Jeremiah E. Burke and Harvard Graduate
School of Education
Technology Integration Project
Year End Report
June 1997
The Jeremiah E. Burke High School in Boston developed a plan in December, 1995, to become a "first rate Computer Technology High School." The plan included three objectives for students and one for staff:
The budget proposal submitted to the Boston Public Schools with this plan requested a total of $2.2 million to fund the acquisition and operation of a computer network and software and professional development for Burke faculty and staff. The Superintendent's review committee cut funding for the system administrator and most professional development and approved funding for only half the number of student computers requested. Ultimately the School Committee approved a budget of $1.1 million.
In order to prepare Burke faculty and staff to implement the Burke Technology Plan, representatives of the school sought funding from outside the school system. This initiative led to the Technology Integration Project (TIP), a collaboration of faculty and students from the Harvard Graduate School of Education with teachers and administrators at the Burke.
TIP began in September, 1996, with a one-year grant from a private foundation. During its first year, the project was directed by George Brackett with assistance from Stone Wiske, both of whom teach in the Technology in Education program at Harvard Graduate School of Education. At the Burke, the TIP was coordinated by Mary Messick, the Burke's Assistant Head Master for Technology. The original project proposal encompassed three strands: (1) planning, ongoing assessment, and documentation, (2) professional development, and (3) direct support for technology integration. It was expected to operate with a small number of paid graduate student interns with assistance from other graduate students who would provide support for Burke teachers in conjunction with projects conducted as part of the students' courses in Harvard's Technology in Education Program.
As described in the TIP Interim Report (November, 1996), the original design had to be modified because the installation of the computer network was delayed. By September, 1996, Burke was supposed to have a total of some 300 computers installed, most of them connected to a local area network and to the Internet. In reality, the network had not been installed by September. Indeed, the network was still not functioning smoothly in November, and it became apparent that the Burke needed extensive, sustained, sophisticated technical assistance to install and configure the computer network. Thus, a fourth strand of activities focused on network installation and trouble-shooting was added to TIP's scope of work.
The purpose of this report is to analyze the progress on integrating new technologies at the Burke High School, with a focus on the activities of the TIP project. The aim is to illuminate effective strategies and structures and to document the problems that were encountered so that other individuals and organizations involved in similar initiatives might benefit from our experience. In addition, this report offers recommendations to TIP participants at both the Burke and Harvard in making plans to continue implementing the Burke's Technology Plan.
The report is organized around the four strands of work. In the following sections the progress and problems made in each strand are analyzed. The final section of the report includes reflections on several themes that cut across these strands and makes recommendations for Year 2 of the TIP.
1. SYSTEM INSTALLATION AND ADMINISTRATION
It is fitting that this late-comer to the TIP project be addressed first in this report. Although it was not expected to be part of TIP, this strand has frequently been the most visible and demanding aspect of the project, and addressing it satisfactorily is a prerequisite to using technology effectively. Both the failure to allocate sufficient resources for system administration, and the absolute necessity of somehow finding such resources are typical experiences in schools (and many other organizations) which attempt to install computer networks.
TIP agreed to request support for network administration from the private foundation on the condition that administrators at the Burke promise to allocate funds for this purpose in their budget for the following year. On that basis, TIP contracted with Marcom a company whose specialty is network installation. Marcom provided consultation and assistance to Burke staff beginning in January, 1997. At that time approximately 160 Windows 95 client machines and one server had already been installed at the Burke. A local area network had also been installed, although it was not functioning smoothly and reliably. Nobody on the Burke staff had much knowledge about how to configure the network or maintain it. A consultant hired by the Boston Public Schools provided occasional assistance, but he also provided service to a number of other schools and could not devote sufficient attention to get the Burke network running reliably. As Burke teachers and students began trying to use the network a host of problems became apparent, ranging from misconfigurations of software to the absence of policies establishing guidelines for responsible use of the Internet.
When Marcom's Jim Butler arrived at the Burke he found that approximately 50% of the existing computers were infected with viruses, partly as a result of software that users had downloaded from the Internet. Few teachers were aware of the services available to them through the network, such as storage facilities and file sharing methods.
Butler and his assistant divided their time between two kinds of tasks: (1) remediation and maintenance of the existing network system, and 2) defining and developing new or expanded uses of the network. Initially, the first category of tasks took roughly 75% of their time. They repaired infected systems, installed antivirus software, and trained Burke staff in using this software. They devised and implemented procedures to facilitate rapid restoration of malfunctioning systems. This was accomplished by creating and storing on the server a "system image"--a set of the properly configured software to be installed on every teachers' desk. Two versions of a bootable floppy disk were created, one for each of the two different network cards installed on the Burke's new computers. These disks allowed a damaged system to connect to the server and rebuild its desk top from the standard system image. Devising and installing this process and training Burke staff to carry out the procedure was more complex than Marcom initially expected, in part because the Burke's systems used two slightly different network cards. Once established, this process reduced the time for restoring damaged systems from about three hours to approximately 20 minutes.
Marcom also took other steps to protect the network's functionality. They trained some Burke teachers to use file sharing procedures which enabled teachers to prevent students' access to the Internet except during times when they were working on class assignments.
As the functioning of the network became more dependable, Marcom personnel devoted more attention to expanding the use of the network. They installed networked printers on each of the Burke's four floors, added approximately 40 computers to the network, and created additional accounts to insure that all Burke faculty and administrators had network accounts.
As the network was used more often by larger numbers of people, the Burke required personnel for "trouble-shooting" the problems that teachers and students encountered. The foundation grant supported a part-time computer assistant for twenty hours a week and another half-time assistant was funded through the Americorps program. In addition to providing technical assistance Marcom personnel also trained these two assistants and other Burke staff to develop their capacity to maintain the network. Mary Messick created a "help" account on the system to which users could send mail about problems. She monitored this account, prioritized requests, and deployed the trouble shooters to address problems.
During the spring term, the Burke Headmaster Steve Leonard moved to develop more network administration support on his own staff. He reassigned one of his computer teachers David Tavilla to work part-time as a system administrator. Tavilla attended courses in network installation and support procedures and worked closely with Marcom consultants and Mary Messick. Tavilla is expected to teach only one course and devote the remainder of his time to network administration next year.
By May, 1997, a total of 191 networked computers had been installed at the Burke (95 in labs, 52 in classrooms, 26 in administrative offices, 10 in the library, 2 in the teachers' room, and 3 used as network servers) along with 45 additional computers not linked to the network. Seven printers were linked to the network and an additional 26 printers were not networked.
In looking toward next year, Tavilla, Messick, and the Marcom staff recognize that further expansion and maintenance of the Burke network will require considerable time and sophisticated attention. The school intends to install additional systems in the coming year--as many as one hundred additional computers are scheduled to be installed during each of the next two years. Next year more teachers will become regular users of the network for email and class projects and all students are scheduled to receive email accounts. This may expand the number of users from approximately 130 to over 700. Jim Butler of Marcom states that a business with a computer network of this scope would expect to hire a system administrator with advanced training and 3-5 years of experience. In order to supply adequate assistance at the Burke, those who have provided support at the Burke make the following recommendations:
2. PLANNING, DOCUMENTATION, ONGOING ASSESSMENT
Knowing that people in schools are always juggling more demands than they can possibly satisfy, we allocated resources in the TIP project to be deliberative. The major activities in this strand included: regular email communication via a project listserv; ongoing planning and assessment of project activities through regular meetings; written questionnaires completed at the beginning and near the end of the year by Burke faculty and staff; a written survey completed by students at the end of the year; observations and written vignettes of some classrooms where technology is used; and interviews with some representative members of the Burke community.
a. Listserv. Members of the TIP project at both Burke and Harvard joined an electronic listserve that permitted them to exchange email easily among the whole group. As the Burke network became more reliable and people at the school became more fluent with email, electronic communication became increasingly valuable to the project. Minutes of most meetings were regularly posted to the network, providing a record of activities at the same time that participants were kept informed.
We considered using more complex electronic forums to facilitate the exchange of information and materials among Burke faculty and TIP participants, but found that Burke teachers first needed to develop comfort and fluency with email. Next year we intend to investigate the benefits of an online forum to be developed at the Harvard Graduate School of Education specifically to support educators involved in using new technologies to teach for understanding. We hope that at least a subset of Burke teachers will participate in developing and using this forum for collegial exchange with one another and others outside of Burke who are working on similar priorities.
b. Meetings. Two meetings occurred each week. One took place at the Burke with TIP managers (Brackett, Wiske, and Messick) and other key TIP participants from Harvard and Burke. The other weekly meeting convened at Harvard for all regular TIP participants based at the university. Approximately once a month the TIP managers met with the Burke Head Master and Assistant Head Master for Curriculum and Instruction. As time-consuming as these meetings were, they seemed essential for keeping track of the many facets of the TIP in relation to the ongoing traffic of activities, demands, and complementary projects at Burke. Weekly trips to the Burke by the Harvard project managers helped to keep them immersed in the school's atmosphere of bustle, pressure, satisfactions, and myriad demands. They also focused systematic attention on the TIP activities each week as we listed the tasks to be addressed, summarized progress, identified problems, and developed plans collaboratively. Regular meetings with the Burke administrators were essential in dovetailing TIP with the other initiatives at the school, including professional development activities organized by external agencies and the deliberations of the Burke Instructional Leadership Team (BILT).
In June, 1997, the Burke Headmaster restructured responsibilities of his administrative staff with respect to technology. The Assistant Headmaster for Curriculum and Instruction Nicole Bahnam was made responsible for coordinating all professional development at Burke, including that regarding technology, and became the Burke liaison for TIP. The Assistant Headmaster of Operations Linda Cabral was assigned responsibility for intake, storage and distribution of technology. Ms. Messick as Assistant Headmaster for Technology was made responsible for maintenance, operation and development of the Burke computer network. In light of this change of structure, we recommend:
c. Surveys. Periodic written surveys of Burke faculty and staff have proved useful in revealing their evolving perceptions about technology. In early May, 1997, we distributed a questionnaire to all teachers and staff, including several questions that appeared on the TIP survey administered in the fall. We analyzed changes in respondents' reported access to various forms of technology and their comfort in using them. The later survey also asked for teachers to comment on the factors that helped and hindered their use of technology and to indicate their interests in learning more about technology. (A copy of the survey is attached as an appendix to this report.)
The survey of teachers and staff completed in May, 1997, demonstrated considerable progress in access to new technologies and familiarity with productivity tools. Considering that computers linked to the Internet and equipped with the Microsoft Office software and Netscape were installed in fifty-two classrooms during the 1996-97 academic year, it is not surprising that the survey results indicate Burke faculty and staff perceived that their access to general productivity software increased during that period. In the spring, 87% percent of the respondents (n=65) said they had access to telecommunications and 94% said they had access to word processors. By spring, teachers also reported improved access to electronic database and spreadsheet software. Access to curriculum software did not increase as much. It is also significant that very few people did not know whether they had access to technology in the spring whereas a significant proportion of respondents did not know about their access to various software packages in the fall. See Table I for this information.
Respondents in the spring also indicated that Burke staff and faculty had increased their levels of comfort and familiarity with software, especially word processing and telecommunication software. In the fall, 62% of respondents rated their familiarity with word processing software as "minimal" or less; the comparable figure in the spring was 12%. In the fall 38% rated their familiarity with word processing as "basic", "comfortable" or "fluent," whereas 88% classified themselves in these categories in the spring. The change in familiarity with telecommunication software also shifted in a positive direction. In the fall 60% of respondents rated their familiarity with telecommunication software as "minimal" or less, compared with 29% in the spring. In the fall 40% rated their familiarity with telecommunications as "basic", "comfortable" or "fluent," but by spring 71% classified themselves in these categories. Smaller gains were apparent in familiarity with database and spreadsheet software. Importantly, teachers' familiarity with curriculum software did not increase very much. See Table II for more information comparing levels of familiarity with software packages.
The surveys also asked for information about teachers' interest in learning about new tools. As shown in Table III, respondents in May did not express as much enthusiasm for learning about new tools as they had in the fall, although considerable interest was still apparent. These results suggest that teachers need to understand more about the possible contributions that new technologies can make to their professional lives and to their students' education. They may also reflect the general exhaustion that accumulates as the school year draws to a close.
To clarify what had helped and hindered teachers' access to and use of new technologies, the survey asked teachers to rate a list of factors developed from our informal conversations with them. Their responses indicated that access to software for administrative purposes, such as the Microsoft Office software installed on their desktop machines, was the most positive factor. The factor rated most negatively was access to software for teaching and learning. This information was confirmed by comments that many teachers added to their survey forms. Several teachers noted that they do not know about good software to support teaching and learning and that getting access to computers for student use during classes is often difficult.
In May, 1997, we also distributed a short questionnaire to students asking whether they used computers at school and outside of school, how they use technology, and what more they would like to learn about technology. Teachers gave the survey to students during one particular class period on a day in May. A total of 330 students returned the form, including respondents from all four grade levels.
Of the 330 respondents, nearly all (301) students said they use computer technology in at least one course at school. Use of word processing software (n=170) and conducting research on the Internet (n=150) were the two most common ways that students used computers at the Burke. Several students mentioned using graphing calculators in their math classes or using other software packages such as spreadsheets, databases, desktop publishing, or engineering software in their courses. The most extensive and varied use of technology was described by students taking computer courses.
In response to a question about what else they would like to learn about computers at school, many students replied "anything" or "everything," demonstrating significant general enthusiasm for learning about new technologies. Several students asked for more advanced courses in computer technology, including learning to program, "take apart and repair computers," and learning about advanced applications such as desktop publishing, CAD/CAM, or multimedia. Their responses suggest that Burke students may respond well to a school-to-career pathway that focuses on careers in the technology industry. Several students wrote additional comments on their forms, including two who specifically named the influx of new technology at the Burke as the key factor in stimulating students' interest in school.
The overall impression generated by the students' survey responses is that Burke students are enthusiastic about learning to use computer technology and would like to have increased access both to more advanced technical training and to computers in their classrooms for regular academic work. Several students complained about the difficulty of getting access to computers at school for assignments that involve word processing or computer-based research. Some students recognized that such access requires not merely more hardware, but also that students take responsibility for using fragile and expensive technology carefully. Some students noted that computer access is jeopardized because "some students just mess them up." This suggests that the Burke may wish to launch a highly visible campaign in the fall to publicize policies of responsible use of technology and the importance of developing strong commitment among students to such policies. Students who desire increased access, and who are aware that students must accept responsibility, may serve as a core group to work with their peers on developing rules regarding appropriate care and use of technology.
A large proportion of Burke students use computers outside of school, in addition to using them at school,. A total of 53% said they have access to a computer outside of school: almost half of these have computers at home, 12% use them at work, 10% at friends' houses or community centers, 9% at UMass Boston, and 12% in their public library. These responses indicate that students make an effort to use computers in their lives and that many of them do school assignments on computers outside of school.
Taking time to document results and to analyze factors that help and hinder the integration of technology at Burke is sometimes perceived as a burden, especially when so many other tasks are more pressing and immediately beneficial. We did not always prepare minutes of meetings; workshop leaders were reluctant to ask participants to complete feedback forms when their time for learning was brief; and participants rarely took time to write reflections. Developing, completing, and analyzing surveys took a significant amount of time from TIP staff. We attempted to analyze the survey data with Excel, the electronic spreadsheet that is installed on the Burke desktop machines, to create a model that Burke faculty and administrators might use. We found the software quite clumsy for our purposes and came to doubt that school people would be likely to use it for this kind of task. Yet each of these kinds of documentation added significantly to our capacity to allocate our resources thoughtfully. In particular, the survey of students and the interviews with teachers enriched the understanding of particular opportunities and barriers associated with new technologies at the Burke. In light of this mixture of benefits and burdens, we recommend the following:
3. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
During the TIP's first year, professional development (helping teachers develop basic fluency with general application software such as Windows 95, email, and word processing) was conceived as a specific task, distinct from helping teachers learn to integrate technology with their curriculum and classroom practice (described in the next section). Indeed, during Year I much of TIP's resources and attention were devoted to "raising the floor" of general technical fluency among Burke staff as the new computers and network were installed.
Time for teachers to learn is always limited in schools, and this fact was particularly true with respect to TIP's agenda. By the time the TIP began in September, 1996, all the official time set aside for teacher's professional development was already allocated to other activities. Consequently, TIP focused on providing a series of workshops held after school and designed to address the topics teachers identified as priorities in the fall survey. Inevitably, teachers' interests varied so designing and delivering workshops met only certain teacher's needs. To address this problem, TIP experimented with offering on-site "clinics" during the school day at the end of the year, when teachers could come during their planning period for individual assistance. An additional drawback of the optional workshops was the absence of a single event that brought the Burke community together to focus on advancing their use of educational technologies. Fortunately, in May, 1997, TIP was allocated part of an official professional development day. The results are each of these strategies are summarized in the following paragraphs.
a. Workshops. Between November, 1996 (after the network was installed) and May, 1997, TIP staff offered a total of about twenty-six workshops during 1-2 hour sessions after school. In response to the teachers' surveys, workshops were offered on Windows 95, email, word processing, and use of the Internet and World Wide Web. A series of workshops in each of these topics was offered for learners with different levels of expertise. The schedule of workshops was posted at Burke and on a website at Harvard and teachers were asked to sign up in advance. Some teachers said they never learned about the workshops and a number of teachers who signed up did not ultimately attend. A number of respondents on the teacher survey noted that they had other commitments after school, including meetings at Burke, coaching or other responsibilities with Burke students, courses in which they were either teaching or enrolled as students, and parental duties with their own children.
Despite the inconvenience of the after school time, a total of about 140 attendances were recorded at these workshops by a total of 48 different people. On the teacher survey, most people who attended the workshops praised them as well-designed, clear, and practical. Teachers especially appreciated receiving paper copies of step-by-step instructions.
Most of the workshops were given by Jamie Folsom, an HGSE graduate student with extensive experience in providing workshops and technical assistance on educational technologies. He believed the TIP workshops "broke even" in producing enough benefits to justify the effort invested in them, but he was very aware of the limitations of this approach to professional development. In his view, "finding ways to capitalize on the diversity [of teachers' levels of expertise] is the key to integrating technology into curriculum." He also recognized that people based at Harvard who go to Burke only occasionally will lack important understandings about the school's culture. Folsom concluded:
Ideally what is needed at the Burke, and in any school with the Burke's level of technology infrastructure, is a full-time person who is there for professional development, a specialist in curriculum building. This person should know the students personally, know the teachers personally, know parents and administration personally and have an intimate knowledge of the curriculum and culture of the school. His or her skills should fall under the categories of communication and imagination.
b. Professional Day. Near the end of the year, TIP staff were invited to plan a 4-hour session for the entire faculty and staff during most of a professional day (from 10AM - 2PM). Over several weeks TIP participants at the Burke and Harvard devised plans to meet several goals: 1) publicize the progress Burke made with new technologies during the past year, 2) demonstrate the accomplishments of a few teachers and students whose use of technology addressed the school's priorities of advancing literacy, developing students' responsibility for their own learning and integrating technology with curriculum, 3) and help teachers learn how to identify or design resources on the Internet to enrich teaching and learning in their particular subjects. We concluded that the day would be most fruitful if Burke teachers whose technological expertise was more advanced helped their less knowledgeable colleagues. This strategy presented realistic images of what can be done at the Burke while, gave credit to pioneers, and provided help to other teachers.
The TIP portion of the day began after teachers met for two hours in committees focused on other tasks. It opened in the auditorium with a presentation from the Headmaster Steve Leonard who reviewed the findings from the TIP questionnaire that teachers had recently completed. Dr. Leonard acknowledged that "initially I rejected technology" and questioned the value of devoting the time and money it absorbed, "given all the other things that needed doing." He "commended those who stayed focused on this important goal," however, and emphasized the progress Burke had made since the fall in the installation and use of computers. He congratulated those who had overcome their fear of computers, saying, "You are our heros."
Three presentations by teachers and their students followed the Headmaster's address. Ms. Strand of the English department noted that she had used desktop publishing and word processing software with students in her English class. She introduced two students who had used a program called "Inspiration," to develop their ideas about Maya Angelou's autobiography, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. The students showed how they made a "concept-web" with the software as they brainstormed about themes in the book. The software allowed them to switch between displaying their ideas as linked nodes in a web or as a traditional outline. They explained how working together with the software had helped them develop, explain, and express their ideas.
Toni Jackson who teaches English as a Second Language (ESL) to Cape Verdean students described how she used computers to foster greater fluency in writing English. Instead of concentrating on perfecting grammar and vocabulary, her goal was to entice students to write more extensively and freely. She devised a project called Virtual Vacation, that involved students in finding information on the Internet, summarizing their findings in short written paragraphs, and synthesizing their research into a final product that could be written either as a paper with a word processor or as a page on the World Wide Web. One student described the structure and the process of the project by demonstrating her work. Each student was given $3000 (virtual) and invited to spend it on a Virtual Vacation in one of five selected cities. Ms. Jackson had identified several web sites with resources that would help students undertake this virtual journey. Students were required to visit these Web sites to accomplish such tasks as: purchase a roundtrip airplane ticket, choose a hotel and make a reservations, locate a city map and find the hotel on it, go to a restaurant, attend at least one cultural or athletic event. Ms. Jackson arranged for her class to go to the computer lab on the days when students needed to do Internet-based research. Students took turns using the four computers in her classroom to prepare their word processed reports. After students completed each Internet-based investigation, they wrote about their findings as a homework assignment. The final report presented by a second student was a vivid web-based journal of her vacation in San Francisco, complete with a "virtual" photo of the student superimposed on an image of Ghiradelli Square. Her journal included extensive notes on her impressions of the hotel, the restaurants, and her excursions around the city on cable cars.
Ms. Jackson reported that she felt she "was winging my way through this unit, but I was pleased with the final results....Students who could barely write a paragraph during term two handed in sheaves of them at the end of term three. Their grammar and their accuracy improved greatly. Word processing their documents ensured that revising and proofreading would be easy. The students were all proud of their travelogues and learned a great deal about a city in the United States."
The third presentation was by Dave Tavilla and students in his course on computer applications. He described working with the Career Counselor at the school to help students prepare for job interviews with a prospective summer employer. Dave learned that one company was particularly interested in students who could use presentation software, such as "Powerpoint." One of his students showed how she had integrated her job application essay and her resume with "Powerpoint." Her eloquent demonstration of her Powerpoint presentation was so polished, it was easy to see why the company hired her. "'Powerpoint' got me the job," she declared.
Another of Mr. Tavilla's students learned how to develop a web page in his computer application class. He chose to develop a page on the history of the Burke high school. As the student demonstrated the page, he explained that he had found photographs and other resources in the school library. His product is now attached the Burke High School home page as a way of introducing this proud institution through its website.
This series of presentations from accomplished students amply demonstrated the potential of new technologies to enrich teaching and learning. It also revealed the dedication, imagination, and perseverance of these students and their teachers while conveying the message that such work was within reach of everyone at Burke.
After a catered lunch funded by TIP, the workshop day concluded with a set of two-hour training sessions. Four sessions focused on using the Internet to enrich teaching and learning in Language, mathematics/science, social studies, or the arts. A fifth session for more advanced teachers taught participants how to design their own webpage. Each of these sessions was led by one or more members of the Burke staff who collaborated with one or more partners from Harvard. These teams combined the best expertise from both institutions. In consultation with the teams, TIP staff developed a general outline for these sessions including a set of step-by-step instructions on browsing the web with Netscape, saving information in various ways, and locating web-based resources. To aid teachers in their use of the Internet, several students in George Brackett's web design course at Harvard developed a data base of web resources. They designed the Burke Data Base to help teachers store information about their favorite websites, catalogued by various criteria such as subject matter, type of site, and source. During the workshop, teachers were shown how to search and add to this data base, and how to use more general search engines on Netscape.
Based on the comments of teachers and administrators, the professional day on May 16 succeeded in its purposes. Participants were pleased to witness the progress the school had made during the year, their imaginations were piqued by presentations of several impressive products and performances by students, and their knowledge and skills regarding the Internet as an educational resources were advanced by the afternoon workshops.
Analysis of the first year of providing professional development through TIP leads to several recommendations:
TIP attempted to design workshops in response to interests that teachers expressed on their written surveys. In many cases, however, the teachers who indicated an interest on the survey were not available to attend the workshop. Perhaps a more efficient process could be developed if teachers with a common set of interests requested a single workshop or a series of them at a time that was convenient for them, for example during their common planning period or designated meeting time.
4. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION
For several reasons, TIP activities in Year I focused less on supporting the use of technology in the classroom than on developing teachers' access to and general comfort with computers. The main reason for this pattern was that teachers need to gain considerable fluency with computers before they can expect to develop and enact ways of using them to enhance teaching and learning in their classes. Few teachers at the Burke had both the access to technology and the general skills to use computers in their classes. In addition, as described earlier, TIP had no formally scheduled access to teachers during the school day to provide the planning and support that curriculum integration requires.
Nevertheless, some teachers at Burke did manage to conduct projects in their classes that made significant use of new technologies. A few of them received assistance from Harvard students supervised by TIP staff, but most of them proceeded either with assistance from other sources or with their own ingenuity and resourcefulness. The work of three teachers who integrated computers into their classes--Susan Strand, Toni Jackson, and Dave Tavilla-- was described earlier in the summary of the May 16 workshop.
Teachers of ninth grade mathematics used graphing calculators in their classes with support from Dr. Walter Stroup and funding from the National Science Foundation. The focus of this year-long initiative was to help Burke teachers learn how to implement the integrated math curriculum adopted by the School Committee of the Boston Public Schools in June, 1996. Specifically, Dr. Stroup's project focused on innovative uses of graphing calculators to teach the mathematics of change. Dr. Stroup met approximately weekly with ninth grade math teachers during their common planning period to develop curriculum and teaching strategies. The curriculum centered on investigations of a block of unit area and incorporated topics from algebra, probability and calculus. Each student used a hand-held graphing calculator and each room also had a computer display system through which individual students' calculator work could be demonstrated as a way of creating a common meeting-ground for classroom discussions. In addition to consulting with teachers in a group to plan curriculum and discuss teaching strategies, Dr. Stroup worked with teachers as they taught classes. He enacted this model of joint curriculum development and in-class support throughout most of the school year with almost all of the teachers responsible for teaching Math I. TIP did not directly support this project, but TIP should collaborate with the continuation of this project and emulate this model in its efforts to support the integration of technology with curriculum.
TIP participants were more directly involved in supporting two other cases of technology integration. Emily Sedgwick teaches geometry to students in the Special Education program at Burke. She wished to use graphing calculators with her students, but was not part of Dr. Stroup's project. A Harvard student Jon Mowry consulted with Ms. Sedgwick as part of project for one his courses, under the auspices of the TIP project. He met weekly with Ms. Sedgwick during much of the Spring semester to develop and support lessons related to her geometry curriculum using software called Cabri installed on hand-held graphing calculators. Cabri allows students to create geometric figures, measure their components, and analyze patterns in these data. The software is intended to enable students to investigate geometry through active inquiry and inductive reasoning, in contrast to the passive reaction that most students have to traditional teacher-led lessons. One problem with this structure was that no materials existed for integrating Cabri with the Burke textbook; although, the Harvard student and the Burke teacher attempted to create such materials, their time and skills for this work were limited.
A second initiative involved English teacher Warren Cutler. With assistance from his student teacher and students from Harvard who were supervised through the TIP project, Mr. Cutler devised a unit for students in his writing class. He intended to link his class with students from another school via email. Each student would interview a partner in the other class via email and write a profile of the other student as well as an autobiographical profile. For various reasons, this project did not progress quite the way it was envisioned. Establishing email accounts for Burke students was complex, the partner school was not available to participate at the necessary time so Harvard students and teachers were recruited as partners for the Burke students. A further barrier was that teaching students to negotiate the mechanics of email took time. Nevertheless, Mr. Cutler concluded that the project had considerable promise and declared his intention to try a similar innovation next year. He believed that if he could collaborate with colleagues who taught other subjects to his students they might reap more benefits from the investment in preparing students to use email and the Internet.
We interviewed several Burke teachers whose use of technology in their classrooms ranged from relatively advanced through quite limited. Their remarks confirmed impressions conveyed by teachers' responses to the written questionnaire. In sum, the process of planning, enacting, and assessing lessons that take significant advantage of new technologies is complex. It requires time and careful thought about several dimensions of change:
a. Teachers need time for detailed curriculum planning. Toni Jackson outlined specific activities and prepared detailed lesson materials using Front Page that included links to the web-based resources students were expected to use. Emily Sedgwick consulted with Jon Mowry to transform lessons from her geometry textbook into activities that her students could conduct with graphing calculators. Figuring out how to integrate a new tool with curriculum and practice requires planning. Such planning must be informed by a solid understanding of the subject matter and learning goals (as related to the curriculum priorities of the Burke and the Boston Public Schools standards) and by the needs and interests of Burke students.
b. Teachers need time to learn new tools. Some teachers enjoy learning how to use computer software or exploring the Internet for useful resources, and willingly devote time outside of school to these pursuits. Probably a larger number of teachers are willing to devote a small amount of time to such work, but prefer to have the basic exploration done by someone else so that their time on the computer is as efficient as possible. Many teachers are reluctant or truly scared to start using computers and need non-threatening helpers to ease them over the initial hurdles. Some teachers found their own students helped them explore the Internet or work through the word processing software. Others learned from neighbors or other helpful colleagues either at school or at home. Some were assisted by student teachers.
c. Students need help in learning to use new tools. Teachers found that they had to devote considerable class time to preparing students to use computers, for example, to conduct research on the Internet, to use email for class assignments, and to use word processors to revise and improve their writing. Students needed to learn how to use Internet search engines to investigate particular topics, how to choose appropriate sites to visit, how to read the material they found and assess its meaning and credibility.
Warren Cutler found it complicated to arrange for the students in one of his classes to be given email accounts so they could correspond with partners outside of Burke. He worked with the system administrator to get email accounts for students, configure machines to accommodate student accounts, give students passwords, cope when students forgot their passwords, and iron out kinks when the usual procedures did not work. All this absorbed more than three class periods. Then students needed to learn how to send and receive messages, how to save messages, etc. Teaching students technical skills took more time than teachers expected.
This preparation time can be "amortized" if students use the same tools and skills in more than one class. Thus it would be beneficial if two or more teachers who work with the same students in different courses planned together to do coordinated or joint projects.
d. Access to computers for student use can be difficult. Some teachers have a few "old Macs" in their classrooms in addition to the new PCs with Internet access that most teachers now have on their own desks. This arrangement can support a class in a modest word processing project, as students take turns using the machines in the classroom. A few teachers allowed students to use the teacher's computer for Internet research, but this was not a viable solution for the long term. Teachers found they had to arrange time for their students to work on computers either in the library or in one of the computer labs in order to accomplish significant projects. Scheduling time in the lab is often difficult. Also, several teachers said that the disruption of moving students to a different classroom is too great; students lose focus and concentration. Sending a small part of the class to the library works best if a student teacher can accompany the group to support their work.
Several teachers believed that they could make effective use of technology if they had 2-3 machines in their room for student use on a regular basis and easy access to another 2-3 machines on movable carts for certain periods. With the larger number, teachers could have groups of students work at each machine and conduct instruction for the whole class on particular procedures. Then individual students could rotate on to the machines for computer-based work, while the rest of the class did research, review, thinking, and planning that did not require use of computers. Several teachers stated a firm preference for arranging convenient access to computers in their own classrooms rather than transferring students to the computer lab for certain lessons. At least one teacher also requested that the mobile units include an overhead projector, so that teachers who wanted to conduct computer-based lessons could use this technology to move the whole class along at one pace.
Several teachers and students requested easier access to networked printers. With only one networked printer on a floor, teachers and students have to leave their classroom to retrieve their work. They often find that they must wait or search for their material as others use the same printer or the single printer malfunctions.
e. Working with technology may require teachers to develop new instructional strategies. Particularly if students use computers to conduct more independent, open-ended inquiry, teachers may need to develop activity structures different from traditional whole-group transmission style presentations. Learning how to organize work and engage students in individual or small group activities can be a complex process for teachers. Teachers also report that it is challenging to help students learn how to treat computers with respect. Using them for appropriate purposes, taking care not to disorganize files so that other users are inconvenienced, using time to do appropriate school work--all of these norms are part of developing a culture of responsibility. Developing such a culture around powerful, expensive technology is a process.
f. Assessment of technology-enhanced student work must be designed. Several teachers reported that students write more fluently and are more willing to revise and correct their work when they use computer tools to collect information and organize their writing. Yet teachers are not always able to describe or document specific improvements in student work. Teachers need to develop criteria for assessing work that students do with computers. If they have particular subject-matter goals they want to address-- e.g., more fluent writing, more penetrating analysis, synthesis of research gathered from several sources--these expectations must be clearly articulated to students. Communicating goals and criteria explicitly and giving students opportunities for peer and self-assessment helps students understand what they are supposed to learn. Conducting ongoing assessments part-way through multi-step projects (not just when the final product is turned in) gives students a chance to improve their work according to the assessment critieria, before the final grade is set. Especially when students and teachers are attempting innovative curriculum, ongoing assessment helps them clarify goals and monitor progress.
Providing effective support for technology integration next year must include attention to the needs of teachers who range from reluctant to receptive to eager. The reluctant group needs to see compelling "visions of possibilities" that demonstrate the educational power of new technologies. The receptive group may benefit from opportunities to collaborate with more advanced colleagues whose materials and strategies might be adopted or adapted. The most enthusiastic group needs easier access to hardware for their students, software that supports their curricular goals, and other resources and assistance in developing and assessing educationally powerful uses of new technologies. Meeting the needs of this range of teachers requires a menu of varied opportunities and incentives. We recommend the following:
5. COLLABORATIVE PROCESS
Although most of this report is devoted to the substance of the TIP, its process also merits brief analysis. Sustaining the partnership of a school of education with a secondary school requires continual adjustment, honest negotiations, and deep commitment from people in both institutions. Despite their overlapping agendas, the priorities, schedules, and political contexts of the university differ significantly from those of the schools. Bridging the differences between the institutions to address their shared interests required good relationships and continual communication among the project directors at both Harvard and Burke. Our experience during the first year leads to several recommendations.
CONCLUSION
The first year of the Technology Integration Project contributed to significant
progress in the implementation of the Burke Technology Plan. The project
supported the development of a dependable computer network, including the
installation of over one hundred additional computers. Workshops helped
most teachers and staff develop at least a modest degree of familiarity
with email, Internet resources, and word processing. TIP staff from Harvard
consulted regularly with Burke staff about their plans for expanding the
number of technical resources at the school and developing capacity to maintain
and use these resources. Building on the base of technical resources and
developing expertise at the Burke, the second year of the TIP should allocate
more attention to support for addressing educational priorities at the Burke,
including the development of literacy and of students' responsibility for
their own learning. This collaborative project has enriched the educational
opportunities for Harvard students and faculty while contributing to the
use of new educational technologies at the Burke. Continuation of this
success will require not only the generous backing of the funders, but sustained
care and communication among the project's leaders at both Burke and Harvard.