Academy (MSA) uses the technology to deepen students’
understanding of concepts. After the first exposure to a concept in the regular
classroom, the concept is reinforced in the computer lab. The result is a learning
environment in which students are engaged in constructive learning. As the literature
supports, when students learn by doing, they have a better understanding of the
material.
From the constructive point of view according to Funkhouser (2002/2003),
the role of the teacher is to create an environment that allows for the development
and construction of knowledge, permitting a student to extend her or his views of the
world. Applying constructivism to the integrated classroom is easier made with
technology (Kosakowski, 1998).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
Constructivism, derived from cognitive theory, advocates for using the
newest available technology to expand lessons by including interactivity, nurturing
students’ autonomy, and providing opportunities for collaboration and higher
learning (Kosakowski, 1998). According to Cronin (1997), constructivism allows for
inserting the factual information within the context and content area, instead of
having students memorize lists to acquire knowledge.
The Center for Advanced Research and Technology is also engaged in
constmctive learning, but their promising practice is concerned with using
technology for real-life applications in the classroom. The culture of CART
cultivates an environment in which the students have the opportunity to explore and
be creative in using computers for real-life situations. To help support this, the
school continues to procure cutting-edge technology for their students.
The use of cutting-edge technology challenges students of CART and it
offers exposure to real-world tasks that provide the students with knowledge and
learning. This technique prepares the students with life-skills that go beyond
classroom instructional techniques. For example, Hardwick (2000) suggested that
when technology is introduced as part of the learning process, there is opportunity
for collaboration. Carswell, Thomas, and Petre (2001) suggested that the
combination of an interactive learning group with challenging assignments may
maximize the learning outcome. Bringing in this mode of learning while using
technology to assist in skill mastery gives the student the opportunity to build more
skills than what s/he would gain in a more traditional, lesson-based learning
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
situation. One teacher affirmed by comparison, “They cover twice as much material”
(teacher, personal interview, November 29, 2005).
Research by Hardwick (2000) confirmed that when students are introduced to
problems relating to themselves in their world, they will feel more challenged and
will commit to challenges more easily. An additional attribute of the practice is that
it provides a base for student work. The real-world application gives the students the
opportunity to become productive participants in the community in which they live.
In learning problem-solving skills in the computer labs, the students find the
answers to the problems presented to them whether the answers come from a book, a
team member, or a forum made up of staff members. Due to the flexibility of being
able to learn several state-of-the-art technologies, teachers work more to facilitate
rather than teach, and they are not expected to know every computer application. The
learning is up to the student.
In both cases studies, students were actively involved in their own learning.
Chen’s research (2002) suggested that by giving the students more responsibility and
involvement in their own learning activities, students are actively involved in
reorganizing their existing knowledge with new information. The researcher
observed examples of self-instructed learning, students using problem-solving skills,
and self-reflection strategies in the labs. The student who was assigned to show the
researcher around the complex, as well as the teacher interviews, affirmed that the
lab experience helps students improve their problem-solving skills. A common
improvement the teachers noted is that students develop confidence in their own
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
learning abilities. The student who was assigned to show the researcher around the
facilities remarked, “The stuff that I know right now, I do not think those students in
the universities know it. My GPA has improved a lot and my mom is very happy that
I am here” (personal communication, November 29, 2005).
Despite each school’s uniqueness in terms of its promising practice, there
were some common elements of their cultures that are worthy of further discussion.
For instance, there was a spirit of cooperation and strong relationships among the
teachers at both schools. They seemed to work well together, and there was a climate
of openness, mutual respect, and trust. This finding is in keeping with the work of
Krueger and Parish (1982), who, in their study of five districts, found that the key to
program implementation and continuation was the interactive relationships of
teachers in getting things done.
The principals identified “collaboration” as an important element in
facilitating the promising practices at their sites. At MSA, the computer teachers
collaborate with the core subject teachers to produce assignments and lesson plans.
At CART, three or more teachers may conduct the learning that goes on in the lab.
The phenomenon works to the advantage of both schools. This view is consistent
with Fullan’s work (1991), which contended that power for change lies within the
notion of teacher collaboration.
Another similarity between the schools was the stability of the staff over
time. The continuity of the staff seemed to influence staff relations, as identified by
both the teachers and the principals interviewed at the school sites. At CART, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
majority of the teachers have been on staff since the inception of the school, and they
worked through the initial organization together. The stability of the staff at both
schools was an important factor influencing the implementation of the promising
practice.
Principals need to know and understand the intricacies of the promising
practice at the school sites. They play a key role in establishing and maintaining a
school culture that supports the integration of computer technology into the
curriculum. Research indicates that teachers need considerable support to integrate
technology into the curriculum, including a nurturing work environment that
provides opportunities for teachers to take risks and collaborate with one another
(Bailey, 1996). MacNeil and Delafield (1998) argued that a faculty that becomes
more comfortable with the ideas of technology will more easily integrate it into the
curriculum.
2. How are resources used to implement these promising practices successfully?
Human and material resources support the promising practices of both
schools in this study. The human resources include the teachers, lead teachers,
technical support team, principal, and other staff. As was evident in the interviews,
all of these people play important roles in implementing the promising practices. In
addition, material resources, including the gadgets, hardware, software, and so on,
are also paramount in the implementation.
In both schools, the combination of both resources to enhance the promising
practice of technology integration can be seen in their professional development
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
activities. At MSA, they organize professional development activities in the summer
before the beginning of the school year. At CART, their teacher training activities
are ongoing.
In the literature review, professional development is identified as a factor in
enabling teachers to integrate computer technology into the curriculum. Dexter et al.
(2002) confirmed in their study that most teachers do not receive adequate
instructional support for this purpose. The principals and teachers interviewed in this
study, however, painted a picture of satisfaction with the training that teachers
receive. This difference may be due to the fact that these are charter schools rather
than public schools.
Reed (2003) asserted that professional development for teachers of pre-K-12
classrooms is important, and deemed it a critical component for the effective use of
technology in the classroom. In this study, the “desk practices” (described as training
of teachers by teachers), which is a component of professional development
activities, have positive implications in what teachers take to the classroom from
such professional development activities. CART, for example, gave a number of
opportunities for professional growth by offering various professional development
activities for the teachers to choose from. This model eschews the “one size fits all”
approach that often discourages teachers. It also reduces the likelihood that
professional development activities will be viewed as only large-scale, isolated
events over which the participants have little or no control. Consequently, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
problem of having little time for growth (as noted by Loucks-Horesely, 1998) is
reduced.
As differentiated opportunities for professional growth take the form of
collaboration between teachers, those with various skill levels in technology
integration develop interdependent dispositions that nurture the confidence to take
risks (Bareli, 2003). Having diverse professional development activities also conveys
to teachers that they, as with most learners, process ideas and information in different
ways. Therefore, most schools consist of teachers whose skill and knowledge levels
vary considerably when beginning the process of learning new information, like
those associated with integrating instructional technology into the classroom. Typical
professional development opportunities for instructional technology integration often
disregard this critical reality and generally perpetuate a sense that all teachers enter
the learning process with common knowledge, skills, and dispositions (Erlanger &
Roblyer, 1998).
Planning and collaboration is another way that human and technology
resources have been used in enhancing the promising practices described in this
study. There is planning and collaboration in MSA between the teachers of
technology and the core teachers in designing lesson plans and assignments for the
students. This is also the case with CART; more than one teacher plans and teaches a
class in a cluster. Teachers are often scared of appearing foolish or inadequately
prepared by their lack of technical knowledge, but this collaboration among the
teacher group serves to reduce fears related to technology use. Working with
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
colleagues who feel comfortable highlighting student expertise can help reduce the
perception that the teacher must be the expert and center of all instruction in the
classroom. Collaborative efforts also serve to emphasize the benefits of technology
use, which can help diminish the perception that efforts to learn a certain technology
will not yield results.
As mentioned above, planning is key to successful integration. Valdez (1995)
reported that most research studies on technology implementation show that much of
the frustration with technology can be attributed to inadequate or non-existent
planning. Planning is essential in realizing school goals. Leithwood and Jantzi (1999)
contended that planning processes contribute to school effectiveness, for example, to
the extent that they bring together local needs and district goals into a shared school
vision (Hargraves & Hopkins, 1991; Mortimore, 1993). Important influences on
school-level planning for the two case study schools included the planning process,
the coordinated and focused plan itself, and the curriculum support.
Evidence from the two schools in the study also showed that there was a
positive relationship between the technical support provided by the school and the
district and the use of technology by teachers. Having the computers “working fine”
was of prime importance to the teachers and an important factor that influenced their
use in the classroom. This view is consistent with Dexter et al.’s study (2002), which
found that the quality of technology support has an impact on whether or not
teachers use technology.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
3. What challenges have charter schools faced in implementing the promising
practices, and how were the problems addressed?
The challenges identified by those interviewed for this study are not very
different from the ones highlighted in the literature. However, common themes such
as teacher resistance to new technology that had been cited in earlier studies
(Tillman, 1998; Zhao & Frank, 2003) were not identified. Again, it is possible that
being an innovative charter school is a factor here. Morton’s study (1996) focused on
the factors affecting the integration of computers in the high school, which included
anxiety, self-confidence, perceived relevance, pedagogical practices, staff
development, access to resources, and policy formulation. These were not found to
be factors militating against the use of technology in teaching at the schools included
in this study.
This study identified funding as the most important challenge facing the
schools in the case studies. The others, which are less significant and can be dealt
with decisively, are time and logistics. All of these findings have been documented
in previous studies dealing with technology in instruction. However, the logistics
problems are quite different at the two schools: While CART has a problem of
ensuring that their students have the capability to do their computer assignments
from home and school, MSA has the problem of dealing with the computer
competencies of students admitted to grades other than the sixth. As stated
previously, MSA is dealing with the problem by providing orientation to those
admitted into Grades 7 through 12.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
Funding is a factor affecting the integration of technology in teaching, as
identified in this study and well-documented in researches in the past. For example,
in the studies by Rogers (1999) and Hooper and Rieber (1995), a barrier to
successfully implementing technology in teaching is the availability of funds,
especially for much needed hardware and software. Rogers stated,
Lack of funding contributes to internal and external barriers. Funding could
be needed to purchase or upgrade hardware and software. However, lack of
appropriate and adequate funding could be traced to choices for allocating
funds for particular disciplines, programs, or schools, (p. 44)
The principals of each of the schools said that they would intensify their grant
writing approaches and strategies to keep the funds flowing in their schools so that
the promising practices can be sustained.
As identified by the interviewees, time is needed for planning technology
integration. Teachers need time to plan. This is provided by the administration of
both schools, but it is not enough. Planning a lesson with which technology will be
used in facilitating a class is not the same as planning a traditional lesson. According
to the network administrator at CART, the teacher should know more than the
student. The “knowing more” than the student entails preparing for two things: One
is the subject matter, the other is the computer aspect. This is unlike the planning that
goes into a traditional lesson, and more time is needed. Rieber and Welliver (1989)
stated, “Lack of time to develop new courseware and new skills were barriers.
Personal time for teachers to build the necessary skills or to create new material
could be barriers for teachers just starting to use new technologies” (p. 12). The
principal at CART seeks to remedy the problem by planning with her technology
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
committee, and the principal at MSA plans to hire youthful and technology savvy
teachers that can integrate technology with math and science more easily.
4. What evidence exists that the promising practice has resulted in positive
educational outcomes?
There are positive outcomes documented by the study as a result of the
promising practice of using technology in teaching: Increased student achievements
on standardized tests, improved school attendance, growth in cumulative GPA, and,
of course, increased motivation on the part of the students to keep learning. The
literature is rich in evidence of technology creating all of these positive outcomes.
Those interviewed in this study believe that student learning is enhanced
through the use of technology. They also expressed their belief that technology
provides a critical element of preparing students for future education and
employment. These beliefs are supported by large-scale research, such as that
conducted by the Milken Foundation (1998). The report, “Technology in American
Schools: 7 Dimensions for Gauging Progress,” substantiates local teachers’
perceptions that technology
... accelerates, deepens, and enriches basic skills ... motivates and engages
students in learning ... helps relate academics to the practice of today’s work
force ... increases economic viability of tomorrow’s workers ... strengthens
teaching ... contributes to change in school ... [and] connects school to the
world, (p. 43)
That teachers inherently understand and openly express their beliefs in these trends is
indicative of their willingness to use technology in their instructional practice.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 0 8
There are studies consistent with the findings of this study that students’
performance increases by using technology in instruction. For example: In a meta
analysis study, Christmann, Badgett, and Lucking (1997) compared the academic
achievement of students in Grades 6 through 12 who received traditional instruction
or traditional instruction supplemented with computer-assisted instruction (CAI)
across eight curricular areas. From the 42 conclusions, they found an overall mean
effect size of 0.21, indicating that on average, students receiving traditional
instruction supplemented with CAI attained higher academic achievement than did
the 58.2% of those receiving only traditional instruction. They reported that their
meta-analysis showed that CAI is an effective intervention for improving students’
academic achievement. Christmann et al. (1997) also contended that the result of
their meta-analysis study lends support to the assumption that CAI effects vary
among the different subject areas. For example, “it appears to have its strongest
effect among science students; whereas its effects are weaker in mathematics, and
weakest in the area of English” (p. 292).
The data in this study showed that improved student scores is only one of
several ways that the promising practice of using technology in teaching has
produced positive student outcomes. In CART, for example, there has been increased
attendance, fewer behavior problems, and increased motivation. Beyond the obvious
benefits of promoting a familiarity with technology that will serve students in any
number of current and future endeavors, proponents of technology integration cite
the positive impact that instructional technology integration has on school climate
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
and student engagement and motivation (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, 2000). Related
research suggests that technology use has a positive impact on student attendance
and drop-out rates, and also enhances feelings of independence and responsibility
(Coley et al., 1997).
In addition, the integration o f technology is associated with more time on task
in the classroom. As educators, we can appreciate the fact that time on task is an
important component of purposeful schooling, as well as student motivation,
achievement, and active involvement. Sarason (1995) described the connection
between purposeful schooling and motivation thusly: “The student knows that the
more you know, the more you need to know.... To want to continue to explore, to
find answers to personally meaningful questions, issues, and possibilities is the most
important purpose of schooling” (p. 135).
As mentioned in the discussion of research question one, a positive outcome
from this research is the constructive learning in which students are engaged. The
students obtain knowledge by feeling, seeing, and manipulating through hands-on
activities. This finding is consistent with the study by Dixon (1997), which
investigated the effects of a dynamic instructional environment based on the use of
the Geometer’s Sketchpad in a computer lab and visualization on 241 eighth-grade
students’ construction on the concepts of reflection and rotation. The effects of the
environment on students’ two and three dimensional visualization were also
investigated.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Four classes consisting of 109 students were assigned to the treatment group
and were taught by the researcher; 132 students from five classes were assigned to
the control group and were taught by their regular mathematics teachers. Both the
treatment and control groups were taught to use the Geometer’s Sketchpad prior to
the collection o f data. Then all classes were given the Card Rotation and Paper
Folding Tests. Students in the control group were then taught about the concepts of
reflection and rotation using chapters from their textbooks. In the treatment group,
the students were taught in the computer lab using the Geometer’s Sketchpad. The
reflection and rotation units for both groups of students lasted for about 3 weeks. The
control group used mirrors, a program called Miras, and paper folding in addition to
their textbooks. The treatment group did not use any textbook; the researcher
planned all lessons in such a way that any middle school teacher with adequate
knowledge of geometry and computer software could use the lesson plans. Students
in both the treatment and control groups were given the Card Rotation Test, the
Paper Folding Test, the paper and pencil Reflection/Rotation Instrument, and the
computer Reflection/Rotation Instrument directly following the instruction on the
concepts of reflection and rotation. The researcher concluded that use of the
Geometer’s Sketchpad in a dynamic instructional environment was an effective
medium through which to construct the concepts of reflection and rotation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I l l
Major Findings of the Study
The following are the major findings of the study:
1. Teachers were more wiling to be involved in the professional
development activities because of the structure of having teachers lead
the sessions and the room for differentiated professional growth. This is
also part of the “desk practices” explained by one of the principals, which
referred to the act of teachers training teachers.
2. In both schools there was constructive teaching and learning due to the
use of technology.
3. The promising practice of using technology in teaching led to increased
student achievement in the two case studies, as evidenced in their
standardized test scores.
4. The practice has lead to other positive outcomes like increased
motivation, increased attendance rate, increased mean GPA, and fewer
behavior problems among students.
5. Collaboration and planning are key to the successful implementation of
technology in instruction.
6. As expected, the problems associated with the implementation of the
promising practice of teaching math and science with technology is (a)
funding to replace old equipment and to purchase the necessary software
and (b) the time necessary for teachers to plan and collaborate.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
7. The next challenge is to customize lesson plans to enable every student to
benefit from instruction.
Implications for Policy and Practice
Teachers
The findings of this study are useful in several ways for a teacher who hopes
to integrate technology in his or her teaching: First, the study highlighted the
resources and planning that is involved in each promising practice of using
technology in teaching. This information should equip teachers with the knowledge
of software and hardware needs, and it should provide them with a sense of what it
takes for two or more teachers to plan lessons. Second, the study highlighted what is
there to be gained from using technology in teaching in the way employed by both
schools in this study. For example, instead of standing in front of the class to deliver
lectures (which is, by the way, more taxing), a teacher can act as a facilitator by
providing activities that will enable the students to discover and construct their own
learning. Also, teachers should know that it is easier to be innovative when they
teach with technology than with the traditional teaching method.
Principals
The implication of this study for principals is in the area of resources
management and professional development for teachers. Principals should
understand that instructional technology integration will vary in appearance and
complexity depending on a teacher’s instructional and formative learning
circumstances. While seemingly obvious, this becomes an important factor when
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
creating or supporting professional growth opportunities that challenge the
prescriptive nature of many professional plans and activities for instructional
technology integration— an endeavor that the research suggests is often unsuccessful
for any meaningful instructional change (Kimble, 1999). The understanding and
support for varied types of professional growth and progress towards integrating
technology could manifest themselves in supportive discussions and evaluations of
teacher performance during the school year.
If principals and teachers are committed to an integrated approach for using
computer technology to enhance student learning, then the issue around management
and organization of computer integration needs to be embedded into the overall
school plan. Principals, together with teachers, must decide the best way to integrate
computer technology into the mathematics and science curriculum.
Policy Makers
The implication of the findings here to district leaders and policy makers is
that they must identify the need and the establish goals for using technology in
teaching math and science. Next, they must consider the materials that will go into it.
Following this, they must plan an improvement process and identify how and where
instructional technology can support the improvement process. There also needs to
be a deliberate process to measure not only the success of the curriculum but also the
degree to which the available tools contribute to the success. For example, the
district leaders might want to know if a particular software program is aligned with
the curriculum.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
Researchers
The data that have emerged from this study offers a foundation for building
classrooms integrated with technology and demonstrates careful planning for the
effective use of technology in a program aimed at raising the standards to a
challenging level for students. This study indicated that students’ performance and
achievement improved in the case studies. However, more qualitative research
should be conducted within the classroom to gather more evidence and to use the
research to demonstrate the progression of learning in the technology classroom, as
well as to discuss the uses of technology that support learning performance and
achievement.
Suggestions for Further Research
This research produced four areas in which additional inquiry might be
conducted. First, this research was conducted in charter schools, which are widely
known to be innovative in their approach to instruction. They are innovative in that
they are free from most of the regulations experienced by the traditional school
system. This implies that charter school teachers will teach differently under normal
circumstances. It would be interesting to replicate this study in a traditional school
system to see the other side of the spectrum: How innovative teachers and
administrators at a traditional school would implement the promising practice of
using technology in teaching.
Second, teachers in this study revealed similarities in how they facilitate
instruction in their classrooms and how they approach professional development for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
instructional technology integration. In all cases, a constructive and inquiry-based
teaching style was described in the interviews and witnessed in the classrooms.
Similarly, teachers in the study reported a professional transformation established, in
large part, on the basis of curiosity, inquiry, trial and error, and immediate access to
the people and resources around them. A further examination of the relationship
between teaching and learning styles of the technology-integrating teacher might
indicate to school leaders whether a particular teacher is inclined to integrate
instructional technology based on classroom instruction that provides students with
the opportunity to engage in constructivist or inquiry-based activities.
Yet another potential area for further study is subject matter preparation.
Technology training for teachers should start during the college years. The
certification or credentialing of teachers should include not only general computer
literacy but also the incorporation of technology into the different subject areas.
Thus, there can be an inquiry into ways that subject matter preparation in areas such
as math and science can emphasize appropriate software use.
Finally, since the research was carried out in California and is specific to
California charter schools, further research is recommended to investigate the
promising practices of using technology in teaching math and science in the charter
schools of other states.
Within the past 10 years, technology has shifted the process of the way
students learn. When teachers prepared curriculum for the general population a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
decade ago, technology savvy educators knew there would be technology application
beyond what was learned and used the year before.
As an instructional tool used to enhance performance and achievement,
technology is emerging as the hook used to create a dynamic learning environment.
This learning environment may lead to students learning the skills needed to solve
real-world problems, a necessary component in American schools if we are to remain
a world leader. Van Zandt (2000) explained, “[As] we moved from an industrial
based culture to an information age, our students needed application and problem
solving skills that [would] encourage their critical thinking skills” (p. 102). Staying a
step ahead of the developing technology by providing our students with the skills and
motivation for successful education is needed and necessary to conduct future
research and development in all subject areas (Van Zandt).
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is structured to improve student
achievement and create the change needed in our schools (NCLB, 2002). The NCLB
Act requires schools to use an instructional approach that works (Reed, 2003). This
act is expected to guide reforms in schools. With the case studies of Magnolia
Science Academy and the Center for Advanced Research and Technology, a shift
occurred that drew schools away from the traditional style of teaching and learning
toward using technology as a learning mechanism. The initiative at these two sites
has the qualities research has deemed necessary for reform to occur in classroom
learning (NCLB, 2002). The stance of the NCLB Act is consistent with the
technology standards of the International Society for Technology in Education
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
(ISTE; see Appendix A and Appendix B). These two presented case studies follow
the prescribed recipe of the NCLB Act and the ISTE standards for students’ growth
in the educational enterprise.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 1 8
REFERENCES
AAAUW Educational Foundation Commission on Technology, Gender, and Teacher
Education. (2000). Teach-savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age.
Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.
Aiken, R. M., & Aditya, J. N. (1997, January). The golden rule and the ten
commandments of teleteaching: Harnessing the power of technology in
education. Education and Information Technology, 2, 5-15.
Ainsworth, S. E., Bibby, P. A., & Wood, D. J. (1998). Analysing the costs and
benefits of multi-representational learning environments. In M. W. Van
Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A. Boshuizen, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning
with multiple representations (pp. 120-134). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Anderson, M. A. (1998). Ongoing staff development— sideways, bubbly, and
chaotic! Multimedia Schools, 5(1), 16-19.
Anderson, L., Adelman, N., Finnigan, K., Cotton, L., Donnelly, B., & Price, T.
(2002). A decade ofpublic charter schools: Evaluation o f the public charter
schools program: 2000-2001: Evaluation report. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
Anderson, J., Boyle, C., & Yost, G. (1985). The geometry tutor. In Proceedings o f
the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1-7). Los
Angeles: IJCAL.
Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow. (1995). Changing the conversation about teaching,
learning and technology: A report on 10 years of ACOT research. Retrieved
January 15, 2002, from http://www.a400.g.akamai.net
Athens, M., & Cohn, G. (1999, January 31). It’s in the book, and it’s wrong; Errors:
U.S. publishers routinely produce attractive textbooks that are shallow and
riddled with factual mistakes. Baltimore Sun, p. 1 A.
Bailey, G. (1996). Technology leadership: Ten essential buttons fo r understanding
technology integration in the 21st century. Retrieved January 20, 2006, from
http://coe.ksu.edu/Bailey/html/currentbuttonart.html
Bareli, J. (2003). Developing more curious minds. Alexandria, VA: Association for
School Curriculum Development.
Barnett, H., & Nichols, C. (1994). Technology takes root. The Executive Educator,
76(5), 40— 42.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119
Barrett, G., & Goebel, J. (1990). The impact of graphing calculators on the teaching
and learning of mathematics. In T. J. Cooney & C. R. Hirsh (Eds.), Teaching
and learning mathematics in the 1990s (pp. 205-211). Reston, VA: National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Becker, H. J. (1985). How schools use computers: Summary o f the first national
survey. Baltimore, MD: Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns
Hopkins University.
Becker, H. J. (1998). Running to catch a moving train: Schools and information
technologies. Theory into Practice, 57(1), 20-30.
Becker, H. J. (1999). Internet use by teachers: Conditions o f professional use and
teacher-directed student-use (Teaching, learning, and computing: 1998
national survey, Report #1). University of California, Irvine, Center for
Research and Organizations. Retrieved January 12, 2005, from
http://www.crito.uci.edu
Becker, H. J., & Ravitz, J. (1999). The influence of computer and Internet use on
teachers’ pedagogical practices and perception. Journal o f Research on
Computing Education, 57(4), 356-384.
Begel, A. (1998, March). Star Logo. Talk presented at Santa Fe Institute Workshop
on GIS Systems and Modeling.
Begel, A. (1999, October). StarLogo: Building a modeling construction kit fo r kids.
Invited talk at Agent Simulation: Applications, Models, and Tools.
Brasford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain,
mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: Committee on Development
in the Science of Learning.
Bushweller, K. (1997, December). Beyond the test scores. Education Vital Signs: A
Supplement to the American School Board Journal, 754(12), 1-3
California Department of Education. (2003). 8th CST algebra results for all and by
ethnicity. Retrieved October 20, 2004, from http://www.edsource.org/pdf/
8thalgebra0203 .pdf
Campbell, P. F., & Stewart, E. L. (1993). Calculators and computers. In R. Jensen
(Ed.), Early childhood mathematics (pp. 251-268). New York: Macmillan.
Carswell, L., Thomas, P., & Petre, M. (2001). Distance Education via the Internet:
The student experience. British Journal o f Educational Technology, 57(1),
12-15.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120
Center for Advanced Research and Technology, (1999). Mission Statement.
Retrieved May 20, 2005, from http://www.cart.org
Chaille, C., & Littman, B. (1985). Computers in early education: The child as theory
builder. New Directions fo r Child Development, 28, 5-18.
Chang, H., Henriquez, A., Honey, M., Light, D., Moeller, B., & Ross, N. (1998). The
Union City story. New York: Education Development Center, Center for
Children and Technology.
Chen, C. (2002). Self-regulated learning strategies and achievement in an
introduction to information systems course. Information Technology,
Learning, and Performance Journal, 20(1), 11-25.
Christmann, E., Badgett, J., & Lucking, R. (1997). Microcomputer-based computer
assisted instruction within differing subject areas: A statistical deduction.
Journal o f Educational Computing Research, 16(3), 281-296.
Christmann, E. P., Lucking, R. A., & Badgett, J. L. (1997). The effectiveness of
computer-assisted instruction on the academic achievement of secondary
students: A meta-analytic comparison between urban, suburban, and rural
educational settings. Computers in the Schools, 13, 31-41.
Clayton Foundation. (1999). 1998 Colorado charter school evaluation study: The
characteristics, status and student achievement data o f Colorado charter
schools. Denver: Colorado Department of Education.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper Series as an
example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and
assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27, 291-315.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper Project: Lessons
in curriculum instruction, assessment, and professional development.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coley, R. J., Cradler, J., & Engel, P. K. (1997). Computers and classrooms: The
status o f technology in U.S. schools. Retrieved January 22, 2004, from
http://www.ets.org/ research/pic/pir.html
Collins, J., Hammond, M., & Wellington, J. (1997). Teaching and learning with
multimedia. London: Routledge.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
121
Collins, T. S., & Noblit, G. W. (1978). Stratification and resegregation: The case o f
Crossover High School, Memphis, Tennessee. Washington, DC: National
Institute of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
EDI 57954)
Corwin, R. G., & Flaherty. J. F. (Eds.). (1995). Freedom and innovation in
California’ s charter schools. Los Alamitos, CA: Southwest Regional
Laboratory.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cronin, P. (1997). Learning and assessment o f instruction. Unpublished report,
Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Centre for Cognitive Science. Retrieved
January 30, 2005, from http://www.cogsi.edu.ac.uk/-paulus/WorlUVranded/
litconsa.htm
Daley, G. A., & Norman, J. S. (2005). Learning from charter schools in Los Angeles
(Publication No. 266). Los Angeles: LAUSD Planning, Assessment and
Research Division.
David, J. L. (1994). Realizing the promise of technology: A policy perspective. In B.
Means (Ed.), Technology and education reform (pp. 169-198). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Demana, F., & Waits, B. K. (1992). A computer for all students. The Mathematics
Teacher, 85, 94-95.
Dexter, S., Anderson, R., & Ronnkvist, A. (2002). Quality technology support: What
is it? Who has it? And what difference does it make? Journal o f Educational
Computing Research, 26(3), 265-285.
Dick, T. (1992). Super calculators: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and
assessment. In C. R. Flirsch, J. T. Fey, & the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics (Eds.), Calculators in Mathematics Education: Yearbook o f the
National Council o f Teachers o f Mathematics (pp. 145-157). Reston, VA:
The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Dixon, J. K. (1997). Computer use and visualization in students’ construction and
reflection and rotation concepts. School Science and Mathematics, 97(1),
352-358.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
122
Dockstader, J. (1999). Teachers of the 21st century know the what, why, and how of
technology integration. T.H.E. Journal, 26(6), 73-74.
Dunham, P. H. (1995). Calculator use and gender issues. Association fo r Women in
Mathematics Newsletter, 25(2), 16-18.
Dupagne, M., & Krendl, K. A. (1992). Teachers’ attitude toward computers: A
review of the literature. Journal o f Research on Computing in Education,
24(3), 420-429.
Dusick, D. M. (1998). What social cognitive factors influence faculty members use
of computers for teaching? A literature review. Journal o f Research on
Computing in Education, 31(2), 123-137.
Dwyer, D. (1994). Apple classrooms of tomorrow: What we’ve learned. Educational
Leadership, 51, 4-10.
Ely, D. (1999). Toward a philosophy of instructional technology: Thirty years on.
British Journal o f Education Technology, 30, 305-310.
Erlanger, W., & Roblyer, M. (1998). Preparing Internet-ready teachers. Learning &
Leading With Technology, 26(4), 58-61.
Fatemi, E. (1998). High tech pathways to better schools. Technology Counts 1998, a
special issue of Education Week, 23-68. Retrieved July 10, 2003, from
http//: www.edweek.org/ sreports/tc98/
Fisher, C., Dwyer, D., & Yocan, E. (Eds.). (1996). Education and technology:
Reflections on computing in classrooms. San Francisco: Apple Press.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning o f educational change. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Fulton, K. (1999). How teachers ’ beliefs about teaching and learning are reflected in
their use o f technology: Case studies from urban middle schools.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland. Retrieved
February 19, 2005, from http://www.leam.umd.edu/fulton/
Funkhouser, C. (2002/2003). The effects of computer-augmented geometry on
student performance and attitudes. Journal o f Research on Technology in
Education, 35(2), 163-175.
George, G., & Camarata, M. R. (1996). Managing instructor cyber anxiety: The role
of self-efficacy in decreasing resistance to change. Educational Technology,
36(4), 49-54.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
123
Gifford, M., Phillips, K., & Ogle, M. (2000). Five-year charter study. Phoenix, AZ:
Center for Market-Based Education, Gold-Water Institute.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research.
In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook o f qualitative research
(pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hamel, J., Dufour, S., & Fortin, D. (1993). Case study methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Hancock, V. E. (1993). Technology: The at-risk student. Educational Leadership,
50. Retrieved July 1, 2005, from
http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/9212/ hancock.html
Hardwick, S.W. (2000). Humanizing the technology landscape through collaborative
pedagogy. Journal o f Geography in Higher Education 24(1), 123-129.
Hardy, J. Y. (1998). Teacher attitudes toward and knowledge of computer
technology. Computers in the Schools, 14(3/4), 119-136.
Hargraves, A., & Hopkins, D. (1991). The empowered school. London: Cassell.
Heid, M. K. (1998). Resequencing skills and concepts in applied calculus using the
computer as a tool. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19( 1),
3-25.
Hiebert, J., & Weame, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and
students’ learning in second-grade arithmetic classrooms. American
Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 393^-25.
Hodas, S. (1996). Technology refusal and the organizational culture of schools. In R.
Kling (Ed.), Computerization and controversy, value conflicts and social
choices (2n d ed.) (197-218). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hooper, S. & Rieber, L. (1995). Teaching with technology. In A.C. Omstein (Ed.),
Teaching: Theory into practice, (pp. 154-170). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn
and Bacon.
Howe, R. (1998). The AMS and mathematics education: The revision of the NCTM
standards. Notices o f the AMS, 45(2), 243-247. Retrieved October 1, 2004,
from http://www.ams.org/govemment/nctm2000.html
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
124
Hubbard, L. (2000). Technology-based math curriculums, custom built for today’s
classroom. Technology Horizons in Education Journal, 28(3), 80-
84.Retrieved January 30, 2005, from
http://www.joumal.com/magazine/vault/A3129.cfm
International Society for Technology in Education. (2004). National standards fo r
educational uses o f technology. Retrieved January 22, 2005, from
http://www.cnets.iste.org
Jonassen, D. H.., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A
constructivist perspective. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.
Kaiser, J. (1985). The development o f CAI: An expert system in education. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED304483)
Kellenberger, D. (1996). Preservice teacher’s perceived computer self-efficacy based
on achievement and value beliefs within a motivational framework. Journal
o f Research on Computing in Education, 29(2), 124-135.
Kimble, C. (1999). The impact o f technology on learning: Making sense o f the
research. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Regional Education Laboratory.
Kitabchi, G. (1987). Evaluation o f the Apple classroom tomorrow. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED295600)
Knupter, N. N. (1995). Teachers and educational computing: Changing roles and
changing pedagogy. In R. Muffoletto & N. Knupter (Eds.), Computers in
Education. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Kosakowski, J. (1998). The benefits o f information technology. Syracuse: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Information and Technology. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service. No. ED420302)
Krueger, J. P., & Parish, R. (1982). W e’re making the same mistakes: Myth and
legend in school improvement. Planning and Changing 13(3), 131-140.
Kulik, J. A. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction.
In E. L. Kaker & H. F. O’Neal (Eds.), Technology assessment in education
and training (pp. 9-33). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1987). Computer-based instruction: What 200
evaluations say. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED285521)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
125
Lehrer, R. (1993). Authors of knowledge: Patterns of hypermedia design. In S.
Lajoie & S. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 192-227).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). The effects o f transformational leadership on
organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Retrieved
August 25, 2005, from http://www.hku.hk/educeWisitor_
ProfLeithwoodJEA.htm
Lewis, C. C., & Tsuchida, I. (1998). A lesson is like a swiftly flowing river.
American Educator, 21(3), 12-17, 50-52.
Liao, Y. K., & Bright, G. W (1991). Effects of computer programming on cognitive
outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal o f Research on Computing in Education,
24, 267-380.
Lieberman, A. (1996). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming
conceptions of professional learning. In M. W. McLaughlin & I. Oberman
(Eds.), Teacher learning: New policies, new practices (pp. 185-201). New
York: Teacher College Press.
Linn, M. C., & His, S. (2000). Computer, teachers, peers: Science learning partners.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lipsey, N. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy o f psychological, educational,
and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analyses. American
Psychologist, 75(12), 1181-1209.
Loucks-Horsely, S. (1998). Designing professional development fo r teachers o f
science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
MacNeil, A., & Delafield, D. (1998, March). Principal leadership fo r successful
school technology implementation. Paper presented at the meeting of The
Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education.
Magnolia Science Academy. (2001). Mission statement. Retrieved April 2, 2005,
from http://www.magnoliascience.org
Mann, D., & Shafer, E. A. (1997). Technology and achievement. The American
School Board Journal, 184(1), 22-23.
Mason, R. (1995). IT and learning: Introduction. In N. Heap, R. Thomas, G. Einon,
R. Mason, & H. Mackay (Eds.), Information technology and society: A
reader (pp. 171-181). London: Sage.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
126
McConnan, M., & Crews, T. (2000). Assessing the technology training needs of
elementary school teachers. The Journal o f Technology and Teacher
Education, 8(2), 111-121.
McKinnon, D. C. (1997, March). Longitudinal case study o f attitudes, motivation,
and performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Education Research Association, Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED408350)
Means, B., Blando, T., Olson, K., & Middleton, T. (1993). Using technology to
support education reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (1997). Qualitative research and case study application in education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Milken Exchange & International Society for Technology in Education. (1998). Will
new teachers be prepared t teach in the digital age? Educational Digest,
65{2), 33-87.
Milken Foundation. (1998). The effect o f present day technology on students ’
learning. Retrieved August 26, 2005, from http://www.milkenexchange.org
Miron, G., & Nelson, C. (2002). What is public about charter schools? Lessons
learned about choice and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology implementation (LOTi): A framework for
measuring classroom technology use. Learning and Leading with
Technology, 23(3), 40-42.
Morrell, P. D. (1992). The effects of computer assisted instruction on student
achievement in high school biology. School Science and Mathematics, 92(4),
177-181.
Mortimore, P. (1993). School effectiveness and management of effective learning
and teaching. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 4, 290-310.
Morton, A. (1996). Factors affecting the integration o f computers in Western Sydney
Secondary Schools. New South Wales, Australia. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED396737)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
127
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2000). Teacher’ s tools fo r the 21st
century: A report on teachers ’ use o f technology: Washington, DC: Office of
Educational Research and Improvement.
National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectations o f excellence:
Curriculum standards fo r social sciences. Silver Spring, MD: Author.
National Council for Teachers of English. (1996). Standards fo r the English
language arts. Urbana, IL: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation
standards fo r school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards fo r
teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Research Council. (1999). Being fluent with information technology.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
No Child Left Behind Act (2000). Promoting educational excellence fo r Americans.
U.S. Department of Education Website. Retrieved June 30, 2005, from
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml
O’Connor, J., & Brie, R. (1994). Mathematics and science partnerships: Products,
people, performance and multimedia. Computing Teacher, 22, 27-30.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York:
Basic Books.
Price, J. H. (1998). America’s quiet revolution. Insight on the News, 14(23), 40^15.
Reed, R. (2003). Streaming technology improved student achievement. T.H.E.
Journal, 30(7), 14-20.
Reeves, T. C. (1998). The impact o f media and technology in schools: A research
report prepared for The Bertelsmann Foundation. Retrieved January 22,
2005, from
http://www.athensacademy.org/instruction/media_tech/reevesO.html
Rein, D. (1999). What is effective integration o f technology, and does it make a
difference? Retrieved December 1, 2004, from http://www.121.org/iclt/2000/
papers/18 la.pdf
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
128
Reynolds, K. (2000). Innovations in charter schools. A summary o f innovative or
unique aspects o f Michigan charter schools. Kalamazoo: Evaluation Center,
Western Michigan University.
Rieber, L. & Welliver, P. (1989). Infusing educational technology into mainstream
educational computing. Retrieved January 30, 2005, from
http://www.jtwn.kl2.pa.us/users/sja/TI.html
Rogers, P. (1999). Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education.
Minnesota State Colleges and University System. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED429556)
Ross, S. M., Anand, P. G., & Morrison, G. R. (1988). Putting the student into the
word problem: Microcomputer-based strategies that personalize math
instruction. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 10(2), 29-42.
Ryan, A. W. (1991). Meta-analysis of achievement of effects of microcomputer
applications in elementary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly,
27, 161-184.
Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology.
Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sarason, S. (1995). How to make sure your professional development investment
pays off. Providence, R.I.: Brown University, Regional Laboratory for
Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands.
Schofield, J. W. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Silverstein, G., Fretchling, J., & Miyoaka, A. (2000). Evaluation o f the use o f
technology in Illinois public schools: Final report. Prepared for Research
Division, Illinois State Board of Education. Rockville, MD: Westat.
Sivin-Kachala, J. & Bialo, E. R. (1994). Report on the effectiveness o f technology in
schools 1990-1994. Washington, DC: Software Publishers Association.
Sivin-Kachala, J., & Bialo, E. R. (2000). 2000 research report on the effectiveness o f
technology in schools (7th ed.). Washington, DC: Software and Information
Industry Association.
Slavit, D. B. (1994, April). The effect o f graphing calculators on students ’
conceptions o f functions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED374811)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
129
Smith, K. B. (1994). Studying different methods of technology integration for
teaching problem solving with systems of equations and inequalities and
linear programming. Journal o f Computers in Mathematics and Science
Teaching, 13(4), 465— 479.
Spoeher, K. (1994). Enhancing the acquisition of conceptual structures through
hypermedia. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive
theory and classroom practice (pp. 75-101). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stake, R. (1995). The art o f case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stigler, J. W., Gonzales, P., Kawanka, T., Knoll, S., & Serrano, A. (1999). The
TIMSS videotape classroom study. Methods and findings from an exploratory
research project on eighth-grade mathematics instruction in Germany,
Japan, and the United States (U.S. Department of Education, National Center
for Education Statistics NCES 99-074). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’ s
best teachers fo r improving education in the classroom. New York: Free
Press.
Sudzina, M. R. (1993). Technology, teachers, and educational reform: Implications
fo r teacher preparation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED355207)
Swan, K., & Mitrani, M. (1993). The changing nature of teaching and learning in
computer-based classrooms. Journal o f Research on Computing Education,
26, 40-54.
Taylor, J., & Laurillard, D. (1995). Supporting resource based learning. In N. Heap,
R. Thomas, G. Einon, R. Mason, & H. Mackay (Eds.), Information
technology and society (pp. 237-248). London: Sage.
Teske, P., Schneider, M., Buckley, J., & Clark, S. (2000). Does charter school
competition improve traditional public schools? New York: Manhattan
Institute for Policy Research.
Tillis, W. (1997). Introduction to case study. The Qualitative Report, 3(2), 9-15.
Retrieved June 27, 2005, from http://www.nova.edu/sss/QR/QR3-
2/tellisl.html
Tillman, M. (1998). The Internet, Internet curriculum materials, and constructivist
learning theory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED425706)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
130
Trout, C. R. (1993). The effect of a computer algebra system in intermediate college
algebra (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1993).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 04A.
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Evaluation o f the public charter schools
program'. Year one evaluation report. Washington, DC: Office of the Under
Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service, Elementary and Secondary
Program Division.
Valdez, G. (1995). Learning through technology: A planning and implementation
guide. Retrieved August 25, 2005, from North Central Regional Educational
Laboratory Web site: http://www.milkenexchange.org/feature/valdez.html
Van Zandt, A. (Producer). (2000). EAST Project. [Motion picture], (Available from
Arkansas Department of Education, EAST Initiative, 8201 Ranch Blvd.,
Little Rock, AR, 72223)
Viteli, J. (1989). Helping students to solve word math problems: CAI as an
alternative method o f instruction. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED320557)
Waxman, H. C., & Huang, S. L. (1996). Classroom instruction differences by level
of technology use in middle school mathematics. Journal o f Education
Computing Research, 14, 147-159.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities o f practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.
London: Cambridge University Press.
Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational
technology and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service Policy Information Center.
Wiske, M. S. (1998). What is teaching for understanding? In M. S. Wiske (Ed.),
Teaching to understanding: Linking research with practice (pp. 61-87). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wohlstetter, P., Wenning, R., & Briggs, K. L. (1995). Charter schools in the United
States: The question of autonomy. Educational Policy, 9(4), 331-358.
Yalcinalp, S., Geban, O., & Ozkan, I. (1995). Effectiveness of using computer-
assisted supplementary instruction for teaching the mole concept. Journal o f
Research in Science Teaching, 52(10), 1083-1095.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
131
Yang, Y. (1991-1992). The effects of media on motivation and content recall:
Comparison of computer and print-based instruction. Journal o f Education
Systems, 20, 95— 105.
Yazdani, M. (1987). Intelligent tutoring systems: An overview. In R. W. Lawler &
M. Yazdani (Eds.), Artificial intelligence and education: Learning
environments and tutoring systems. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Yin, R. K. (2002). Case study, research design and methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An
ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807-
840.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
132
Appendix A
NATIONAL EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS:
GUIDELINES FOR STUDENTS
1. Basic operations and concepts
• Students demonstrate a sound understanding of the nature and operation of
technology systems.
• Students are proficient in the use of technology.
2. Social, ethical, and human issues
• Students understand the ethical, cultural, and societal issues related to
technology.
• Students practice responsible use of technology systems, information, and
software.
• Students develop positive attitudes toward technology uses that support
lifelong learning, collaboration, personal pursuits, and productivity.
3. Technology productivity tools
• Students use technology tools to enhance learning, increase productivity, and
promote creativity.
• Students use productivity tools to collaborate in constructing technology
enhanced models, prepare publications, and produce other creative works
4. Technology communication tools
• Students use telecommunications to collaborate, publish, and interact with
peers, experts, and other audiences.
• Students use variety of media and formats to communicate information and
ideas effectively to multiple audiences.
5. Technology research tools
• Students use technology to locate, evaluate, and collect information from a
variety of sources.
• Students use technology tools to process data and report results.
• Students evaluate and select new information resources and technological
innovations based on the appropriateness of specific tasks.
6. Technology problem-solving and decision-making tools
• Students use technology resources for solving problems and making informed
decisions.
• Students employ technology in the development of strategies for solving
problems in the real world.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
133
Primary Grades Performance Indicators:
All students should have opportunities to demonstrate the following performances.
Prior to completion of Grade 2 students will:
• Use input devices (e.g., mouse, keyboard, remote control) and output devices
(e.g., monitor, printer) to successfully operate computers, VCRs, audiotapes,
and other technologies. (1)
• Use a variety of media and technology resources for directed and independent
learning activities. (1,3)
• Communicate about technology using developmentally appropriate and
accurate terminology. (1)
• Use developmentally appropriate multimedia resources (e.g., interactive
books, educational software, elementary multimedia encyclopedias) to
support learning. (1)
• Work cooperatively and collaboratively with peers, family members, and
others when using technology in the classroom. (2)
• Demonstrate positive social and ethical behaviors when using technology. (2)
• Practice responsible use of technology systems and software. (2)
• Create developmentally appropriate multimedia products with support from
teachers, family members, or students partners. (3)
• Use technology resources (e.g., puzzles, logical thinking programs, writing
tools, digital cameras, drawing tools) for problem solving, communication,
and illustration of thoughts, ideas, and stories. (3,4,5,6)
• Gather information and communicate with others using telecommunications,
with support from teachers, family members, or student partners. (4)
Elementary Grades Performance Indicators:
All students should have opportunities to demonstrate the following performances.
Prior to completion of Grade 5 students will:
• Use keyboards and other common input and output devices (including
adaptive devices when necessary) efficiently and effectively. (1)
• Discuss common uses of technology in daily life and the advantages and
disadvantages those uses provide. (1,2)
• Discuss basic issues related to responsible use of technology and information
and describe personal consequences of inappropriate use. (2)
• Use general-purpose productivity tools and peripherals to support personal
productivity, remediate skill deficits, and facilitate learning throughout the
curriculum. (3)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
134
Use technology tools (e.g., multimedia authoring, presentation, Web tools,
digital cameras, scanners) for individual and collaborative writing,
communication, and publishing activities to create knowledge products for
audiences inside and outside the classroom. (3,4)
Use telecommunications efficiently and effectively to access remote
information, communicate with others in support of direct and independent
learning, and pursue personal interest. (4)
Use telecommunications and online resources (e.g., e-mail, online
discussions, Web environments) to participate in collaborative problem
solving activities for the purpose developing solutions or products for
audiences inside and outside the classroom. (4,5)
Use technology resources (e.g., calculators, data collection probes, videos,
educational software) for problem-solving, self-directed learning, and
extended learning activities. (5,6)
Determine which technology is useful and select the appropriate tool(s) and
technology resources to address a variety of tasks and problems. (5,6)
Evaluate the accuracy, relevance, appropriateness, comprehensiveness, and
bias of electronic information sources. (6)
Middle School Performance Indicators:
All students should have opportunities to demonstrate the following performances.
Prior to completion of Grade 8 students will:
• Apply strategies for identifying and solving routine hardware and software
problems that occur during everyday use. (1)
• Demonstrate knowledge of current changes in information technologies and
the effects those changes have on the workplace and society. (2)
• Exhibit legal and ethical behaviors when using information technology, and
discuss consequences of misuse. (2)
• Use content-specific tools, software, and simulations (e.g., environmental
probes, graphing calculators, exploratory environments, Web tools) to
support learning and research. (3,5)
• Apply productivity/multimedia tools and peripherals to support personal
productivity, group collaboration, and learning throughout the curriculum.
(3,6)
• Design, develop, publish, and present products (e.g., Web pages, videotapes)
using technology resources that demonstrate and communicate curriculum
concepts to audiences inside and outside the classroom. (4,5,6)
• Collaborate with peers, experts, and others using telecommunications and
collaborative tools to investigate curriculum-related problems, issues, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
135
information, and to develop solutions or products for audiences inside and
outside the classroom. (4,5)
• Select and use appropriate tools and technology resources to accomplish a
variety of tasks and solve problems. (5,6)
• Demonstrate an understanding of concepts underlying hardware, software,
and connectivity, and of practical applications to learning and problem
solving. (1,6)
• Research and evaluate the accuracy, relevance, appropriateness,
comprehensiveness, and bias of electronic information sources concerning
real-world problems.
High School Performance Indicators:
All students should have the opportunities to demonstrate the following
performances.
Prior to completion of Grade 12 students will:
• Identify capabilities and limitations of contemporary and emerging
technology resources and assess the potential of these systems and services to
address personal, lifelong learning, and workplace needs. (2)
• Make informed choices among technology systems, resources and services.
(1,2)
• Analyze advantages and disadvantages of widespread use and reliance on
technology in the workplace and in society as a whole. (2)
• Demonstrate and advocate for legal and ethical behaviors among peers,
family, and community regarding the use of technology and information. (2)
• Use technology tools and resources for managing and communicating
personal/professional information (e.g., finances, schedules, address,
purchases, correspondence). (3,4)
• Evaluate technology-based options, including distance and distribution
education, for lifelong learning. (5)
• Routinely and efficiently use online information resources to meet needs for
collaboration, research, publication, communications, and productivity.
(4,5,6)
• Select and apply technology tools for research, information analysis, problem
solving, decision making in content learning. (4,5)
• Investigate and apply expert systems, intelligent agents, and simulations in
real world situations. (3,5,6)
• Collaborate with peers, experts, and others to contribute to a content-related
knowledge base by using technology to compile, synthesize, produce, and
disseminate information, models, and other creative works. (4,5,6)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
136
Appendix B
NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS:
GUIDELINES FOR TEACHERS
All classroom teachers should be prepared to meet the following standards and
performance indicators.
I. TECHONOLGY OPERATIONS AND CONCEPTS
Teachers demonstrate a sound understanding o f technology operations and
concepts. Teachers:
A. demonstrate introductory knowledge, skills, and understanding of concepts
related to technology (as described in the ISTE National Educational
Technology Standards for Students.
B. demonstrate continual growth in technology and skills to stay abreast of
current and emerging technologies.
II. PLANNING AND DESIGINING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS AND
EXPERIENCES
Teachers plan and design effective learning environments and experiences
supported by technology. Teacher:
A. design developmentally appropriate learning opportunities that apply
technology-enhanced instructional strategies to support the diverse needs of
learners.
B. apply current research on teaching and learning with technology when
planning learning environments and experiences.
C. identify and locate technology resources and evaluate them for accuracy and
suitability.
D. plan for the management of technology resources within the context of
learning activities.
E. plan strategies to manage student learning in a technology-enhanced
environment.
III. TEACHING, LEARNING, AND THE CURRICULUM
Teachers implement curriculum plans that include methods and strategies fo r
applying technology to maximize student learning. Teacher:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
137
A. facilitate technology-enhanced experiences that address content standards and
student technology standards.
B. use technology to support learner-centered strategies that address the diverse
needs of students.
C. apply technology to develop students’ higher-order skills and creativity.
D. manage student learning activities in technology-enhanced environment.
IV. ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION
Teachers apply technology to facilitate a variety o f effective assessment and
evaluation strategies. Teachers:
A. apply technology in assessing student learning of subject matter using a
variety of assessment techniques.
B. use technology resources to collect and analyze data, interpret results, and
communicate findings to improve instructional practice and maximize
student learning.
C. apply multiple methods of evaluation to determine students’ appropriate use
of technology resources for learning, communication, and productivity.
V. PRODUCTIVITY AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
Teachers m e technology to enhance their productivity and professional practice.
Teachers:
A. use technology resources to engage in ongoing professional development and
lifelong learning.
B. continually evaluate and reflect on professional practice to make informed
decisions regarding the use of technology in support of student learning.
C. apply technology to increase productivity.
D. use technology to communicate and collaborate with peers, parents, and the
larger community in order to nurture student learning.
VI. SOCIAL, ETHICAL, LEGAL, AND HUMAN ISSUES
Teachers understand the social, ethical, legal, and human issues surrounding the
use o f technology in PK-12 schools and apply that understanding in practice.
Teachers:
A. model and teach legal and ethical practice related to technology use.
B. Apply technology resources to enable and empower learners with diverse
backgrounds, characteristics, and abilities.
C. identify and use technology resources that affirm diversity.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
138
D. promote safe and healthy use of technology resources.
E. facilitate equitable access to technology resources for all students.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
139
Appendix C
VERBAL SCRIPT FOR TEACHERS
Hello XXX,
As you are probably aware, your school has been nominated to participate in a study
that is going to document promising practices using technology in teaching math and
science. The study will be used by the investigator to write a dissertation as a
requirement for completing a doctoral degree in the Rossier School of Education at
the University of Southern California.
The result of the study will also be part of a compendium compilation of promising
practices put in a website of the Center of Educational Governance for others to
replicate.
Check the appropriate place below and send via mail in the stamped envelop
provided. Please be aware that if you chose to be part of the study, you will be
interviewed and observed in your classroom by the investigator.
Put an X.
________ I want to be part of the study
________ I do not want to be part of the study
Please note that response will be treated as confidential and will not be shared with
your principal or anyone for that matter.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
140
Charter School Profile
School Information
School Name:
Appendix D
CHARTER SCHOOL PROFILE
Researcher:
Date:
Address:
Phone # : Fax #:
Principal’s Name:
Contact Information (if different from Principal):
Email Address:
School Web site:
Promising Practice:
Charter Information
Type of School: Conversion___________ Start up
Year Chartered:__________ Year Opened:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Charter Authorizer:
Student Population Information
Student Enrollment: Current_______
Grades Served: Current________
Enrollment by Subgroups (#/%):
Ethnicity (#)
African American _______
Asian _______
White _______
Hispanic_______
Other _______
{Specify Other_______________)
Teacher Information
Number of Full-time Administrators:___
Number of Full-time Teachers: ___
Teacher Union Membership: Yes
Budget Information
Per Pupil Spending (Year):__ __________
Projected _______
Projected _______
Special Populations (%)
Free/Reduced Lunch _
Special Needs______
E L L______
O ther________
{Specify Other_________
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
142
Appendix E
PRE-SITE PRINCIPAL TELEPHONE INTERVIEW
School Name:______________________________ Date:______________________
Name of Interview Subject:______________________________________________
Researcher:____________________________________________________________
Start Time:__________ End Time:_________ Total Time (minutes):_________
[Introduction]
I am working with the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of
Education. We are studying promising practices in California charter schools.
Through a nomination process, your school was identified as having success in/with
[ promising practice]. The purpose of this interview is to learn more about
[ promising practice] at your school and to schedule a site visit at a time this fall
when it is convenient for you.
The information from this research will be used to create a Web-based compendium
of promising practices. The Web site will be hosted by USC’s Center on Educational
Governance and is part of the MMACCS project - Multiple Measures of
Accountability for California Charter Schools. The goal of the compendium is to
spread new knowledge and innovation about promising practices to inspire educators
to improve school performance.
By participating in this study, your school will get recognition at the annual
California Charter Schools Association conference, publicity in the media, and a
one-year free membership to MMACCS.
This preliminary interview should take only around 5-10 minutes. Is now a good
time? (If not - when would a better time be to talk with you?) Do you have any
questions for me before we begin?
A. Background- Laving the Foundation
1. How long have you been the principal at this school?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
143
2. What is your background and previous experience in education?
3. How long has this school been using the [promisingpractice]1
4. Who else on campus is involved with the [promisingpractice]1
[Probe fo r lead teachers, teachers, parents]
B. Scheduling and Logistics
5. We are planning to visit schools some time this fall, in October or November.
Our visit will last no more than two days and we would like to speak with
you again, along with the other people you mentioned who are involved with
[promising practice]. If possible, we also would like to observe a professional
development session related to [promising practice] [and to visit a few
classrooms].
a. What month and days are best to visit your school?
b. Will it be possible to attend a professional development session
related to
[promising practice] during the visit?
c. [Will we be able to observe a few classrooms during our visit?]
6. Who should we speak with about arranging the visit and scheduling
interviews? I can fax you a schedule and a list of people we would like to
interview.
7. We would also appreciate copies of some school documents before the site
visit. With whom should we speak about getting the documents? I can fax
the list. If this is too burdensome, we can make copies when we visit.
[Closing]
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
144
Thank you very much for your time. I look forward to visiting your school on
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
145
Appendix F
ON-SITE LEAD TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
School Name:______________________________ Date:_____________________
Name of Interview Subject:_____________________________________________
Position:_____________________________________________________________
Researcher:___________________________________________________________
Start Time:__________ End Time:________ Total Time (minutes):________
[Introduction]
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am working with the University of
Southern California’s Rossier School of Education. We are studying promising
practices in California charter schools. Through a nomination process, your school
was identified as having success in/with [promisingpractice]. The purpose of this
interview is to learn more about [promisingpractice] at your school.
The information garnered from this research will be used to develop a Web-based
compendium of promising practices as part of the Multiple Measures of
Accountability for California Charter Schools (MMACCS) project. The goal of the
compendium is to spread new knowledge and innovation about promising practices
to inspire educators to improve school performance.
By participating in this study, your school will get recognition at the annual
California Charter Schools Association conference, publicity in the media, and a
one-year free membership to MMACCS.
This interview should take around 45 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?
A. Theory of Action and History
1. Can you briefly describe [promising practice] at your school?
2. What is the goal of [promising practice]?
3. Please tell me about the history of [promising practice] at your school.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
146
(Probe: How/why did it get started, who were the people initially involved in
developing the practice)
4. Can you tell me a little about your role as lead teacher with respect to (promising
practice]?
5. Who have been the main people involved with the planning and implementation of
[ promising practice]?
6. In your opinion, what factors have contributed to the successful implementation of
[ promising practice]?
7. How do you think that {promisingpractice] will lead to school improvement and
higher student achievement?
B. Implementation Details
8. How long has [promisingpractice] been in place?
9. How much start up/planning time was needed to implement [promisingpractice]?
10. How much planning time on a monthly basis is needed to maintain
implementation of [promising practice]?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
147
11. How often do you collaborate with other staff members in order to sustain
[promising practice]?
12. What do you see as the next steps for ensuring sustainability of the {promising
practice]?
13. How do you know [promisingpractice] is making a difference? [What is the
evidence o f impact ?]
14. What are the benefits of implementing [promisingpractice]?
(Probes: Benefits fo r students, staff administrators, parents)
15. What are the challenges of implementing [promisingpractice]?
(Probes: Challenges fo r students, staff, administrators, parents)
16. What lessons have you learned by implementing [promisingpractice]?
C. Resource Requirements
17. How much of your budget is spent on [promisingpractice]?
18. What is the level of staff expertise required with respect to [promisingpractice]?
19. What facilities are needed to carry out [promisingpractice]?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
148
20. How much professional development time has staff received to implement
[promising practice]?
21. Do you think the training/professional development that has been conducted
meets the needs for people to effectively implement [promising practice]?
{Probe: What other types o f PD do you think would be helpful to effectively
implement promising practice?)
D. Recommended Resources for Additional Information
22. Are there any books that have been helpful to you in implementing [promising
practice]?
23. Are there any articles that have been helpful to you in implementing [promising
practice]?
24. Are there any Web sites that have been helpful to you in learning about
[promising practice]?
25. Are there any sources of technical assistance that have been helpful to you in
implementing [promising practice]?
26. Additional Comments:
[Closing]
Thank you very much for your time. Your comments and insights are invaluable for
our research.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
149
Appendix G
ON-SITE TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
School Name:______________________________ Date:______________________
Name of Interview Subject:______________________________________________
Position:______________________________________________________________
Researcher:____________________________________________________________
Start Time:__________ End Time:________ Total Time (minutes):__________
\Introduction\
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am working with the University of
Southern California’s Rossier School of Education. We are studying promising
practices in California charter schools. The purpose of this interview is to learn more
about [promising practice] at your school.
Through a nomination process, your school has been identified as having success
in/with [promising practice], A Web site that includes this knowledge will be
developed detailing promising practices in California charter schools. The Web site
is being hosted by Multiple Measures of Accountability for California Charter
Schools (MMACCS) and the Center for Educational Governance.
This interview should only take 30 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?
A. Evidence of Impact
1. What has been the impact of [promising practice] on students?
2. What has been the impact of [promising practice] on parents?
3. What has been the impact of [promising practice] on teachers?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
150
4. What has been the impact of [promising practice] on other
constituents/stakeholders (e.g. investors, community groups etc.)l
5. Was any system for measuring the success of [promising practice] adopted during
the planning stages?
6. Are you aware of any research studies that confirm the impact of [promising
practice] on student achievement? If yes, may we please have copies?
B. Lessons Learned
7. What benefits have you experienced as a result of implementing [promising
practice]1
(Probes: Benefits fo r students, staff, administrators, parents)
8. What challenges have you experienced while implementing the [promising
practice]1
(Probes: Challenges fo r students, staff, administrators, parents)
9. Have there been any efforts to improve the effectiveness of [promising practice]?
If yes, explain.
10. What efforts have been made to help sustain [promisingpractice] at your school?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
151
11. What future steps are needed to ensure the sustainability of [promising practice]?
12. What recommendations would you make to other educators that are thinking
about adopting {promising practice]?
C. Recommended Resources for Additional Information
13. Are there any books that have been helpful to you in implementing [promising
practice'll
14. Are there any articles that have been helpful to you in implementing [promising
practice]?
15. Are there any Web sites that have been helpful to you in learning about
[ promising practice]?
16. Are there any sources of technical assistance that have been helpful to you in
implementing [promising practice]?
17. Additional Comments:
[Closing]
Thank you very much for your time. Your comments and insights are invaluable for
our research.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
152
Appendix H
ON-SITE PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
School Name:______________________________ Date:_____________________
Name of Interview Subject:____________________________________________
Researcher:___________________________________________________________
Start Time:__________ End Time:________ Total Time (minutes):________
[Introduction]
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am working with the University of
Southern California’s Rossier School of Education. We are studying promising
practices in California charter schools. Through a nomination process, your school
was identified as having success in/with [promising practice]. The purpose of this
interview is to learn more about [promising practice] at your school.
The information garnered from this research will be used to develop a Web-based
compendium of promising practices as part of the Multiple Measures of
Accountability for California Charter Schools (MMACCS) project. The goal of the
compendium is to spread new knowledge and innovation about promising practices
to inspire educators to improve school performance.
By participating in this study, your school will get recognition at the annual
California Charter Schools Association conference, publicity in the media, and a
one-year free membership to MMACCS.
This interview should take around 45 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?
A. Theory of Action and History
1. Can you briefly describe [promisingpractice] at your school?
2. What is the goal of [promisingpractice]?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
153
3. Please tell me about the history of [promising practice] at your school.
{Probe: How/why did it get started, who were the people initially involved in
developing the practice)
4. Can you tell me a little about your role as principal with respect to [promising
practice]?
5. Who have been the main people involved with the planning and implementation of
[promising practice]?
6. In your opinion, what factors have contributed to the successful implementation of
[ promising practice]?
7. How do you think that [promisingpractice] will lead to school improvement and
higher student achievement?
B. Implementation Details
8. How long has {promisingpractice] been in place?
9. How much start up/planning time was needed to implement [promisingpractice]?
10. How much planning time on a monthly basis is needed to maintain
implementation of [promising practice]?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
154
11. How often do you collaborate with other staff members in order to sustain
[promising practice]?
12. What do you see as the next steps for ensuring sustainability o f the [promising
practice]?
13. How do you know [promisingpractice] is making a difference? [What is the
evidence o f impact?]
14. What are the benefits of implementing [promisingpractice]?
(Probes: Benefits fo r students, staff administrators, parents)
15. What are the challenges of implementing [promisingpractice]?
(Probes: Challenges fo r students, staff, administrators, parents)
16. What lessons have you learned by implementing [promisingpractice]?
C. Resource Requirements
17. How much of your budget is spent on [promisingpractice]?
18. What is the level of staff expertise required with respect to [promisingpractice]?
19. What facilities are needed to carry out [promisingpractice]?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
155
20. How much professional development time has staff received to implement
[promising practice]?
21. Do you think the training/professional development that has been conducted
meets the needs for people to effectively implement [promising practice]?
{Probe: What other types o f PD do you think would be helpful to effectively
implement promising practice?)
D. Recommended Resources for Additional Information
22. Are there any books that have been helpful to you in implementing [promising
practice]?
23. Are there any articles that have been helpful to you in implementing {promising
practice]?
24. Are there any Web sites that have been helpful to you in learning about
[promising practice]?
25. Are there any sources of technical assistance that have been helpful to you in
implementing [promisingpractice]?
26. Additional Comments:
[Closing]
Thank you very much for your time. Your comments and insights are invaluable for
our research.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
156
Appendix I
ON-SITE TEACHER FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
School Name:______________________________ Date:_______________
Researcher:
Start Time:__________ End Time:_________ Total Time (minutes):
Participants: Years at
School:
Position:
{Introduction]
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am working with the University of
Southern California’s Rossier School of Education. We are studying promising
practices in California charter schools. The purpose of this interview is to learn more
about [promising practice] at your school.
Through a nomination process, your school has been identified as having success
in/with [promising practice], A Web site that includes this knowledge will be
developed detailing promising practices in California charter schools. The Web site
is being hosted by Multiple Measures of Accountability for California Charter
Schools (MMACCS) and the Center for Educational Governance.
This focus group should only take 1 hour. Do you have any questions for me before
we begin?
A. Evidence of Impact
1. What has been the impact of [promising practice] on students?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2. What has been the impact of [promising practice] on parents?
157
3. What has been the impact of [promising practice] on teachers?
4. What has been the impact of [promising practice] on other
constituents/stakeholders {e.g. investors, community groups etc.fi
5. Was any system for measuring the success of [promising practice] adopted during
the planning stages?
6. Are you aware of any research studies that confirm the impact of [promising
practice] on student achievement? If yes, may we please have copies?
B. Lessons Learned
7. What benefits have you experienced as a result of implementing [promising
practice]?
(Probes: Benefits fo r students, staff, administrators, parents)
8. What challenges have you experienced while implementing the [promising
practice]1
(Probes: Challenges fo r students, staff, administrators, parents)
9. Have there been any efforts to improve the effectiveness of [promising practice]1
If yes, explain.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
158
10. What efforts have been made to help sustain [promisingpractice] at your school?
11. What future steps are needed to ensure the sustainability of {promisingpractice]?
12. What recommendations would you make to other educators that are thinking
about adopting [promising practice]?
D. Recommended Resources for Additional Information
13. Are there any books that have been helpful to you in implementing [promising
practice]?
14. Are there any articles that have been helpful to you in implementing [promising
practice]?
15. Are there any Web sites that have been helpful to you in learning about
[promising practice]?
16. Are there any sources of technical assistance that have been helpful to you in
implementing [promisingpractice]?
17. Additional Comments:
[Closing]
Thank you very much for your time. Your comments and insights are invaluable for
our research.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
159
Appendix J
INITIAL COMMUNICATION WITH PRINCIPAL
Hello XXXX
First of all, let me congratulate you as your school has been nominated for successful
implementation of using technology in instruction.
I am currently a doctoral student in the School of Education at the University of
Southern California in Los Angeles, and I am part o f a group of doctoral students
who are working with Center of Educational Governance to research and assemble a
compendium of promising practices from California charter schools.
Specifically, I am looking at schools that have successfully implemented the
integration of technology in the teaching of math and science.
If you would like to accept this nomination to participate in our study, then please
visit our website and complete the brief nomination form. The website link is:
http ://rsoe web2 .use. edu/ CEG/index. asp
Should you have any questions for me, please feel free to contact me at this email or
by phone at 310-989-7311. For your information, if you are selected to participate in
the study, I would need to schedule an in-person site visit in late fall so that I could
conduct some interviews and observations to learn more about your wonderful work.
Thank you for your time, and I hope you will accept the nomination.
Bobby Ojose
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
160
Appendix K
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
School Name: Date:
Teacher’s Name: Observer:
Type of Class: Grade Level:
Time Started: Time Ended: Total Time (minutes):
Number of Students Observed:__________________
Lesson Topic (e.g., volcanoes, verbs):________________________________
Instructional Goal (e.g., word recognition, comprehension):
Indicate Language(s) Used for Activity:
English □ Spanish □ Eng/Span. Combo □ Other □ ___________________
A. Classroom Environment
1. How does the arrangement of the room support [promising practice]?
{seating, learning centers, bulletin boards, display o f student work, etc.)
2. What resources in the classroom support [promisingpractice]?
{presence o f aids/parents, technology, books, learning manipulatives, etc.)
B. Academic Lesson
1. What is the intended purpose of the lesson?
{As written or stated by teacher-consider related standards)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
161
2. What is the structure of the lesson?
(Whole group, small group, pairs-consider instructional time spent)
3. Explain the sequence of events and distribution of time during the lesson as it
relates to [promising practice].
4. Describe the Teacher-Student interactions observed.
5. Describe the Student-Student interactions observed.
6. List (and collect copies) of pertinent resources from the lesson,
(ilesson plans, handouts, teacher’ s guide)
Additional Notes
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
162
Appendix L
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OBSERVATION
School Name:___________________________ Date:_____________
Professional Development Topic:_____________________________
Researcher:_____________________ Activity Location:_________
Time Started:_____ Time Ended:_______ Total Time (minutes):
Number of Participants:_________
A. Professional Development Leadership
Who led training (check all that apply)!
Teacher (from the school site)
Administrator (from the school site)
Teacher from another school
Administrator from another school
University faculty member
Outside consultant (describe)
Other (describe)
1. List the names and positions of professional development session leaders:
B. Professional Development Session:
2. Describe the intended purpose of the Professional Development Session.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
163
3. List the Agenda Items for the Professional Development Session.
(If available, include a printed copy o f the agenda)
C. Structure of Activities during Professional Development Session
Structure
(lecture, small group, whole group, etc.)
Intended Purpose
4. Describe the content of the professional development session in detail:
(Probes: Key terms, theories and implementation issues related to promising
practice)
5. List materials used for the professional development session
[Note: Collect all that are available\
Tvne of Material Description of Material
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
164
6. Additional Comments:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
165
Appendix M
DOCUMENT CHECKLIST
School Name: ___________________ Date of Scheduled Site Visit:
Promising Practice: _______________________________________
Researcher:
Document Type Document Title Retrieval Date
Charter {Petition)'.
Renewal Petition
Policy Documents Related to
Promising Practice
Handbook
{Faculty, Staff, Student)
Program Evaluations
{Related to Promising Practice)
Other Assessment Data
{Related to Promising Practice)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
166
Appendix N
CONTENT TEMPLATE OF COMPENDIUM
Profile of Charter School:
> Status (conversion or start-up)
r Charter authorizer
> Year chartered
> Year opened fo r operation with students
> Student enrollment: current and projected
> Grades served: current and projected
> Student population by subgroups (ethnicity, ELL, subsidized meals, special
needs)
r Teachers part o f a collective bargaining unit? uyes □ no
> Per pupil spending (XJY)
> School address
r- Type o f school: usite-based □ non site-based uhybrid
r - Contact information (i.e., school email;phone)
> Link to school Web site
Goal ofPP
Description of PP
Theory of Action for PP
Implementation Details:
> History
r- Time (start-up/planning time; time PP has been in place)
> Lessons learned (benefits, challenges, next steps fo r sustainability)
> Evidence o f impact
Resource Requirements:
> Budget information
> Staffing (level and type o f staff expertise needed)
> Facility/space
> Professional development/training
> Other (e.g., technology)
Supporting Documents and Materials (printable in PDF format):
> Lessons plans
> Parent contracts
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
167
> Video to support PP
> Staff development manuals
> Evaluation reports (data demonstrating results o f PP)
Recommended Resources for Additional Information:
> Books
> Articles
> Web sites
r Sources o f technical assistance
> Potential funding sources
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
168
Appendix O
NOMINATION FORM FOR COMPENDIUM
INTRODUCTION:
❖ CEG developing compendium o f Promising Practices (General purpose)
♦ ♦ ♦ We are investigating Promising Practices in 12 areas; in subsequent years,
additional areas will be included
♦ ♦ ♦ Define “ Promising Practice ” and give concrete examples (e.g., Parent
Volunteer Catalogue)
* * * Selection by educational researchers at USC. Selection criteria include:
> Evidence o f positive change
> Innovativeness o f Promising Practice
> Potential for transferability and usefulness across school sites
♦ ♦ ♦ Benefits o f participating
E Opportunity to present at annual CCSA conference in spring
> Recognition in form o f a plaque; awarded by CCSA and USC at
annual CCSA conference
r Publicity in the local newspaper
'r Free one-year membership to MMACCs
♦ ♦ ♦ Site visits in Fall 2005
SECTION I
Please complete all questions.
1. Title of your Promising Practice:
2. In which general area does your Promising Practice fit it? (Please select one
category):
Administrative and teacher leadership
Arts-themed charter school
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
169
English language development in elementary school
Increasing high school graduation rates
Integration of career and vocational education
Parent involvement
Project-based learning
School-university partnerships
Special education
Student discipline
Uses of technology for instructional purposes in middle school
Uses of time for teaching and learning
3. What is the objective/goal of the Promising Practice?
4. How long has the Promising Practice been implemented?______
5. Provide a brief summary (100 words) of your Promising Practice:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
170
6. Documentation of evidence for Promising Practice success (mark all that
apply):
No data exist to support the results of this practice
Anecdotal evidence
Internally-conducted evaluation
Externally-conducted evaluation
7. Please indicate the perceived areas of positive changes produced by your
Promising Practice:
a. Positive changes for target population (mark all that apply):
Students
Teachers
Parents
Other (Please specify:____________________________ )
b. The changes were in the following areas (mark all that apply):
Academic achievement (e.g., increased knowledge and
skills)
Attitudes/Behavior (e.g., improved attendance;
decreased drop- out rate; decrease in discipline
problems)
School Operation/Management (e.g., improved cost
effectiveness; expansion/efficiency of service delivery)
Other (Please specify;
)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
171
SECTION II
Contact Information: Please include contact information fo r any follow-up
questions.
1. Name of Nominator:___________________________________________
2. Key Contact Name for Nominated School:________________________
3. School Name:
4. School Address:
5. School Phone Number/ fax/ email address:
6. Summer Contact Information:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
172
Appendix P
NOMINATION ADVERTISEMENT
MMACCS
Multiple Measure of Accountability for California Charter Schools
Do you know of a charter school implementing an innovative policy,
practice, or program that should be widely disseminated?
If so, then here’s your chance to share!
What do we want?
Nomination of charter schools with Promising Practices
The University of Southern California’s Center on Educational Governance (CEG),
in partnership with CCSA, is requesting nominations of charter schools with
Promising Practices in the following 12 areas:
1. Administrative and teacher leadership
2. Arts-themed charter schools
3. English language development in the primary grades
4. Increasing high school graduation rates
5. Integration o f career and vocational education
6. Parent involvement
7. Project-based learning
8. School-university partnership
9. Special education
10. Student discipline
11. Uses o f technology for instruction in secondary school math and science
12. Uses o f time for teaching and learning
Why do we want your nominations of Promising Practices?
We are developing a compendium of promising practices that can inspire educators
to develop useful policies, practices, and programs that will improve student
performance.
What criteria will we use to select Promising Practices?
• Demonstration of innovative practices
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
173
• Evidence of positive change
• Potential to transfer and be useful to other schools
And what do schools get if their Promising Practices are selected?
Recognition and award at the annual CCSA conference!
Publicity
One-year membership to MMACCS
Ready to nominate? If so, then log on to
www.usc.edu/dept/education/cegov/
and complete the nomination form.
Deadline for nomination is July 15, 2005
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Evaluation of the effects of a continuous improvement program on special education student achievement

PDF

An exploration of project -based learning in two California charter schools

PDF

An analysis of the implementation of content standards in selected unified school districts of California

PDF

Exploring a team-based model for organizing schools: The case of Fenton Avenue Charter School

PDF

Implementing and assessing problem -based learning in non -traditional post -secondary aviation safety curricula: A case study

PDF

Districtwide instructional improvement: A case study of a high school in the Los Coyotes High School District

PDF

Evaluation of a two -period double math program on the academic achievement of underperforming seventh grade math students

PDF

Districtwide instructional improvement: A case study of a high school in the media unified school district

PDF

Adult school student achievement on the California High School Exit Examination: Are adult schools ready for the challenge?

PDF

A comparative analysis of academic achievement for CalWORKs students in a K--12 public school system

PDF

A study of the relationship between student achievement and mathematics program congruence in select secondary schools of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles

PDF

GEAR UP and TRIO: Redirecting the fight to preserve access and opportunity in the Higher Education Act

PDF

Assessing students' and professors' attitudes toward the use of computer -based technology in the classroom: A case study at the University of Jordan

PDF

Increasing student retention through benchmarking and organizational improvement

PDF

A case study of the role of high school booster organizations in fund raising, governance issues, and personnel decisions

PDF

Implementing computer assisted instruction in a multilevel -multigraded classroom evaluation /action plan

PDF

Arts in education and organizational culture: The impact of the arts on the culture of a school

PDF

Corrective action plan for program improvement of a middle school

PDF

How effective schools use data to improve student achievement

PDF

Connecting districts and schools to improve teaching and learning: A case study of district efforts in the Los Coyotes High School District

Asset Metadata

Creator Ojose, Bobby (author)

Core Title Improving math and science education in charter secondary schools through the use of technology

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, curriculum and instruction,Education, Mathematics,education, sciences,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Wohlstetter, Priscilla (committee chair), Brown, Richard (committee member), Hocevar, Dennis (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-586225

Unique identifier UC11341523

Identifier 3236533.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-586225 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3236533.pdf

Dmrecord 586225

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Ojose, Bobby

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA