Development in school and community contexts

¶ … School & Community

The use of computer technology in classrooms is generally perceived to be beneficial. One of the arguments for this is that it shifts teacher and student roles in a way that enhances learning. With the teacher acting as facilitator rather than lecturer, students may be more likely to be active in the learning process. Studies show that in classrooms using software technology, individual students make many more responses than in traditional classes where only the student called by the teacher has the opportunity to answer a question (Worthen et al., 1994 & Schofield and Verban, 1988, in Dynarski et al., 2007). The positive effect of computer-based instruction is generally apparent in reading and mathematics, two of the most important skills learned in school (Kulik, 1994; Rouse & Krueger, 2004; and Morgan & Ritter, in Dynarski et al., 2007).

In terms of school-context levels of organization (Figure 1), computer-aided learning falls under academic work and instruction (Level 1), which is the very heart of school. Here lies the content of the curriculum and the design of instruction, both of which regulate student attention, interest, cognitive effort, and motivation (Eccles & Roeser, 1998). However, the school experience is not just about academic tasks and is in fact, influenced by other succeeding levels of organization, which in turn interact in many ways that shape the daily experiences of students and teachers (Eccles & Roeser, 1998). For instance, teacher and school-level influences could be significant factors in students' performance in computer technology-assisted learning, as will be explained later in this paper.

Computer programs and software designed for classroom use must be able to model some important features in order to positively impact students at the first contextual level. To promote effort, learning interest, and achievement among children, the design of a curriculum must challenge students in a level-appropriate manner; require the use of diverse cognitive skills; and structured in a way that lessons build up systematically, using multiple approaches to problem solving and teaching specific strategies that assist in learning (Eccles & Roeser, 1998).

One computer-based instructional solution that has gained wide acceptance and recognition across many American schools is the "Cognitive Tutor" developed by Carnegie psychologists and programmers (Ritter et al., 2007). The "tutors" are based on cognitive models of learning that take the form of computer simulations that "solve" problems like a student. Incorporated in the Cognitive Tutor are the two knowledge components --declarative and procedural -- imbedded in the instruction, and as the student tackles the problem himself, the tutor is able to track his step-by-step solution, identify strengths and weaknesses, and provide tailor-made, just-in-time instruction (Ritter et al., 2007, Koedinger, 1996). Students work on a concept until it is fully understood; otherwise they will be drilled on in that area. Those who have mastered the concept move on to the other areas (Ritter et al., 2007).

Since the Cognitive Tutor is highly individualized, it directs instruction to where it is still needed by the student, thereby ensuring that learning time is spent more efficiently. The tutor also ensures that learning progresses systematically, gradually building up to accommodate the student's level of mastery. Further, it understands the many ways a problem can be solved by different students and directs them to refine their method using the strategies imbedded in the program. All these elements seem to make the Cognitive Tutor an "ideal" instructional tool and many studies give credence to the benefits of using the program in classrooms.

The dramatic success of the Cognitive Tutor -- especially in Mathematics -- is well documented. Various literature report benefits like improved student achievement in several standardized tests, improved levels of understanding, greater confidence in mathematics, and increased student engagement in the learning process (Schneyderman, 2001; Koedinger et al., 1997; Morgan and Ritter, 2002; National Research Council, 2003; and Sarkis, 2004 in Ritter et al., 2007). Most of the success stories are among high school students studying Algebra and Geometry, post-secondary students doing pre-Calculus, and college students taking Intermediate Algebra courses (Koedinger, 1996; Ritter et al., 2007).

The use of the Cognitive Tutor not only enriches students' experience at the academic task-level but also impacts the teachers' instructional practices and relationship with her students (Level 3) A district-wide survey of high school teachers using the program reveals that the Cognitive Tutor allows them more time to provide individual assistance to students; gives them the opportunity to adjust their instructional practices as a result of students progressing in problem solving; and makes Algebra more interesting and relevant to students (Schneyderman, 2001). These views imply that the use of the program makes teaching less burdensome in the sense that the teacher acts as facilitator of learning rather than instructor, which is one of the arguments for educational technology in general.

Due perhaps to the wide acceptance of the use of Cognitive Tutor and other instructional software in American classrooms, the "No Child Left Behind" Act called for the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to conduct a national study to determine the actual contribution of this technology to students' learning (Dynarski et al., 2007). A total of 16 reading and math software products were evaluated for their effectiveness in 1st, 4th, 6th, and 9th grade students The main findings of the study are quite unexpected -- test scores are not significantly higher in classrooms using selected reading and mathematics software products. For reading products, effects on overall test scores were correlated with student-teacher ratio in 1st grade classrooms and with the amount of time that products were used in 4th grade classrooms (Dynarski et al., 2007).

Research evidence on implementation factors may suggest some explanations for the above findings. First, there are teacher-related issues. Technology products places demands on teachers' time and skills as they have to prepare the product, transfer the students to computer labs, maintain the technology, and monitor and help students as they use the software (Dynarski et al., 2007). Many teachers also feel that they have a significant need for professional development on how to manage classroom activities that integrate computer technology (Adelman et al. 2002 in Dynarski et al., 2007). In the ED study, although teachers underwent training and were confident at the end to use the products in their classes, their confidence dropped to some degree after they began using the products in the classroom (Dynarski et al., 2007). This may have been due in part to technical difficulties, which is another implementation factor issue. For instance, computer access may be limited, hardware can be unreliable, computer networks unstable, and technical support inadequate (Cuban, 2000 and Culp et al., 2003, in Dynarski et al., 2007). In the ED study, however, technical difficulties were considered "minor" as they were easily corrected or worked around (Dynarski et al., 2007).