Technology: The Access Issue
The purpose of this research brief is to examine technology from the access viewpoint. First, the access issue is examined from the student, teacher and home aspects. Then, suggestions are made to address access issues.
Are Computers available in the schools?
Computers are pervasive in the schools. Virtually every school in the United States has microcomputers (Ely, 1991). If progress is judged on the amount of hardware and number of students using them, then progress has been made. For example, in 1989, the ratio of students to computers at schools was 6/1 at the elementary level and 21/1 at high schools. Consider the following facts reported by Quality Education Data Inc., a Denver research firm in its annual reports:
- Microcomputer density (students per computer) has been reduced from 125:1 in 1983-84 to 18:1 (QED, 1991-92).
- Range is from 8,858 schools with less than a 9:1 ratio to 7,082 schools with 90:1 ratio (QED, 1990-91).
- 98% of schools have computers (QED, 1990-91).
- Apple logs 65.7%, IBM logs 14.1%, Radio Shack logs 6.2% and Commodore logs 5.4% of the market share of computers used in schools (QED, 1990-91).
- 34,662 of the 81,203 schools possessing computers have more than 21 (QED, 1990-91).
Other sources confirm this growth. For example, Becker (1991) noted that over the past six years around 300,000-400,000 computers were added to schools each year. The steady growth is beginning to have impact on most students and schools. In 1989, the ratio of computers was 6/1 in elementary schools, and 21/1 in high schools. In 1985, the ratio was 20/1 for elementary and 45/1 for high schools. The number of computers increased from fewer than 50,000 to roughly 2,400,000 during the 1980's (Becker, 1991).
The growth is considerable when one considers earlier reports:
- 1985 - 53% of schools had 1 computer (Levin, 1984).
- 1984 - Fewer than 10% of the schools had 15 computers (Becker 1985).
On the other hand, much of the computer technology available is outmoded, the Apple 2e being a prime example.
What factors relate to student access to technology?
Most students have used computers regardless of family socioeconomic condition. However, the higher the father's educational background, the more likely students had access to a home computer (Collis & Martinez, 1989). On the other hand, word processing has become part of the experience base of students, regardless of the father's educational level (Collis & Martinez, 1989).
What does seem to be related to exemplary uses of technology is administrative leadership. Administrative actions to insure equity in access to different categories of students such as sex, ability and ethnic group are three times as likely to be found in schools where exemplary technology-using teachers are found.
Does the placement of computers in the school affect access?
Some observers feel that placement of the computers, rather than the total number, is the key variable in defining access. There appears to be no pattern of distribution or locale of use. Some classrooms have several units, but rarely enough for the entire class. Some have computer classrooms where the entire class comes to one room. Still other schools use the school library media center as the place where computers can be used or borrowed.
The literature portrays some doubt as to where the computers belong in the schools. But it is clear that student utilization depends on organization of computers in labs or classrooms and the availability of appropriate software. The Office of Technology Assessment recommends that schools place computers in a central location. Then, as computers become more plentiful, schools should put them into the classroom (Power on!, 1988).
Is gender related to computer access?
Gender differences are of concern. Males still outnumber females in all categories of computer usage. There appears to be a significant correlation between gender and perceived computer-related skills and attitudes toward computers.
The tendency to see computer use being associated with boys, not girls, is significantly established at the beginning of Grade 1. One study reports that participation in a full year of daily computer activities in the Write To Read program did not serve to change the impression.
Secondly, it has been noted that girls tend to take word processing courses while boys elect for programming courses.
Finally, instruction based upon competition rather than cooperative modes, which appears to be preferred by females, is a burden on many women. For example, many computer-based instructional programs use competition with the computer, the clock, the random number generator or the scoring device as their motivational core.
What factors relate to gender access?
Often mathematics is the gatekeeper that stands between female students and computer opportunity. Since computers have mathematic and formal logic at their core, the problems must be viewed in ways amenable to quantitative or procedural analysis (Sutton, 1989). Many young females transfer mathematics anxiety and attitudes toward mathematics directly to the computer (Hawkins, 1987; Collis, 1987).
Additionally, many studies have found that young females have a less favorable attitude toward computers (Chen, 1986; Collis, 1985; Lenn & Gordon, 1989; and Muirr, 1986; Sutton, 1991). For example, a study based on longitudinal data reported that over an extended period of time (three years), females consistently displayed less interest in computers and reported negative attitudes toward the technology (Krendle & Broihier, 1991). Additionally, the negative response that females gave to computers did not dissipate over time.
How can gender differences be eliminated or reduced?
There are several ways to facilitate the elimination or reduction of gender differences. For instance, gender differences tend to dissipate when computer use is highly structured and closely linked to curriculum (Power on!; 1988).
Gender differences are also less pronounced among occasional users than frequent users. Females are equal to males on initial use, but males build more on initial access (Collis & Martinez, 1989).
Thirdly, gender differences may also be facilitated by the amount of exposure. For example, in male and female students with the same exposure, attitudes were the same (Chen, 1986, Levin & Gordon, 1989); students were more competent in their knowledge about computers (Martinez & Mead, 1988) and use of computers (Kersteen et al., 1988, Martinez & Mead, 1988, Waugh, 1986; all cites in Sutton, 1991).
On the other hand, one study reports that females who finished a summer computer literacy course finished with less enthusiasm about computers than did females who had not taken the course. Males who participated were more positive (Collins, 1985). And males are three times as likely to attend a summer computer camp than females (Hess & Miurr, 1985; cites were found in Sutton, 1991).
Evidently, it is not enough to expose students to computers. Students, especially females, need additional support on developing skills and attitudes. And, when more general computer applications are considered, differences between males and females disappear.
Do teachers have access to technology?
On the one hand, teacher access to technology in the classroom seems to be positive. For instance, a majority of computer-using elementary teachers had one or two computers accessible to their class (Becker, 1992).
On the other hand, teacher access to technology continues to be of concern to many practitioners, since teacher access to computers is an important determinant of technology use in the classroom. For example, there was a higher rate of exemplary teachers in areas where teachers have been able to borrow school computers to take home and where there were more computers per capita (Becker, 1992). And, computer ratios should be no greater than seven to one if meaningful integration is to take place. At these ratios, teachers can give students numerous opportunities for practice and feedback.
Have there been any recommendations to address teacher access?
A policy statement of the National Education Association declares that there should be a computer with appropriate support software on every teacher's desk for use in class preparation. Additionally, every classroom should have large screen displays and local access to CD-ROM and videodiscs. In addition to a computer on every teacher's desk, the International Society of Technology Education recommends a computer in every teacher's home, and a telephone and modem in every classroom (Vision: Test, 1990).
These policy type statements are supported by the following evidence:
- Exemplary technology-using teachers practice in much more resource-rich situations. Class size averaged 20% smaller and was the largest predictive variable. Fewer students per computer and more software also characterized their classrooms (Becker, 1992).
- Exemplary technology-using teachers were more likely to choose a computer to use at home for extended periods of time and more in-service from among incentives offered by the school district (Becker, 1992).
- Teachers need time to practice, to communicate and to get work done.
Is home access to technology of concern to educators?
Some problems exist with connectivity beyond the school day. The futurists say it won't be a problem because in the future every student will have a lap top with a modem to access whatever information or tools they need. While not considered a serious problem by most observers, it is a concern today.
Home access to computers is growing and with it come concerns over equity. Consider these facts:
- In 1984, 8.2% of households had computers. In 1989 15% of all households had computers (Kominski, 1991).
- In 1982, 30% of children 3-17 years of age used a computer at home or in school or both. In 1989, 46% used a computer at home, or in school or both (Kominski, 1991).
- In 1984, 24.6% of employed adults said they used a computer at work - 1989, 36.8% (Kominski, 1991).
- In 1989, one-third of the U.S. population (74,884,000) used a computer in some way (Kominski, 1991).
- Families of male students are much more likely to own a computer than families of female students (Martinez & Mead, 1988; Swandenes & Janett, 1986).
- In a study of 51 families with computers, the level of home academic computing was low. Sixteen percent of the families occasionally engaged in home academic computing. Parents in most of the 51 families provided little or no support for home academic computing. Schools did not emphasize it - schools should (Giacquinta & Lane, 1990).
How can educators respond to the home access challenge?
Home computers are particularly challenging problem structures for educators. Several issues revolving around home access exist with connectivity beyond the school day. Educators have dealt with this problem in different ways.
Some have chosen to ignore it and encourage parents to provide access. Others have extended school access by buying portables and/or providing tool availability after 3 o'clock, as well as by scheduling extended hours after the school day or hooking the home into the school network for 24 hour access. Still others have encouraged the use of public libraries. However, all of the above options have the potential to increase inequity (Moursand & Ricketts, 1988).
Are there exemplary home access programs that we can emulate?
Telecommunications is linking education to the world. It is being used in education to increase information access and reduce disparity through television, satellites and distance education.
These technologies are eliminating barriers of time, geography or local expertise. Rural students are using them for meeting graduation requirements; urban students use them for low cost field trips. Minnesota and Memphis demonstration sites use them for distance tutoring. Several states use them to deliver courses to meet graduation requirements. Others use them to enrich the classroom through programs such as CNN Newsroom and World Classroom.
Pilot projects include: Home Link, the Transparent School Model, Computer Call software, the Buddy System and Talkline. Several cases are worthy of description.
A Minnesota school district interested in complying with the mandate that schools guarantee mastery of minimum competencies in all students, created a computer/software loan program. This program involved parents in the learning process and upgraded their computer inventory. Although results were favorable, the increased burden on the classroom teacher led to a recommendation that the loan program should not be added to the duty of the classroom teacher (Sales & Earle, 1989).
Several programs have used telephone technology through answering machine call-in programs. Rebecca Schubel and Joan Erickson (1992), report that in Alabama, a Transparent School Model, consisting of a telephone and answering machine in each classroom paired with an office computer and software package called CompuCall (developed at Vanderbilt University), allows parents to call in for daily information and teachers to call parents and leave them recorded messages. Interaction between teachers and parents quadrupled and there was an increase in the rate of homework completed during the first month of the program.
Indiana's Buddy System provides computers for use in classrooms and student homes for students in grades 4 through 12. A major goal was to view the computer as a tool to aid learning in the content areas. Several indicators of success are presented by Duffy et al. (1992). For example, they were used daily and throughout the day. Student level of proficiency with the computer was judged as highly proficient to expert across all groupings of students. Type of use varied by installation site, but the "tool for the students to develop and present information" use clearly dominates the Buddy System philosophy and practice. Teachers noted that it was only because of the ready availability of the computers, both at home and at school, that they could do the larger, more complicated tasks of reasoning, analyzing and constructing knowledge.
TALKline, a telephone based application, was implemented in North Carolina. It is as a community-based phone line for parents to call for the purpose of discussing concerns or obtaining general information regarding their children. The uniqueness of the program is that parents talk to volunteers and the program is not school-based. The program's evaluations continue to point to the difficulties of reaching fathers, low-income parents, minority parents and single mothers.
An experiment was conducted with a Head Start classroom in Indiana. The system used a telephone answering machine in the Head Start office. Weekly language enrichment activities for parents to use with their children were recorded for parents to access via telephone. Each week different activities were recorded. Weekend use tripled, weekday use and continued use were recommended. Since then, the program has expanded to other Head Start classrooms. The service described was not complicated by family factors, such as lack of transportation, varying work shifts, need for baby sitters or the parental literacy level.
How can administrators assure that access and equity issues are addressed?
Administrative actions have been taken to insure equity of computer access to different categories of students, such as sex, ability and ethnic group. These practices are three times as likely to be found in schools where exemplary technology-using teachers are located (Becker, 1992).
The allocation of computer in school buildings can also create potential inequities. The decision options include:
- Set no policy; allow different initiative of teachers and students determine who will use them.
- Set priorities among competing subject users (math, writing).
- Set policies giving everyone a share of a scarce resource even if it limits the amount of time.
- Set priorities assuring that categories of teachers or students (low ability, special education, gifted) have proportional access to the resources preventing domination by resourceful motivated or ambitious students (Becker, 1992).
John Pisapia
The information found in this research brief has been synthesized from the following MERC publications. Copies can be purchased using the online order form on the publications page.
Pisapia, J. (1993, April). Learning Technologies in the Classroom: Case Studies of technology intensive schools.
Pisapia, J., Schlesinger, J., & Parks, A. (1993, February). Learning Technologies in the Classroom: Review of the Literature.
Pisapia, J. & Perlman, S. (1992, December). Learning Technologies in the Classroom: A Study of Results.