The Emerging Disconnection between Required Standards and Permitted Practices in the Integration of Technology in Classrooms
John H. Tashner
Email:
Melanie W. Greene, PhD
Email:
Stephen C. Bronack, PhD
Email:
Sara J. Zimmerman, PhD
Email:
Richard E. Riedl, PhD
Email:
ABSTRACT
Introduction
The National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) were designed to advocate appropriate integration of computer technologies into K-12 learning environments in America. From these standards, North Carolina designated the North Carolina Technology Competencies (NCTC) for educators. State mandates regarding these standards and competencies were implemented to support and improve instructional practices at all levels. Graduation from public schools and teacher licensure from institutions of higher education require the integration of computer technologies into teaching and learning. However, recent issues with desktop security have created a disconnection between the mandated standards and competencies and practices in classrooms at the local level.
Research Objective
The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of local network and computer security policies and procedures on the integration of computer technology competencies and standards in classroom learning environments.
Methodology
A consortium of eight school districts associated with our teacher preparation institution was identified as the sample for this study. These school districts serve as training sites for pre-service and lateral entry teachers. Superintendents and Directors of Technology from each district completed an open-ended survey instrument that documented their district’s policies and procedures concerning desktop security. Responses were tabulated and analyzed to determine the extent to which students and teachers were able to practice and demonstrate the state mandated standards.
Discussion of Outcomes
Seven school districts participated in this study. Each district reported different policies and allowable practices for teachers and students. For instance, wide variations occurred in whether or not teachers and students could develop websites, save documents to the hard-drive, and use chat rooms, IP video, etc. The data suggests inconsistent patterns emerging among districts regarding what computer technologies teachers and students can use. Further, these findings suggest there is a disconnection between the university training program requirements and what is actually permitted in classroom practices.
Clearly, the implications of this study provide evidence that local policies and state standards must be better aligned. District level security policies and procedures present barriers to the successful integration of computer technology in instruction. Teacher preparation programs must examine program expectations in terms of technology integration with respect to district policies and practices. Ultimately, this study reinforces the need for more collaboration between those who make policies and those who are affected by them.
Introduction
As Appalachian State University prepares teacher candidates for the potentials of the computer in teaching and learning settings, questions have risen concerning what can and cannot be done with computers in schools. North Carolina has established requirements detailing what teachers and students are expected to do with computers. Appalachian has worked diligently to prepare pre-service teachers in those skills and beyond, seeking to explore the full potential of computer technology in the support of learning. However, as our candidates move into the schools, they often report barriers preventing them from doing the various things they have been taught to do. In fact, anecdotal evidence suggested teachers were prohibited from using some of the specific computer competencies that the state requires for initial teacher licensure.
A few years ago these reports were not surprising. Few schools were as well equipped technologically as Appalachian. But with time, North Carolina has made massive efforts to provide computers, networks, and Internet connections to all of the schools. With well-equipped schools and a growing number of classroom teachers in place who have developed computer skills, hearing so many reports indicating a lack of access was surprising. Clearly, the inability to do some of the more creative activities could be attributed to the increased pressure to raise test scores and to keep the “frills” to a minimum. And there are still many issues to be addressed regarding the nature of schools, as a closed information system, and how it reacts to the open information systems provided by computer and networking technologies. But the reports we were receiving were more fundamental. Computers seemed to be everywhere in the schools and they all seemed to be connected to networks and the Internet, but teachers were not doing much with them.
The more we looked at the problem, the more we saw a progressive lockdown of computer capabilities in the name of security and safety. This lockdown appeared to be stopping teachers and students from using computers to their full capability and was actually stopping teachers from using the very skills the state of North Carolina said they must have before they could become teachers to lead activities prescribed by the North Carolina Computer Skills Curriculum.
In an effort to better understand what we were hearing, we surveyed the technology directors in the Appalachian State University Public School Partnership. The ASU Public School Partnership is a group of eight school districts located in the geographic region of the state nearest the university where the majority of student teachers and interns are placed for field experiences. We wanted to know the policies and practices these districts use to secure their systems and to provide a safe learning environment to better understand how these policies and practices might impact what teachers and students could and could not do.
Literature review
It is clear that new and emerging technologies are impacting education in significant ways. In 1996, President Clinton challenged America’s schools to ensure each learner would become technologically literate by the dawn of the 21st century by providing all students with engaging educational software, classrooms connected to the Internet, and highly trained teachers (Winters, 1996). An estimated 5.8 million computers were available to America’s teachers at the elementary, middle, and secondary levels (OTA, 1995). However, only about one-third of public schools – and only 3% of classrooms – were connected to the Internet (Kleiner & Farris, 2002). Teachers struggled to integrate technology because they lacked training and had limited access to technology (Becker, 1994, Lucas, 1996).
In less than a decade, however, America’s schools have heeded the call. Through the combined support of federal initiatives, state programs, and school-community partnerships, Internet-enabled computers have permeated nearly every aspect of schooling. Today, nearly every classroom not only has a computer (Smerdon et al, 2000) but also is connected to the Internet (Kleiner & Farris, 2002). State educational units responded with training initiatives, curriculum revisions, and a focus on building a technological infrastructure to address students’ and teachers’ needs.
In 1994, for example, a Task Force was established in North Carolina to recommend educational technology initiatives that would eventually encompass the total North Carolina Educational system. Comprised of six representatives from the Department of Public Instruction, the Community College System, and the University of North Carolina System, this Task Force outlined expectations for in-service teachers, teacher education faculty, and pre-service teachers in the state. Public school teachers were required to obtain renewal credits equivalent to 30-50 contact hours involving technology. Colleges of Education received funds for faculty positions and resources to enrich their teacher preparation programs and ultimately became responsible for the integration of technology across the state. To further address this issue, the School Technology Users Task Force Report (N.C., 1996) created a list of technology competencies for pre-service teachers to master; thus ensuring that they could integrate instructional technology into student learning. In 1999 pre-service teachers were required to take a technology test of basic skills (Greene, Zimmerman, 1999). Faculty worked to foster positive attitudes towards the integration of technology (Clawson, 1996); yet, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education suggested there was a need to close the gap between where we were and where we needed to be (NCATE, 1997).
The CEO Forum was founded in 1996 to promote and assess technology implementation in America’s schools. The Forum encouraged schools to purchase necessary hardware and establish Internet connections in addition to improving teacher training and curriculum integration. Their final report suggests that education technology can improve student achievement, that technology has the greatest impact on learning when it is integrated into the curriculum, and that current assessment of student learning does not adequately measure 21st century skills (CEO Forum, 2001). Based on these findings, the Forum recommends a renewed focus on providing equitable access to technology for all students. According to the 2001 report:
“Federal and state governments and school districts should monitor education technology, connectivity, professional development and digital content and should make certain that school funding processes enable equitable access in our nation’s schools so that all students can benefit from educational technology” (CEO Forum, 2001).
Research suggests that students can achieve greater knowledge through the integration of technology (Salomon, 1990; Salomon et al, 1991). New technologies can foster collaborative learning between peers any day of the week, any time of the day (Koenig, 1997). Yet, the typical classroom scene is a familiar one. Desks are lined up in rows and the teacher stands before the students. One or two computers may be displayed in the perimeter of the room. They may or may not have one or two students working on them. The major teaching and learning is taking place in the center of the room. This scenario has changed very little over the past one hundred years. Of course, the addition of the computers is new. But the layout of the room, along with much of the pedagogy, has remained the same. Major national reports suggest that a different set of workforce and academic skills will be needed for the 21st century (e.g., CEO Forum, 2001). Yet, as the recent survey by the National School Boards Foundation reports, there remains an astonishing gap between the possibilities of technology and the reality of its use in schools (NSBF, 2002). Which leads to our question: how is it that $50 billion in technology investments over the last decade (CEO Forum, 2001) in our schools have virtually no effect on the day-to-day operation of teaching and learning?
Perhaps it is because education systems are self-preserving in nature (Koenig, 1997; NSBF, 2003). The roles of teachers and administrators are well defined and within this hierarchy well-defined roles exist for participants in education. For example, there may be incentives for administrators to welcome technology, but the possible disruptions in the nature of schooling may outweigh this motivation. In a system that has become more lock step with the implementation of the “No Child Left Behind” Act, an organization that maintains more standardization and less critical thinking may be more acceptable. However, as Hodas (1993) suggests, there is reason to suspect that no amount of standardization can create a “uniformity of outcome” in education. If technologies that add access to information are introduced as the norm in a classroom, the standardization of the curriculum and the teaching environment may be challenged. Indeed, one significant result of the movement toward standard methods of accountability in schools has been the more prescribed role teachers now play in schools. Standard curricula and standardized tests make schools more – standard. Yet, information technologies offer opportunities for ‘personalization’ and ‘individualized instruction.’ For some, technology disrupts the culture of schools and, by extension, the nature of the activities allowable within.
Yet as access to information technologies becomes ubiquitous in our nation’s schools, significant questions are emerging about how to integrate such technologies into the curriculum -- or even to use them in instruction at all. These issues include: concerns about network and desktop security (e.g., viruses, online predators, plagiarism), personal communications (e.g., email, discussion boards, chats) and copyright infringements. The priority of expected outcomes over unknown results may impede the integration of technology. Traditional tools such as textbooks may be funded before computers and software.
These issues have prompted educational leaders to examine closely what teachers and students may do with the technologies in their schools. For instance, under the Children’s Internet Protection Act (1996), schools may not receive rate discounts unless they certify that they are enforcing a policy of Internet safety. Policies may include the use of filtering or blocking (U.S. Dept. of Ed., 2002). By 2001, 96% of public schools reported that they used various technologies or procedures to control student access to inappropriate material on the Internet. New federal guidelines now require all schools to have such mechanisms in place. Even so, Grabe and Grabe (2000) warn educators “schools cannot rely totally on technological mechanisms to control how students will use the Internet.”
Fear of virus infections have led to some schools to refuse to allow students to bring homework disks from home to use on the school computers. Concerns about network security prevent some teachers from being able to develop and post and modify webs for instructional purposes. Other teachers are not allowed to download trial versions to the desktop because of uncertainty about licensing compliance. Some computers are “locked down” to prevent inept users from making changes that might disrupt computer performance. This provides teachers and students with no control over the tool they are expected to use in classroom instruction and learning. Furthermore, it often leads to long delays when, say, a print job malfunctions but can only be cleared by the technician who locked the computer interface.
Nevertheless, with all of the possible policy issues, there is still the greater question of what to do with a teaching and learning tool that shows so much promise in education. Advocates for the appropriate integration of computer technologies into K-12 schools have emerged. The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), for example, has created the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) as a benchmark for successful integration of technology in schools. The NETS standards reflect a belief that classroom teachers must be prepared to provide technologically rich learning opportunities for their students. The ISTE guide has informed many state guidelines for teacher professional development – and curriculum standards for students. Educators and students in North Carolina, for example, have been guided by the North Carolina Technology Competencies since 1998.
Research Objective