Teachers and policymakers alike see computers as a key to educational reform. In a national teacher survey, 96 percent of the teachers favored using technology and computers to improve the U.S. educational system (Feistritzer, 1996). President Clinton has aggressively sought to expand the use of computers in the classroom, calling for modern equipment in all classrooms and relevant training and support for teachers (Coley, Cradler, & Engel, 1997). Moreover, these goals have been backed up with money: Congress appropriated $698 million for educational technology programs in fiscal year 1999, including $75 million earmarked specifically for teacher training in technology (McAllister, 1998).
Great Appeal, Great Expense
Why is technology so appealing, even in the face of potentially daunting expenses? Cuban (1993) attributes technology's appeal to three factors: (1) the desire to prepare students for the transition into an increasingly technological workforce, (2) the potential for computers to provide a vehicle for self-directed learning, and (3) the perception that computer use in the classroom will increase productivity. Although the first factor seems relatively straightforward, the other two will hold water only if certain conditions are met.
For example, if computers are used primarily for drill and practice work, they will not foster self-directed learning. Computers may enable teachers to cover more content or teach more students, but it is not yet clear whether they are the most cost-effective tool for doing so. Even researchers who find positive correlations between computer use and student cognition tend to be cautious about advocating full-scale computer adoption. In a meta-analysis of research on the effects of computer-assisted instruction (CAI), Liao (1992) found that such instruction is generally effective for teaching students cognitive skills. However, he concluded that the effect sizes were sufficiently small to cast doubt on whether CAI is as efficient as other instructional approaches.
Part of the difficulty in determining whether computers are worth the investment stems from the methodological challenges inherent in correlating technology use with student outcomes. Wenglinsky (1998) noted that relevant studies often suffer from flaws, such as using either the ratio of computers to students or the total per-pupil expenditure on technology as proxies for computer use, when in fact the computers may be accessible, but remain largely untouched in the classroom.
In his study, Wenglinsky used data from the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to explore the effects of computer use on 4th and 8th grade student achievement in math. Specifically, he used teacher responses to a NAEP questionnaire to link classroom computer practices with the NAEP math scores of more than 13,000 students. The key finding: Technology can and does matter, but it is highly dependent upon the context in which it is used. For example, achievement gains associated with computer use were much larger for 8th graders than 4th graders and for students whose teachers had received professional development in how to use computers to teach higher-order thinking skills.
The Issue Is Equitable Training
Technology can also help reduce performance gaps among subgroups of students. Coley, Cradler, and Engel (1997) noted that technology has the potential to decrease opportunity gaps by granting students from different backgrounds equal access to the wealth of information available on the Internet. But at the same time, these gaps can widen if access to the technology is inequitably distributed.
Wenglinsky (1998) found that equal access to technology does not appear to be a major problem. In fact, at both 4th and 8th grades, African American students were more likely than their white peers to report using a computer in school at least once a week. Yet they were also significantly more likely than their white peers to be taught with drill and practice approaches, as opposed to simulations and applications that encourage higher-order thinking skills.
Several researchers support the contention that extensive teacher training is crucial. One California study recommended that at least 30 percent of educational technology budgets be set aside for training teachers how to use that technology (Coley, Cradler, & Engel, 1997). Rosen and Weil (1995) estimate that between one-third and two-thirds of all teachers do not take full advantage of the computers available to them for instruction because they do not feel confident of their own abilities to use them.
The bottom line appears to be that computers can indeed enhance student outcomes, but before we rush to put computers in every classroom, we need to figure out the most effective way to allocate limited resources. Clearly, teacher training needs support across all school environments. And although drill and practice is popular for computer instruction, it does not have as large a positive effect on student achievement as do approaches that focus on higher-order thinking skills (Liao, 1992). Even grade level is important: Wenglinsky found much larger effect sizes at 8th grade than 4th grade, leading him to recommend that more computer resources should be allocated to middle schools than to elementary schools. The question thus is not so much whether technology matters, but rather how we can make it matter the most and cost the least.
