Introduction

The purpose of this report is to present the findings of my qualitative research. I conducted a case study:

1. to determine how students at one intermediate public school react to the presence of microcomputers in their classrooms and
2. to compare these reactions with what their teachers perceived the students thought about computers in the school.

This determination and comparison does not beg the response “They’re neat!”. Rather, do these students really understand the principal function of the microcomputers as lending a significant assist in their learning the subject matter at hand, for example, American History, art or math? Conversely, maybe the students react in a manner that implies that they believe microcomputers do not belong in the classroom at all. Maybe the students act as if these computers are nothing more than a mechanical device on which they can play games and, as such, “They’re neat!”.

The origin of this research is simply my hunch that all the attention to computers, authored by high-ranking school officials and others, reflects their views, rather than the subjects whom computer use is supposed to assist - namely, the students. Other than this hunch, I entered this research “tabula rosa”.

Since the advent of microcomputers in the late 1970s, much interest has been generated by high-ranking school administrators on the use of microcomputers in the classroom. “They can do this and they can do that” types of statements permeate official pronouncements on this subject. Given this apriori proclamation that microcomputers are useful in the classroom, subsequent research has centered on how best to use them.

However, I do not see a significant number of qualitative research efforts that attempt to define the response of students who are exposed to microcomputers in the classroom. How do they respond? Ediger (1989) states “... as our cultural experience with television indicates, great potential (of computers) does not guarantee wise use”. In making this pronouncement, Ediger hit the focus at which I am pointed. Namely, even if computers have all the self-proclaimed potential (by non-students) in the world, their use in the classroom may not be wise or effective.

In the context of computers in the classroom, there are three(3) components that comprise the word “effective”.

The first consists of the inherent ability of a computer as a mechanical device to assimilate, analyze and display a high volume of data in a very short span of time. This component listed above is part of the proper domain of computer science and not educational research. As such, the inherent mechanical ability of a computer was stipulated apriori as far as my research was concerned. This first component, then, is a delimitation of my research.

The second component is the presumed ability of a computer to enhance the learning ability of students under the guidance of the proper instruction by an effective teacher and proper educational software.

The third centers on the students themselves, namely, are they receptive to computers in the classroom and do they think computers in the classroom enable them to actually learn more facts and to learn these facts more rapidly as a result of their exposure to computers in the classroom?

My research focused on the third component which has not been addressed in the literature, at least not to a very significant extent. The existing literature pertaining to the use of computers in the classroom is replete with research on the second component. For example, Geisert and Futrell discuss at length procedures for acquiring and evaluating educational software. Other authors (Rayner-Canham & Rayner-Canham, 1990) developed tutorials to teach chemistry students a method of problem solving. The research cited here emphasizes what educational software should be used and, given its acquisition, how to best use it.

Still others have addressed the same second component. For example, Lewis (1979) explained in detail various computer learning games and assembled a recommended package of games that blended entertainment and learning objectives. These objectives were his pronouncements, not the students’. Self (1988) is also among these many other authors whose research centered on what type questions, for example, what can the student do?

What about the why of computers in classrooms? The Encyclopedia of Educational Research (Cooley) talks about “a model which can guide the development and implementation of individualized programs”. This is getting closer to the why of computers. This article states that a good example of a general instructional model is one wherein:

1. learning goals are specified in terms of student behavior.
2. the student’s initial capabilities are determined when s/he begins.
3. defines present alternatives to the student
4. the student’s performance is monitored.

Here, the student is the focus, particularly #3 above wherein there may be alternatives to the computer, namely, if computers at all. But, still no qualitative research, “invading” the student’s culture in the school environment ... but at least this work is beginning to point away from what-type issues.

Hartley and Lovell (1978) concluded that much of the present educational technology seems to neglect psychology and in its place emphasizes tasks, the what. These authors argue for a greater representation of the student in the decision on what to purchase in the way of computer-focused learning aids. To paraphrase their words, “let’s get the students’ opinions”. To ignore the opinions of the students, I propose, is equivalent to a retail store ignoring their customers.

A lot of past research, then, seems focused on the apriori dictum that microcomputers are useful, specifying the what of microcomputers (what hardware and what software). I focused on if , why and how microcomputers as perceived by the students themselves. Why do the students perceive that they are useful and, if they are, how do they think they can be best used in the classroom?

The Research Site

The research site was Washington Irving Intermediate School, located at 8100 Old Keene Mill in Springfield, Virginia.

This pubic school is part of the Fairfax County (VA) array of elementary, intermediate and high schools. Washington Irving Intermediate consists of two grade levels, 7th and 8th grades. The 7th grade currently consists of about 525 students and the 8th grade currently consists of about 525 students, male and female, all races, religions and nationalities. The students who attend Washington Irving generally live in North Springfield and West Springfield, although there are exceptions. Upon graduation, the students generally attend West Springfield High School located about a mile or so distant.

... and the Supporting Cast (the population)

The administrative support staff of Washington Irving currently counts 15 men and women, including the principal and his immediate support staff. In addition, there are 11 maintenance/repair support personnel. The teaching staff of Washington Irving currently consists of 65 men and women. The Food Service personnel that provide food for the school staff and the students do not work for Washington Irving. Rather Food Service, county wide, reports directly to the Superintendent of Fairfax County Public Schools; in short, Food Service is in a different chain-of-command.

Of the 65 teachers I addressed above, all are directly or indirectly involved with computers. However, the following 27 are directly involved with computers or are close-to-directly involved:

• math
• 7
• science (physics, chemistry etc.)
• 7
• English
• 11
• typing
• 2

Of these 27 computer-related teachers, both the seven math teachers and the two typing teachers actually teach computer science. Of the two typing teachers, one has an academic background in business and education and the other has an academic background in English and Journalism. Both the two typing teachers and the seven math teachers have intense backgrounds in the field of computer science.

The seven science teachers and the 11 English teachers listed above are closetodirectly involved with computers in that they regularly take their students down to one of the computer labs for hands-on use, for example, typing and printing out their science and English reports. There are four computer labs, two for math & science, one for English and one for learning computer keyboard skills.

All the remaining 38 teachers have computers in their classrooms, for example, the teacher who works with disabled students - indirectly involved with computers, but not “close-to-directly”.

Currently, the principal has moved the computers from some of his computer labs and evenly divided them up between his classrooms. The reason is because selected areas of Washington Irving are undergoing construction improvements.

Washington Irving’s microcomputers currently include the following:

• Atari
• IBM
• Apple ][e, Apple ][c + Apple ][gs
• Macintosh

This school recently received approximately $85,000.00 for computer renovation. As a result, the Fairfax County School Board has decided that if any of the above Apple ]['s break down beyond repair they will be replaced with Macintosh computers.

Methodology

I used the qualitative research procedures of participant observation and interviewing from March 1, 1993 through April 14, 1993.

First, I sought and received permission to conduct this Project from Mr. Ed. Barker, the principal at Washington Irving Intermediate School. He was most cooperative and was very eager to help because of his apparently intense interest in qualitative educational research. He permitted me unbordered access to his teachers, as well as to his students in his role in loco parentis.

I implemented this access by:

... interviewing ten teachers, three who taught science and math, two who taught English, one who taught graphic arts, one who taught industrial design and the remaining three taught social studies. These interviews were open ended and generally lasted from about 10 minutes to about 30 minutes. The time was strictly a function of their respective availability. Two of these teachers were suggested by the principal. I selected the remaining in a random fashion, save one parameter ... I deliberately chose several teachers who taught non-computer oriented subjects. This was an attempt to remove some of the potential positive bias (in favor of computers) possessed by teachers who taught computer-related subjects. There is no guarantee that I was successful in even minimizing this bias, save the nature of my interview questions.

The interview was open-ended and consisted of the following items:

1. What is your background in computers prior to teaching this class?
2. What is your belief about how your students perceive their access to and use of computers at Washington Irving?
3. On what basis did you answer this last question?

Observing the students in their classroom setting. I sat in and observed four classes: One class was suggested by the principal and I chose the remaining three randomly.

One was a class of 19 students, both 7th and 8th grades. The purpose of this class was to compose and graphically layout the Yearbook for Washington Irving. The students had access to nine Macintosh microcomputers, each with its own color monitor. In addition, there was one LaserWriter printer. The students in this class were hand-picked by the teacher. Her choice was based on the recommendations of other teachers who observed the students’ academic performance in other subjects as well as the students’ demonstrated enthusiasm and self-motivation in general.

The second class was devoted to 7th grade Physical Science. There are 20 students in this class. On the day I observed, the students were conducting an experiment using a Dry Cell to learn empirically the relationship between charging time and the life of the Dry Cell.

The teacher of the third class taught mathematics to 7th graders. The class consisted of 25 students, with only 4 absent at the time I observed and this absence was due solely to extremely inclement weather. On this particular day the teacher took her class down to one of the computer labs, which by this time was back in limited operation after the construction. In this class, the teacher had her students manipulate a graphics computer program on a Macintosh microcomputer. There were 28 Macintosh computers in this lab. Each computer had its own color monitor; in addition, there were four letter quality printers in this lab.

The fourth class was an elective class on keyboarding wherein the 15 students accessed older non-Macintosh computers for the purpose of enhancing their keyboarding skills.

I took Field Notes while observing these four classes. These Field Notes were then coded according to the following scheme:

• setting
• activity
• teacher actions
• student reactions

I also talked to randomly selected students both during each class and inbetween classes as they were changing classrooms. These conversations were held with the permission of the principal as well as of the individual teachers involved. These conversations were not structured interviews; however, I asked the following types of questions, with the number of questions asked strictly a function of the time available:

1. What do you think about having computers at school?
2. Do you use these computers at school? If so,
   1. in what classes? and
   2. what do you think of your computer teacher and why?
3. Do you or your parents have a computer at home? If so,
   1. what kind?
   2. how do you use the computer at home?
   3. which computer do you prefer, the one at school, the one at home or a third kind, and why?
   4. would you make any changes to the computer classes at school and why?
   5. would you make any changes to the computers (hardware or software) at school and why?
4. Do you think computers are useful outside of school and how?

Findings

In any interactive setting, the cast of characters have certain rights and duties which directly affect their interaction with one another. A school is no different. Any of my findings to follow were strongly influenced by consideration of these rights and duties.

In any educational setting, the teacher has the duty to:

1. Implement the policies set forth by the County School Board and the school Principal. These policies include those of an administrative nature such as report submissions and the supervision of extracurricular activities. These policies are also of an educational nature such as the rendering of justified academic grades for his/her students and the maintenance of proper behavior of the students while at school.
2. teach the County-mandated curriculum such as History and Math and covering the requisite material during each school term.
3. render his/her students any special help inside and outside class on difficult subject areas such as math or peer pressure.
4. interface with the students’ parents, periodically informing them of the academic progress of their children. In addition, this information should include mention of any special problems their students might be having such as discipline.

In similar fashion, the student has the duty to:

1. learn the taught material.
2. maintain proper discipline and conduct while at school.
3. respect the teachers and other school staff, as well as the other school students.

The teacher has the right to:

1. expect fair and impartial treatment by the County educational staff as well as by the school principal in all administrative matters.
2. expect the student(s) to maintain proper behavior in school.
3. expect the student(s) to learn the taught material.

The student has the right to:

1. expect a good education.
2. expect a fair and impartial grade for performed work.
3. expect help from the teacher and the school staff when needed.

During my sitting in on four classes, I observed the following:

1. Many of the students were generally interested in computers. For example, Student T. was extremely interested in the computers she used in her LD class.
2. However, more than a few either were not interested in computers at all or strongly preferred other computers. Student J. in the Physical Science class said he preferred IBMs “because they have more software available”. I observed some students, in the Yearbook class and the 7th grade Math class, who were gabbing quite a bit with their buddies. When I asked them why they were in the class to begin with they responded that working on the Yearbook was fun or working on computers was “okay”. I kept getting the feeling that these “gabbing” students really didn’t understand a great deal about the computer’s capabilities in general, for example, in the areas of medical research and multimedia. The teacher of the Yearbook class mentioned that the apparent rowdiness of her students was very, very unusual.
3. Getting back to Student T. for a bit ... she mentioned she was on the one hand very excited about graduating from LD class; however, on the other hand, she was not looking forward to entering the mainstream because “the teachers out there make the students do stupid things, unlike her teachers in LD class”. I did not have an opportunity to question her further on this subject.
4. In my probing of the students’ attitudes about computers, I discovered the following categories along with the stipulated sub-group percentages:
   • don’t know
   • 10%
   • don’t care
   • 10%
   • computers are “okay”
   • 10%
   • computers are “neat”
   • 30%
   • need different computers (e.g. IBMs)
   • 40%

These are only “ballpark” figures and are not quantitatively rigorous. They take into account all four classes, ranging from the Math/Physical Science lab which had very sophisticated computers to the keyboarding class which had less modern computers.

I feel that the first three 10% sub-groups are cause for alarm, especially considering the amount of time and money already invested by school authorities in making computers available to the students. These preliminary figures are also in sharp contrast to all the teachers’ enthusiasm because every one of them believes beyond any shadow of doubt that the students think the computers in school are the “greatest thing since sliced bread”.

The principal feels the 10% I observed who “don’t care” probably wouldn’t care about anything because they’re probably those students who regularly get Ds and Fs. He may be correct ... but what about the “don’t know” and “okay” groups?

Teacher L. stated to me that even though she considered half her students computer illiterate, she “hoped to convert these die-hards”. This is her responsibility. Maybe what is lacking then is a different type of computer instruction. Maybe a different type of computer instruction may even excite those students who get the Ds and Fs as mentioned by the principal.

The instruction mentioned here is not with respect to how to operate the computer, for example, keyboarding or how to manipulate a specific graphics program. This type of information or instruction is already given by the teachers at Washington Irving and given excellently. I’m addressing here more of a global or general picture -- for example, how the computer helps in every day life, such as accounting and business and how advanced computers can assist in conducting future research on medicine. This addresses the bigger picture, the world outside of school, the students’ world they go home to after school or after college when they enter the job market. The students have a right to this information. If computers are a permanent part of the students’ culture, they need this expanded global picture.

Among the teachers I interviewed were Mrs. C., Mrs. B. and Mr. H. Even though all of these three teachers are teaching non-computer courses, for example social studies, all three are 100% committed to the use of computers in school. As the other teachers at Washington Irving, these three think that all the students in Washington Irving believe the computers being in school is the “greatest thing since sliced bread”.

These three teachers were the first to surface some recommendations for those teachers who were directly involved with computers. These recommendations were:

1. Send those “directly involved” computer teachers to a Fairfax County-sponsored computer workshop. This workshop would bring these teachers up-to-date on evolving computer technology. The principal mentioned to me one day that such workshops exist and are sponsored by Fairfax County ... but with the current budget crunch these workshops are few and far between.
2. Require that these computer teachers return to a computer workshop on at least an annual basis because state-of-the-art computer technology is changing so rapidly.

The other five teachers I interviewed were directly involved with the students’ use of computers in school. Everyone of these teachers stated that they were self-taught with respect to these computers. One of these five stated that she had to work very hard to keep up with her students because it seemed to her that her students sometimes knew more than she did about the computers in school.

What about their recommendation for or against asking the students their opinions on computers. The uniform response was “No!” The uniformly stated reason was that “the students didn’t know enough to make responsible, technically sound recommendations”. This is an interesting contradiction ... on the one hand some stalwart teachers confess to knowing less than the students and other teachers strongly state that the students don’t know enough to make meaningful recommendations. Why not ask the students? Their answers might surprise the questioner ... they did me!

Recommendations

Any recommendations I make must be prefaced by reiterating that my research was limited in scope, namely one school for approximately six weeks. So, my first recommendation is:

1. Expand this research not only in time to at least six months, but also in breadth to at least one other intermediate school and one high school in Fairfax County.
   As I’ve already mentioned in my Findings, 70% of the students at Washington Irving Intermediate School are really “into” computers. That is, the students think that computers are either “neat” or they’re so involved with computers from outside school that they believe that this school needs different computers. I observed and talked to many students and found them to be a valuable source of information, meaningful information. For example, maybe Student T. can state to the principal what excites her about computers in her LD class and this source of excitement can be emulated by other teachers.
   Based on my participant observations and my interviews, I also recommend the following:
2. Washington Irving continue exposing the students to computers. The principal and his teaching staff are 100% committed to the use of computers in their school, a truly exemplary set of educational professionals.
3. The teaching staff regularly attend any Fairfax County-sponsored workshop that instructs teachers on the rapidly evolving state-of-the-art of computer technology. This staff should update their expertise on computers at least annually. Such county-level workshops exist. I recommend that the principal propose to the proper authorities that such workshops continue. Maybe some of the teachers won’t find themselves behind the students in computer knowledge.
4. The principal and his teachers should inquire from the students their opinions about computers. My research indicates that less than 100% of their students think that the presence of computers in school is the “greatest thing since sliced bread”. I do not consider 70% close to 100%. Not to like computers is not deplorable by a long shot. Not to like computers because of improper exposure or because no one asked their opinions can be corrected. I mentioned earlier that the principal has access to $85,000.00 for computer rennovation. One possible data input to the principal for his final determination of how to spend these dollars is to distribute a questionnaire to all classes and to analyze the results. I’m not recommending selection based on popularity, but the questionnaire responses just might provide some useful insight into computer class content as well as computer hardware and software.

Computers appear to be a permanent part of the students’ culture outside of school. Washington Irving should make even more strides in exposing the students to computers. I recommend that the principal institute a 7th grade class wherein the student is exposed in a general sense to all the potential of computer technology outside of school, in the students’ culture they live in while not in school. The advances made possible by computer technology in medical research, social science research and engineering research are enormous and the students should be exposed to such knowledge. What about Artificial Intelligence and the world of Virtual Reality? These are not $10 words for the sake of being $10 words. They describe significant breakthroughs brought about by computers in the students’ culture outside of school.

Bibliography

Ediger, M. (1989). Microcomputers in the Mathematics Curriculum. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 9(1).

Geisert, P. G., & Futrell, M. K. Acquiring and Evaluating Courseware. In Teachers, Computers & Curriculum Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hartley, J. R., & Lovell, K. (1978). The Psychological Principles Underlying the Design of Computer-based Instructional Systems. In A. Jones & H. Weinstock (Eds.), Computer-Based Science Instruction (pp. 38-55). Rockville, MD: Sijthoff & Noordhoff International Publishing Co.

Lewis, L. T. (1979). All purpose Learning Games for Computer-Assisted Instruction. Journal of Geography, 78(6), 237-244.

Rayner-Canham, G. W., & Rayner-Canham, M. F. (1990). Teaching Chemistry Problem Solving Techniques by Micro Computer. Journal of Computers in Math and Science Teaching, 9, 17-23.

Self, J. (1988). Student Models: What Are They? New York: Elsevier Science.