patth@dasys1.UUCP (Patt Haring) (12/16/87)
Downloaded from The U.S. Department of Education BBS
1-800-222-4922 (300/1200 Baud, 24 hrs) TOLL FREE!
November 1986
TEACHERS' VIEWS ON COMPUTER USE IN ELEMENTARY
AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS
Many educators believe that computers offer tremendous
potential for improving education and may revolutionize
the education process (The National Science Board
Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics,
Science and Technology, "Educating Americans for the
21st Century," 1983, pp.51-67). As Sanders (1981)
indicated, "Computers can bring to the educational
process such attributes as untiring patience, and
around-the clock availability, and individualized and
student-paced instruction programs, . . ." (Sanders,
D.H., Computers in Society, 3rd ed., New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1981, pp.480-481). Over the years, schools
across the country have demonstrated very strong
interest in computers as measured by their acquisition
of microcomputers. In a 1982 bulletin, the Center for
Education Statistics (formerly the National Center for
Education Statistics) reported that the number of
microcomputers acquired by schools increased from about
31,000 units in fall 1980 to about 96,000 units in
spring 1982 (NCES Bulletin 82-245). As of June 1983,
computers (terminals and microcomputers) were available
in about 60 percent of elementary schools, 90 percent of
middle/junior high schools, and virtually all senior
high schools (99 percent) in this country. In the fall
of 1984, microcomputers in schools number 570,000 units.
By September 1985, the number of microcomuters in public
schools was approximately 850,000 units, available in 91
percent of elementary schools, 97.3 percent of
middle/junior high schools, and 97.4 percent of senior
high schools. (Hood, J., Personal Communication.
Market Data Retrieval, Inc., "Microcomputers in Schools,
1984-85.") When both terminals and microcomputers are
considered, the total number of computers used for
instruction in public and private schools in the spring
of 1985 was 1,030,000 units.
Undoubtedly, computers have an important role to play in
the schools. However, the importance of this role, to a
large extent, depends on how teachers use computers and
how teachers view the effectiveness of computers. Up to
now, little information has been available on this
subject. Thus, the primary purpose of this report is to
provide historical information about the ways in which
computers are being used by teachers in public and
private schools, and about teachers' attitudes and
opinions about the effectiveness of computers.
The number of computers in schools has changed
dramatically, quadrupling between 1983 and 1985
(Becker, H.J. "Instructional Uses of School Computers,"
No. 1, June 1986, Johns Hopkins University, Reports from
the 1985 national survey); yet the three major types of
teachers' instructional use examined by Becker still
exhibit the same order in 1985 that occurred in 1983 in
the School Utilization Study (SUS). Enrichment is still
the greatest use in 1985, with regular instruction
(drill and practice), last. ("Instructional Uses of
School Computers," No.2, August 1986, Johns Hopkins
University Reports from the 1985 national survey.)
Therefore, it seems reasonable to expect that the
information in this report on teachers' views of
computer use in 1983 is still current. These SUS
teacher attitude and opinion data are the most
generalizable national data available. They represent a
national probability sample of all elementary and
secondary teachers, representing both computer users and
nonusers.
To be certain whether or not any change has occurred in
teachers' overall views of computers in the schools, a
follow-up SUS survey is needed. Such a study would
include, at a minimum, the same attitude and opinion
items that were asked in SUS 83. Although some
additional teacher attitudinal and teaching practice
data on nonusers will be presented in a forthcoming
newsletter by Becker (Becker, H.J., Unpublished data
from the Second National Survey of Institutional Uses of
School Computers, June 1985, Johns Hopkins University
Survey funded by OERI), his upcoming data are only
representative of nonusers at the same schools where
users were sampled. Also, questionnaire items on
teacher attitudes in Becker's 1985 study measure
somewhat different aspects of computer effectiveness
than the SUS study examined. Nevertheless, Becker's new
data will provide insight into effective teaching
practices in specific subject areas, comparing users
with nonusers.
This report is primarily based on the results of the
School Utilization Study (SUS), 1982-83, jointly
sponsored by the Center for Education Statistics (CES)
and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (Riccobono,
J.A., "Availability, Use, and Support of Instructional
Media, 1982-83." The Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, Wash., D.C., 1985 The study involved a
sample of 2,700 teachers in 1,350 schools across the
Nation. Data were collected during the late winter and
spring of 1983. More information about the study is
presented in the methodology section at the end of this
report. To compare or contrast these findings, relevant
information from outside studies is also summarized in
this report. Thus, a historical context is provided in
which these data may serve as a base line.
Overall, computers in schools were being used more
frequently for enrichment and teaching computer literacy
than for other instructional purposes. A majority of
teachers agreed that computers can help teachers to
teach more effectively; however, they felt that teachers
should preview software before it is purchased by the
school. Predictably, teachers were crying out en masse
for more training in computers. Details of these
findings are presented below.
HOW COMPUTERS ARE BEING USED BY TEACHERS
The most frequent use of computers by teachers
(combining and averaging across school levels) was for
enrichment in special subject areas (59 percent of
computer-using teachers reported such use), followed by
challenging high achievers (47 percent), and teaching
computer literacy (46 percent) (table 1). By school
level, enrichment was the most frequent use for
elementary (65 percent) and middle/junior high schools
(57 percent); however, at the high school level, the
most frequent use was for teaching computer literacy (45
percent). Table 1 is based on teachers reporting any
instructional use of computers with their classes. Of
the 44 percent of the Nation's teachers who reported
computers available for use with their classes, 62
percent of these reported using them for instruction. A
related CES report, also based on this study, examined
how the instructional use of computers varies by school
and district factors. (Ancarrow, J.S., "Differences in
Teachers' Instructional Use of Computers, by School &
District Factors, " June 1986, CS 86-220b.)
In general these findings of computer use at the
secondary level were supported by the findings of
Becker's 1983 national study ("School Uses of
Microcomputers," No. 1, April 1983, Johns-Hopkins
University. Reports from a National Survey, funded by
the National Institute of Education. In 1985, a
follow-up study was conducted.), although some of
Becker's categories were different. He included
categories of administrative use and excluded
enrichment. Becker found that, in secondary schools,
teachers reporting regular or extensive uses of
microcomputers at their schools showed an overwhelming
emphasis on computer literacy (85 percent) and
programming (76 percent), with drill and practice third
(31 percent).
One might ask, "For what subject is a teacher most
likely to use a computer?" When Becker investigated the
question of major responsibility by grade level in his
1985 study, he found the following: At grades K-5, 70
percent of the computer-using teachers taught general or
mixed subjects and 11 percent special education; at
grades 6-8, 29 percent general, 23 percent mathematics,
12 percent English or reading, and 11 percent computer
subjects, and at grades 9-12, 22 percent mathematics,
19 percent computer subjects, 20 percent business, and
10 percent science. Small percentages of computer-using
teachers, from 1 to 9 percent, represented a variety of
primary teaching responsibilities. Although these
computer-using teachers probably also used the computer
in their primary teaching areas, it is uncertain because
of the way the question was asked. The teachers were
not asked specifically whether or not they used the
computer in these particular subjects.
TEACHERS' ATTITUDES AND OPINIONS ABOUT COMPUTERS
The vast majority (90 percent either agreed or
strongly agreed) of surveyed teachers stated that
they wanted more training in computers (7 percent
had no opinion) and that they wanted to preview
computer software before purchase (9 percent had no
opinion ) (table 2). Most teachers believed,
according to these data, that computers can help
teachers to teach more effectively (82 percent).
The results also indicate that teachers did not find
computers to be disruptive to classroom activity (63
percent).
About one-third (31 percent) of the teachers
indicated that they did not feel comfortable working
with computers; while 18 percent expressed no
opinion, apparently about half of the teachers (51
percent) were comfortable using computers.
Approximately one-third of the teachers felt that
integrating the computer into other subject areas
was simple; another one-third disagreed; the
remaining one-third abstained from declaring it one
way or the other.
It is interesting to note that many teachers were
undecided or ambivalent about both the instructional
quality of available software (35 percent positive,
17 percent negative, and 49 percent no opinion), and
the difficulty in using the hardware (8 percent
indicated difficulty, 51 percent no difficulty, and
41 percent no opinion). In addition, these data
illustrate a potential problem for teachers:
Although 90 percent of the teachers indicated that
they wanted to preview software, nearly half of all
of the teachers surveyed had no opinion about the
quality of the software that is currently available
to them. Assuming that the software is made
available to teachers for review, it appears that
this gap between what some teachers say they want on
the one hand, and what some teachers presently do,
on the other hand, could be filled by some
preservice or inservice teacher training in how to
evaluate instructional software. Dennis's (1979)
comprehensive list of competencies necessary for
instructional use of computers by classroom teachers
included the ability to evaluate the effectiveness
of instructional computer programs. (Dennis, J.R.,
"Teacher Education in Use of Computers." Paper
presented to Illinois Series on Education Application of
Computers, No. 1e, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 1979.
ERIC Document Reproduction No. D 183 181.)
Teachers have previously expressed the desire for
training in the use of computers. In the spring of
1982, a sample of 1,700 teachers in the National
Education Association (NEA) was surveyed about
computers (response rate of 71 percent). These
teachers also expressed an interest in taking an
instructional computer course (82.6 percent). They,
too, reported considerable dissatisfactio with both
the amount of software available (53.4 percent), and
the quality of software available (46.3 percent).
These teachers viewed the primary purpose of
instructional computing to be fostering an awareness
of computers (56 percent), while basic computer
skills (52 percent), programming skills (34.7
percent), and skills in another subject such as
mathematics and reading (50.7 percent) were les
often cited as the primary purpose. NEA's results
showed the greatest need of computer-using teahcers
to be more software (42.2 percent), followed by the
need for personal knowledge about computing (28.1
percent), and more computers (21.9 percent). Only
11.2 percent of respondents to that survey were
computer-using teachers, and only 6.2 percent were
using the computer for instruction during spring of
1982. (A Teacher Survey NEA Report: Computers in the
Classroom, National Education Associatin, Reston, VA,
1983.)
THE NEED FOR HIGH QUALITY SOFTWARE AND TEACHER
TRAINING
Although teachers' most frequent uses of the
computer include enrichment and computer literacy,
the bulk of the available software is for
drill-and-practice instruction. (It is cheaper to
produce, easier to produce, can be used over and
over and for more than one grade level, and is
simple to run.) Becker's 1985 data show that the
greatest amount of software available in schools at
every level is for computer-assisted instruction:
that is, drills, tutorials, simulations. These data
may indicate that producers of software, in order to
respond to teachers' instructional needs, should
produce more high quality software of the type that
can be used for enrichment in specific subject
areas, computer literacy, and challenging high
achievers. The software the teachers need for their
greatest area(s) of use (enrichment, challenge,
literacy) is not as widely available to teachers as
is a lesser used area of software (drill and
practice). The situation points to an area of need
that might be remedied by supplementary efforts
between publishers of software and providers of
teacher training. Such a partnership (publishers of
computer software and teacher-training providers) is
currently being developed to some extent.
Teacher-training programs in education departments
in this country are focusing their greatest use of
microcomputers on teaching computer literacy, which
colleges of education are beginning to recognize as
an important aspect of training school teachers (The
Chronicle of Higher Education, March 30, 1983; Vol.
XXVI, No. 5). In a 1982 study of computer use in 182
teacher education programs, 37 (14 private and 23
public) or 26 percent of the respondents had
computer awareness programs; in addition, a total of
60 percent (49 plus the 37 above) either had or
planned to implement such programs within two to
three years. (Daniels, Ollie, "Computer Education
in NCATE Colleges." A dissertion in the School of
education, University of Florida, 1982.) Among the
specific skills reported by 31 of the 37
institutions with computer awareness programs, 24 of
them (77 percent) included "reviewing programs."
Perhaps all future preservice, as well as inservice,
training programs in computer literacy could be
expanded to included a training segment on the
review and evaluation of instructional software,
both to respond to the perceived need (by teachers
in this survey) for such a training segment, and in
order to increase the educational productivity of
teachers.
METHODOLOGY
Overview of Study Design
The SUS 1982-83 sample design called for a sample of
classroom teachers, schools, and school districts.
The sampling procedure was designed to ensure to the
extent possible that every teacher in the Nation (in
public school districts and Catholic dioceses with
enrollments of 300 or more) had an opportunity to be
selected for participation in the study.
(Investigation in Catholic dioceses was restricted,
however, to elementary school teachers.) A
stratified multistage probability sample was
employed, which involved: first, selecting a sample
of school districts with probablility proportional
to size (PPS), using number of teachers as the size
measure; second, selecting a sample of schools (to
desired levels of elementary, middle/junior high,
and senior high) within the selected districts; and,
third, selecting a sample of two teachers within
each selected school.
The final SUS 1982-83 sample sizes are shown below:
Districts/dioceses 619
Schools 1,350
Elementary 675
Middle/junior high 338
Senior high 337
Teachers 2,700
Elementary 1,350
Middle/junior high 676
Senior high 674
The SUS 1982-83 survey was conducted by mail
questionnaire, with telephone follow-up interviews
of mail nonrespondents. Survey questionnaires were
developed to gather information at three levels: a
Superintendent Questionnaire for district-level
data, a Principal Questionnaire for school-level
data, and a Teacher Questionnaire for
classroom-level data. Data were collected during
the period February through May 1983. Final
response rates for the three questionnaires were:
86 percent for superintendents, 84 percent for
principals, and 80 percent for teachers (2,160
teachers).
A sampling weight was assigned to each member in the
original sample to account for unequal selection
prbablilities; these weights were further adjusted
for instrument nonresponse. These adjusted weights
were then used for estimating results for the total
populations of superintendents, principals, and
teachers in the Nation.
Three categories of school level were defined:
elementary schools (schools with a lowest grade of
less than 6, including K-8 or K-12), senior high
schools (schools with a lowest grade of greater than
8), and middle/junior high schools (all other
schools). Special schools (e.g., special education
only, vocational/technical, adult education, and
alternative/continuation education only) were
excluded from this study.
Reliability of Estimates
The findings presented in this report are estimates
based on the particular sample used and consequently
are subject to sampling variability. If the
questionnaires had been sent to a different sample,
the responses would not have been identical; some
numbers might have been higher, while others might
have been lower. The estimated standared error of a
statistic (a measure of the variation due to
sampling) can be used to examine the precision
obtained in a particular sample. If all possible
samples were surveyed under similar conditions,
intervals of 1.645 standard errors below, to 1.645
standard errors above, a particular statistic would
include the average result of these samples in
approximately 90 percent of the cases. For every
possible sample, about 90 percent of the intervals
would include the average number from all possible
samples. Specific statements of comparison in the
text are significant at the 90 percent confidence
level or better. The standard errror for SUS data
in table 1 is based on a sample size of 800; e.g.,
for an estimate of 10 or 90 percent of an analysis
group, the generalized standard error is 1.55
percent. Table 2 is based on a sample size
exceeding 2000. For a conservative estimate of 10
or 90 percent, the generalized standard error is
.981 percent.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
For further information about this analysis and the
School Utilization Study, 1982-83, please contact
Janice S. Ancarrow, Center for Education Statistics,
555 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20208-1302, telephone (202) 357-6397. For single
copies of this report contact Information Services
at the same address or telephone 1-800-424-1616.
TABLE 1.--Percent of teachers reporting instructional
purposes for computer use by school level:
School year 1982-83
SCHOOL LEVEL
-------------------------------------
Middle/Junior Senior
Total Elementary high school High Sch
Instructional Teachers * Teachers teachers teachers
Computer Use (580,000) (354,000) (119,000) (107,000)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(in percent)
Enrichment in 59 65 57 40
specific subject
areas
Challenging high 47 55 45 23
achievers
Computer literacy
(e.g., intro to
computer concepts) 46 43 54 45
Remedial instruction
for regular classroom
students 43 46 47 26
Regular instruction in
specific subject areas
for all students 43 45 46 34
Computer programming 25 17 36 39
Computer applications
(e.g., word processing
or advanced problem
solving) 19 15 20 34
Instruction for special
education students 13 13 20 5
Bilingual instruction 1 <1 2 2
Other 7 5 7 16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Analysis restricted to teachers who used computers in 1982-83.
TABLE 2--Percent of teachers reporting attitudes and opinions about
computers: School year 1982-83 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questionnaire Strongly Strongly No
Items Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Opinion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(in percent)
Computers can help
teachers teach more
effectively 28 54 4 <1 13
Having one or two
students work at a
computer is seriously
disruptive to the rest
of my classroom
activity. 2 11 40 23 24
I want more training
in computers. 46 44 3 1 7
The software available
to me is quite good
instructionally. 5 30 10 7 49
I do not feel
comfortable about
working with computers. 8 23 31 20 18
Previewing software
should be done by
teachers before
purchase. 46 44 1 <1 9
Integrating computer
time with other
subject areas is a
fairly simple matter. 4 28 25 8 34
The hardware, or
equipment, is
difficult to use. 1 7 37 14 41
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Analysis based on all teachers.
--
Patt Haring UUCP: ..cmcl2!phri!dasys1!patth
Big Electric Cat Compu$erve: 76566,2510
New York, NY, USA MCI Mail: 306-1255; GEnie: PHaring
(212) 879-9031 FidoNet Mail: 1:107/701 or 107/222