Technology in schools:A descriptive study of computer usage in a school and its effect on bridging the digital divide

Pepperdine University Graduate School o f Education and Psychology

TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS: A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF COMPUTER USAGE IN A SCHOOL AND ITS EFFECT ON BRIDGING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE

A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction

Of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education in Organizational Leadership

By

Sharon Valear Williams Robinson

December, 2005

R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.

UMI Number: 3213231

Copyright 2005 by

Robinson, Sharon Valear Williams

All rights reserved.

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy

submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and

photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper

alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript

and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized

copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

®

UMIUMI Microform 3213231

Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346


This dissertation written by


under the guidance of a Faculty committee and approved by its members, has been submitted to and accepted by the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

September 29, 2004

Faculty Committee

Lind^Xj. Polm, Ph.D., Chairperson

F. McManus, Ph.D.

lings, Ed.D.Terrence R.

Chester H. McCall, Ph.D. Associate Dean

Margaret'J. Webeff Ph.D. Dean


Copyright by


December, 2005

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


IVTABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ vii

LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................viii

DEDICATION.................................................................................................................. ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..............................................................................................x

VITA..................................................................................................................................xi

ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................xii

CHAPTER 1: THE PROBLEM OF EQUITY............................................................... 1Introduction........................................................................................................................1Background........................................................................................................................1

Technology, Access and School Reform.................................................................. 3Statement o f the Problem.................................................................................................8Study Purpose................................................................................................................... 9Research Questions...........................................................................................................10Significance of the Study..................................................................................................10Assumptions.......................................................................................................................11Limitations.........................................................................................................................11Definition o f Terms...........................................................................................................12

Digital Divide....................................................................................................... 12High technological school....................................................................................12Internet.................................................................................................................. 12Technology Literacy............................................................................................ 12Access................................................................................................................... 12Accessibility......................................................................................................... 12Telecommunications............................................................................................ 12Universal Service..................................................................................................12E-Rate................................................................................................................... 12

Organization o f the Dissertation............................................................................... 13Summary............................................................................................................................13

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE........................................................ 15Introduction........................................................................................................................15

The E-Rate as a Response to the Digital Divide in U.S. Public Schools...............16Closer Look at the Digital Divide.............................................................................19Falling Through the Net Reports............................................................................... 20

The Growth of Technology in US Public Schools......................................................... 27The Main Fault-Lines o f the Digital Divide................................................................... 29The Digital Divide in American Public Schools.............................................................38


V

Studies Concerning the Digital Divide in American Public Schools.............................49The Consequences of the Digital Divide in American Public Schools..........................55Government Policy Responses to the Digital Divide in American Public Schools 59Summary.............................................................................................................................61

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY.................................................................................. 63Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................63Research Design............................................................................................................... 65Instruments for Data Collection...................................................................................... 66

Focus Group............................................................................................................... 66Pilot Testing of Student Survey................................................................................67Internet Student Technology Survey........................................................................ 68Interview Protocol..................................................................................................... 70Classroom Observation Checklist............................................................................ 71Student Interviews..................................................................................................... 72

School C ase......................................................................................................................72Student Sample................................................................................................................ 75Sources o f Data and Instruments for Data Collection................................................... 75Data Collection Procedures.............................................................................................77Source of Data.................................................................................................................. 79

Document Analysis................................................................................................... 80Validity o f Instruments.................................................................................................... 80Reliability o f Instruments................................................................................................82Human Subjects Considerations.....................................................................................82Procedures for Data Analysis......................................................................................... 83Summary........................................................................................................................... 84

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS OF THE STUDY................................................................. 85Introduction.......................................................................................................................85Research Questions..........................................................................................................85

Demographics: Survey Results................................................................................ 87Student Access to Computers: Survey Results....................................................... 88Types of Computer Activities: Survey Results....................................................... 93Observations and Student Interviews.......................................................................103Comparison to National Data....................................................................................107

Summary...........................................................................................................................118

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 119Introduction...................................................................................................................... 119Limitations of the Study..................................................................................................120

Research Question 1: Which Students at this SchoolUse Computers and the Internet?.............................................................................121

Review of Findings............................................................................................. 121


vi

Conclusion 1.......................................................................................................... 122Conclusion 2 .......................................................................................................... 123

Research Question 2: Where do the Students Use Computers and the Internet? .. 123Review of Findings............................................................................................... 123Conclusion 1 ......................................................................................................... 124Conclusion 2 .......................................................................................................... 124

Research Question 3: In What Kind of Computer Activities do these StudentsEngage?....................................................................................................................... 124

Review of Findings................................................................................................124Conclusion 1.......................................................................................................... 127Conclusion 2.......................................................................................................... 127

Research Question 4: Is computer Use by Students related to DemographicCharacteristics such as Race/Ethnicity, Gender or other Factors?...........................127

Review of Findings................................................................................................127Conclusion 1.......................................................................................................... 128Conclusion 2 .......................................................................................................... 129

Summary.............................................................................................................................129Recommendations .............................................................................................................130Recommendations for Further Research..........................................................................131Final Thoughts................................................................................................................... 133

References...........................................................................................................................135

Appendix A: Standard Student Workstation Software...................................................143Appendix B: Tenets of the School................................................................................... 145Appendix C: Focus Group.................................................................................................146Appendix D: Student’s Technology Survey.................................................................... 147Appendix E: Teacher, Parent, and Staff Interview Guide.............................................. 154Appendix F: Classroom Observation of Students Using Technology...........................155Appendix G: Student Interview Guide............................................................................. 156Appendix H: Letter to the principal o f the School.......................................................... 157Appendix I: Email to the middle school teachers and Instructions for theInternet Student Survey.....................................................................................................159Appendix J: Article for the School’s Newsletter.............................................................160Appendix K: Permission/Release Form...........................................................................161

R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.

L IS T O F T A B L E Sv i i

Table Page1 Data Analysis Chart.................................................................................................. 762 Demographics, Question 29, Grade......................................................................... 873 Demographics, Question 30, Ethnicity.....................................................................874 Demographics, Question 31, Gender........................................................................ 885 Demographics, Question 34, Years Attended this School...................................... 886 Location of Computer Use, Questions 4 and 5 ...................................................... 897 Types o f Technology Resources Available to Students at School, Question 7 ....908 Types o f Technology Resources Available to Students at Home, Question 8 .....919 Access to the Internet, Questions 9 and 10............................................................. 9210 Frequency with Which Students Check Email, Questions 11 and 12.................... 9311 Frequency with Which Students Browse the Web, Questions 13 and 1 4 ..............9412 Frequency with Which Students use Chat Rooms or Newsgroups,

Questions 15 and 16 ...................................................................................................9513 Usefulness o f Different Programs, Question 2 0 .....................................................9614 Number o f Times per Week Software is Used at School, Question 2 2 ................9815 Number o f Times per Week Software is Used at Home, Question 23..................10016 Frequency and Methods with which Technology is Used for School

Preparation, Question 24............................................................................................ 10217 Classroom Observation of Students Using Technology.........................................104


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page1 Access to the Internet at Home by Income.............................................................. 202 Electronic Access Penetration Rate in US Households...........................................223 Access to the Internet by Gender............................................................................304 Students Who Use the Internet at School by Income............................................ 335 Students in Public Schools with Internet Access at Home by Income................. 346 Students Who Use the Internet Once a Week at School by Race......................... 357 Access to the Internet at Home by Race...................................................................368 Graphic Organization o f Mixed Model/Design........................................................ 649 All Students Access to Computers and the Internet..................................................10810 Location of Computer Use at Home......................................................................... 10911 Location of Computer Use at School....................................................................... 11012 Location o f Computer Use at Community Center...................................................11013 Location o f Computer Use at Library....................................................................... I l l14 Access to the Internet at Home................................................................................. 11215 Access to the Internet at School................................................................................ 11316 Access to Email at Home...........................................................................................11417 Access to Email at School.........................................................................................11418 Use of Word Processing at Home.............................................................................. 11519 Use of Graphics Software at Home............................................................................ 11620 Use o f Spreadsheet Software at Home.......................................................................11621 All Students Access to Computers by Gender......................................................... 11722 All Students Access to the Internet by Gender........................................................ 117


DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to the memory of my mother

Valear Williams

Who let me live life with a strong sense of self and social consciousness

And to my husband

James Russell Robinson

My heart, my inspiration, my gift, who always provides unconditional love and

Support


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank

My best friend and anchor, Barbara Solomon, who always knew I should and could, do it.

My father, Clifford Williams, who kept the family traditions alive after my mother’s death.

My son, Trenton Russell Robinson, who helped me deal with each challenge as part of the struggle to make a difference. He made me practice what I preached!

My colleagues, Kip, Chaka, Debbie, Mary-Ann, and Bruce (deceased) who kept me focused by Tisten(ing) for the sound of the genuine within themselves and others.’

My dissertation chair, Linda Polin, whose frequent e-mails reminded me of what I really needed to do.

And,

All the public school students and teachers that have touched my life over the years.. .1 hope I have touched yours.


xi

Experience

Education

Credentials

Community Service

VITA


August, 2003 - Present LAUSD, Los Angeles, CA Superintendent, Local Region GDecember 2002 - August, 2003LAUSD, Los Angeles, CASpecial Assistant to the SuperintendentJune, 1999 - December, 2002eEduTech, LLC - An educational consulting firmPrincipal Consultant1999-2000Xerox-LAUSD Electronic Instructional Materials (EIM) Project Educational Consultant1997-1999The Rice School/La Escuela Rice HISD, Houston, TXPrincipal1994-1997State of California Sacramento, CACommissioner, Curriculum Development and SupplementalMaterials Commission1992-1997Brentwood Science Magnet and Hyde Park Blvd. Learn Schools, LAUSD. Los Angeles, CA Principal 1989- 1992Division of School-Based Management, LAUSD, Los Angeles, CA Administrative Consultant1985- 1989Region B, LAUSD, Los Angeles, CACoordinator, Dropout Prevention/Opportunity Program1971 - 1985Los Angeles Unified School District. Los Angeles, CASenior School Psychologist/School Psychologist; Teacher, K - 6

California State University at Long Beach M.A., Educational PsychologyPepperdine University B.A., Psychology

California:Administrative, K - 12Public Personnel Service, Psychology, K - 12Standard Teaching, K - 9Reading SpecialistTexas:Administrative, K - 12Member, Advisory Board, The Children’s Museum o f Houston,1998-2064Vice President, Board of Directors. Girls Club o f Los Angeles Member, Advisory Board. Dr. Ronald E. McNair Educational Science Literacy Foundation, 2001 -2604


xiiAbstract

The purpose o f this research was to examine and to explore student access to and

use of technology and the role schools can play in bridging the Digital Divide.

Data for this research were collected from a student survey and interviews with

students, staff, parents, and classroom observations of students using computers at one

highly technological school. Both quantitative and qualitative methodologies were used

to triangulate data collection from multiple sources to support the conclusions made,

which included:

■ All students at this school, regardless of ethnicity, participated in the direct

use of computers and the Internet at school.

■ All students displayed similar patterns in computer usage at home, school,

community centers, and libraries.

■ Significant data were provided to support that Internet access and

computer access was available to all students at this school but the same

level of access was not available in the home.

■ Accessibility at the home was lower when the student was African

American or Hispanic than when the student was Caucasian.

■ Much less of a disparity was present when comparing these students’

access to computers at this school and at home than that provided through

national reports.

■ This school had a ratio of 1 computer for every student thereby provided

an extraordinarily ability to have all students participate in the use of

technology.


xiii■ Overall, most o f the students displayed similar distributions o f software

usage at school across all ethnicities.

■ Students expressed that their parents had selected this school because of

the opportunity to utilize technology regularly at school.

The study overall supports the major role that schools can play in narrowing the

Digital Divide, but there are some critical factors that must be in place for this to happen.

At the top of the list is equal access to technology and the Internet by all students.


1

Chapter 1

The Problem of Equity

Introduction

As information technology becomes more Important for economic success and societal Well-being, the possibility o f “information Apartheid” becomes increasingly real. Such A “digital divide” may mean that for many Children N-Gen means Not-Generation.Don Tapscott, 1998, Growing Up Digital,(p. 11)

Background

The struggle within this nation to provide educational equity for all students

began, at least publicly, with the Brown v. the 1954 Board of Education decision o f more

than 50 years ago. In this decision, the Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal was

inherently unequal (Coleman, 1966, p. 3). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 reaffirmed that

“All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,

facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations o f any place of public

accommodation” In 21st Century America, this reaffirmation means having access to

equitable educational resources in schools. In The Work o f Nations, Reich (1992)

addressed the need for early intervention preschool programs, excellent public schools in

every city and region, and ample financial help to ensure, regardless of family income or

race, that every person who wants to attend college can attend (p. 246-7). It is the

investigator’s belief that, to the extent that technology is a crucial school resource and an

expectation in any public school, it must be guaranteed for every public school.

Technology in public schools is part o f accomplishing this reaffirmation expressed in the

Civil Rights Act o f 1964.


2

Technology use in instructional practice provides school reform efforts with

important and significant tools to improve student performance. Evidence of the

importance of technology comes from several sources. “One good decision.. .was to link

technology with school reform. You started teaching using multiple learning styles, a

democratic structure, integrated curricula, and decentralized learning” (Thornburg

(1995), p. 15). “Computers are part of an overall strategy designed to help facilitate

change and help create dynamic learning environments where students help construct

knowledge” (Gooden, 1996, p. 156). Unfortunately, technology and equitable access are

not equitably distributed across American schools. That is, “Inequity o f access to

technology resources, including computer networks, simply mirrors the unequal

distribution of every other human and material resource in public education...”

(Cummins & Sayers, 1997, p. 17). Similar to economic inequities in American society,

technology inequities exist across American schools. ‘The indicators show that there is a

direct correlation between the economic status of a public school and the amount of

computer technology and support in that school” (Bolt & Crawford, 2000, p. 31). Schools

with students at higher socioeconomic status levels tend to provide access to more and to

better technology than do those with students at lower socioeconomic status levels.

Tapscott (1998) reported, “Access to the Internet from school, like Internet access from

home, is both enabled and limited by one factor: family income” (p. 260).

Technology has become a necessary tool and skill for competing in the American

and in the global economy (Tapscott, 1998, p. 3). According to Bolt and Crawford

(2000), “Education and employment have become more intimately entwined than ever

before and access to technology is not only necessary to round out a student’s education,


3

but is also crucial in making that student eligible for future employment” (p. 54).

“Inadequate access to technology not only makes it difficult for young people to find and

keep a decent job, it also prevents them from participating completely in the economic

and civic issues o f the county and world” (McGee Banks as cited in Milone & Salpeter,

1996, p. 39). Technology is one of the primary means for people to acquire and to share

information. Consequently, the ability o f students to use technology is not a relatively

unimportant skill, but rather an indispensable skill.

Evidence of the indispensable nature o f technological skills is apparent in a

decade-old government report: “Nobody today can avoid technology; it has penetrated

every aspect of life from the home to the job. Those unable to use it face a lifetime of

menial work” (The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills [SCANS],

United States Department of Labor, 1991, p. 28). The National Task Force on

Educational Technology ([NTFET], 1986) reported that computer technology tools would

be vital in “improving quality of learning, increasing equity o f opportunity, access and

quality, and ensuring greater cost effectiveness” (p. 58). Thus one critical issue inherent

in school reform efforts is the extent to which equal access to technology will be

provided to all students. William Kennard, Chairman of the Federal Communications

Commission, said it best when he stated, “I believe that ensuring that all Americans have

access to technology is the civil rights challenge of this new millennium” (2000, p. 4).

Technology, Access, and School Reform

Beginning with the publication of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on

Excellence in Education, United States Department o f Education [USDE], 1983) America

has engaged in numerous school reform efforts to improve student performance. Under


4

the rubric of school reform, many change efforts were introduced into public schools in

an attempt to restructure American education: standard-based instruction, back-to-basic

curriculum, bilingual programs, school-based management, decentralization,

accountability measures, and a heavy reliance on accountability and testing. Over a

decade of school reform efforts have occurred in which the goal o f ensuring “every adult

American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete

in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities o f citizenship” {Goals

2000: Educate American Act, January, 1994, p. 2) has been addressed. Unfortunately for

school students and for American society, school reform efforts have not been largely

successful in improving student performance.

“Successive waves o f school reform, though not nearly as ineffectual as they are

often portrayed, have failed to fully realize the improvements they promised” (Evans,

1996, p. 9). Reich (1992) wrote that most schools have not changed for the worse; they

simply have not changed for the better (p. 226). Reich argued that schools fail to teach

“...four basic skills: abstraction, system thinking, experimentation, and collaboration...”

that are required for the new economy (p. 229). Reich also added, “What is to be learned

is prepackaged into lesson plans, lectures, and textbooks. Reality has already been

simplified" (p. 230).

Examining the introduction o f technology into school reform efforts, Herman,

cited in Means (1995) commented:

The school reform movement and the introduction of technology into classrooms

are two of the most significant trends in education today. One of the basic

messages o f school reform is the challenging problems and sustained intellectual


5

effort are appropriate for all students, not just those who are academically

advanced, affluent, or older, (p. xi)

Inherent in technology access at school is the issue of student access to computers

and the Internet. Both have become important to teaching and to learning. Access to the

Internet means access to information and the ability to communicate with others. As

technology usage becomes more integral as the main access to information at school, at

home, and in the workplace, the need to ensure that everyone has this access becomes

even more critical than it already is. The investigator believes that the most important

place to guarantee equal access to technology is in schools.

Over the last decade, more emphasis has been placed on increasing technology

and technology use in schools. President Clinton, in his Call to Action fo r American

Education in the 21st Century, stated, “Every 8-year-old must be able to read, every 12-

year-old must be able to log onto the Internet, every 18-year-old must be able to go to

college, and all adults must be able to keep on learning” (January, 1997, p. 1). Part o f his

Call to Action was to “connect every classroom and library in America to the Internet by

2000” (p. 1). Access to technology, specifically to the Internet, and the ability to

effectively use technology has become increasingly important to insure participation in

the global world. ‘Technology is not only a product of given culture; it also shapes the

culture that created it” (Mehlinger, 1995, p. 400). In schools, this means that students

have access to information that once was under the control of teachers, and it enables

learners to gain control o f their own learning (Mehlinger, p. 402). Students begin to shape

their learning around issues, topics, and subjects that come from real life and outside of

textbook learning.


6

It is in the best interest of both today’s young people and the nation as a

whole that all students have an opportunity to master the elements of

technology they will need to have a productive future. Further, it is also

clear that technology should be one of the principal tools by which

students learn to manage the ever-increasing base of knowledge they will

need to achieve success”. (Milone & Salpeter, 1996, p. 39)

‘Technology can take a school in the poorest of communities and allow its

students this wealth o f learning opportunity that will give them the same intellectual

riches that students in the richest school districts have. It can permit students living in the

smallest of rural communities, whose one-room schoolhouse may sit in the middle of a

cornfield, to have the learning opportunities and resources of students whose school sits

next to the New York City Public Library or the Library of Congress” (Riley, 1995, p. 1).

Riley, who was Sectary of Education for the Clinton administration, went on to say that

technology in schools can “help close the fault lines in our society” (p. 1).

In America, 47.7 million children attend public school (National Center for

Education Statistics [NCES] 2003, p. 1). The challenge is how public schools can become

the foundation in a democratic society that provides equal educational access for children

to participate in America’s social, educative, economic, and political systems.

In February 1934, Congress passed the Communications Act o f 1934. This act

established the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the concept of

Universal Service which was designed to provide reduced rates for telephone service to

all Americans. The Telecommunications Act o f 1996 restructured that law to include

schools, libraries, rural customers, and health care providers. The implementation o f the


7

education rate, better known as the E-Rate, was given to the Federal Communications

Commission to implement. Through grants and federal funding, the E-Rate program has

helped connect one million public school classrooms to modem telecommunications

networks (Kennard, 2000, p. 2). A report on E-Rate and the Digital Divide from the U.S.

Department of Education demonstrated that schools have taken the most advantage of the

E-Rate program.

The number of public schools connected to the Internet has increased from 35%

in 1994 to 99% in 2002, according to a survey by the NCES (2003, p. 18). Cooper (2000)

indicated that 95% of the nation’s public schools were connected to the Internet (p. A02).

In 1999, President Clinton directed his cabinet members to take specific steps to close a

gap between the haves with access and the have-nots with little or none.

The Digital Divide refers to those groups of individuals who have no or limited

access to computers and to the Internet compared to those who have full access. Those

who do not have full access are typically low-income, are disproportionately minorities,

and/or live in rural areas. Research indicates that the Digital Divide has developed along

demographic lines of race, gender, educational level, and income (NCES, 2003).

The wiring of schools was seen as the greatest way to bridge the Digital Divide

(Cooper, 2000). Clinton (2000), in remarks regarding the closing of this gap, stated that,

“when we talk about bridging the digital divide, we mean that everybody ought to have

access to a computer; everybody ought to have access to the Internet; everybody ought to

know how to use it, and then we ought to make it possible for people to maximum use of

it” (p. 1).


8

Statement o f the Problem

With the nation and the world involved in global communication, the Digital

Divide challenges the economics and civil rights of the next generation. One of the most

significant aspects o f the effort to bridge the Digital Divide is the role schools can play

and have played in this process. Billons of dollars have been spent purchasing computers

and related equipment and in connecting schools to the Internet. According to Carvin

(2000) and Gladieux & Swail (1990), several empirical studies have been conducted

analyzing the gap between the technology haves and the have-nots and growing programs

intended to address this issue. There is little research that addresses the potential for

schools to narrow the Digital Divide and whether students, with access to technology and

to the Internet, have basic computer literacy skills to utilize the information available

from these tools.

Determining whether schools with Internet access increase students’ and teachers’

ability to use technology and the Internet effectively and to raise student achievement is a

concern o f parents, teachers, administrators, and researchers (Milone & Salpeter, 1996).

The Federal Communication Commission, Department o f Commence, and the U.S.

Department o f Education have worked jointly to improve the use of technology in

schools. Limited data, either quantitative or qualitative, exist on the effect that schools,

with computers and connected to the Internet, have on student access to technology. The

capabilities o f schools to tackle this problem would depend on the technology (e.g.,

computers, servers), Internet connection (e.g., speed, bandwidth), student/computer ratio,

and the level o f expertise o f teachers and support staff to use technology in teaching and


9

learning (Gladieux & Swail, 1999). Few studies have been completed on the effect a

highly technological school has on bridging the Digital Divide.

Traditionally, researchers have looked at the potential students have through the

proper use of technology and how it has and can change teaching and learning (Gooden,

1996; Kallick & Wilson, 2001). The focus has been on tying computer use with higher

understanding and school achievement. Additionally, there is a need to examine who

fully participates in the use technology and opportunities created by technological

changes. The investigator examined who participates in the use of technology, where this

use occurs (school, community centers, and/or home), the degree to which a school might

be able to facilitate bridging the Digital Divide, and if it is simply enough to provide a

technologically rich school setting.

Study Purpose

The goal of the investigator the investigator in undertaking this quantitative and

qualitative descriptive study was to document and to analyze student access to technology

and to the Internet within one school; the nature o f their use o f technology in school; and

the technological skills in use by these students. The investigator observed student access

to technology and compared it to national statistics about the Digital Divide to determine

if a highly technological school does, in fact, bridge the divide for all students. The study

was conducted at one highly technological K - 8 Title 1 school with a diverse student

population.

The purpose of this quantitative and qualitative descriptive study was to examine

and to explore student access to and use o f technology and the role schools can play in

bridging the Digital Divide. The investigator collected part o f the data for this research


10

from a student survey and interviews with students, staff, parents, and key players in

developing this diverse highly technological school. An analysis o f documents (primary

sources) and qualitative methods such as content analysis and constant comparative

method were implemented to explore and to understand the effects, in context o f a school

setting, o f the meaning of the Digital Divide. The study benefited from the theoretical

base of primary statistics on the Digital Divide to guide data collection and analysis.

Research Questions

The following questions guided the evaluation o f the data:

1. Which students at this school use computers and the Internet?

2. Where do the students use computers and the Internet?

3. In what kind of computer activities do these students engage?

4. Is computer use by students related to demographic characteristics such as

race/ethnicity, gender or other factors?

Significance o f the Study

The potential for schools to bridge the Digital Divide effectively is a dynamic

approach to real educational reform. Understanding who has access in a highly

technological school and their level o f accessibility will help improve funding, programs,

and the allocation o f Internet services to schools and help public education give an

advantage to all students. The Digital Divide is an issue of access and accessibility. This

study contributes to the understanding of school-based equity with respect to access to

technology and technological skills.


11

Assumptions

This research on the Digital Divide provides information that can be used to

compare other schools to the one studied as they pertain to the Digital Divide across the

nation. The investigator made the following assumptions that affected the design o f the

study and procedures:

1. The impact o f technology and Internet access is critical to student ability to

ascertain information, communication, and participate fully in the economic and

civic life o f the 21st Century society.

2. Access and accessibility in schools will reflect the paradigm o f educational

reform in teaching and learning and will be a factor in bridging the Digital Divide.

3. Success o f schools in helping to bridge the Digital Divide will improve the

practices, strategies, and possible funding patterns of public schools.

Limitations

The potential for schools to play an active part in bridging the Digital Divide was

determined by through a descriptive study of one highly technological school. The school

has its own LAN and was connected to the WAN of the school district. This school, with

1200 students with 1300 networked computers, is not typical o f most public schools in

the United States. Other highly technological schools are not included in this study. The

study is based on comparing and analyzing national statistics to data collected at one

urban public school. The school is part o f an urban school district and all socio-economic

levels are represented in the school population; however, a majority of the students were

from minority groups. The investigator did not have the ability to ascertain the income

level o f the students, which research shows is an important factor in technological access.


12

Therefore, generalizations to other schools and students cannot necessarily be made from

the findings o f this study.

Definition o f Terms

Digital Divide. The team used to refer to the gap between those who have access

and accessibility to technological tools (computers and the Internet) and those who do not

have access and accessibility to technological tools. The following terms are related:

Digital Equity and Digital Apartheid.

High technological school. Schools that have technology and Internet access for

all students.

Internet. Networked systems that permit sharing of information and

communication though worldwide networked computers.

Technology literacy. Knowledge and/or skills needed to utilize computer

applications, systems, and the Internet.

Access. To gain use of computers and the Internet.

Accessibility. Knowledge and/or skills needed to utilize computer applications and

systems to obtain information, commonly called technology literacy.

Telecommunications. The transmission, between or among points specified by the

user, o f information without change in the form or content.

Universal Service. A federal government system designed to make local

telephone service available to all Americans at reasonable rate.

E-Rate. Short for education rate, E-Rate provides discounts for schools, libraries,

health care providers, and rural areas to buy telecommunications services.


13

Organization o f the Dissertation

The dissertation is organized into five chapters. These chapters are briefly

summarized below:

Chapter 1 provides an introduction, statement of problem, purpose, research

objectives, significance of the study, assumption of the study, limitations o f the study,

definition of terms, and organization o f the dissertation.

Chapter 2 is a review of literature related to the Digital Divide, universal access,

access and accessibility, and provides a description o f the school used in this study.

Chapter 3 describes the research design and methodology of the study. (Primary

sources, student survey, interviews, observation, etc.)

Chapter 4 presents the findings from the data analysis of the survey, interviews

observation, and primary sources.

Chapter 5 includes the summary and findings of the study, along with conclusions

and recommendations.

Summary

The investigator analyzed the national research data in which the Digital Divide

was addressed and compared those characteristics to those at one high technological

school group that had 1200 students with 1300 networked computers and a plethora of

multifaceted software applications. The study was done to ascertain whether these

students had more access and skills then those students addressed in national studies. The

investigator surveyed students; observed them in school; and interviewed them and their

parents, teachers, and administers to compare student access and accessibility to national

data on the Digital Divide. The investigator placed an anonymous quantitative Internet


Student Technology Survey on the school’s LAN and sixth, seventh, and eighth graders

completed it. The investigator performed classroom observations to substantiate data

provided from the survey. Students, parents, teachers, principals, and technology

coordinators were interviewed to further document student use o f technology and the

Internet in learning. The information gathered from the interviews was used to guide the

questions for student focus groups where students shared and demonstrated their use of

technology and the Internet. Documents of hardware and software relative to student-

computer ratio and student demographics were catalogued, observed, and analyzed.


15

Chapter 2

Review of the Literature

Introduction

The origin o f the term Digital Divide is somewhat uncertain. The term itself refers

to the discrepancy between those who have access to information technology and the

Internet and those who do not. From 1995 to early 1996 the term Digital Divide was

being used by such persons as Larry Irving, who believed that he borrowed it from

Jonathan Webber and Amy Harmon when they worked for the Los Angeles Times, as

well as Bonnie Bracey. President Bill Clinton, Vice President A1 Gore, Bob Kahn, and

the National Information Infrastructure [Nil] Advisory Commission used the term when

looking at standards to develop infrastructure within the technology plans. Robert Reich

used it frequently in speeches and reports when he was Secretary of the United States

Department o f Labor (Benton Foundation, 2001).

Since the Telecommunications Act in 1934 (1934 Act) the nation has recognized

the need to assure that information is accessible to the masses regardless of

socioeconomic status or location. The Telecommunications Act o f 1934 was the

foundation o f the Telecommunications Act o f 1996 and addressed universal service as a

means to provide affordable telephone service to all Americans. This national policy

defined a system by which basic telephone service was made available at low cost to the

poorest households (Bowe, 1993). The Act was the beginning o f the communication

infrastructure of America that now connects individuals, corporations, schools, and

government to each other and the world. With the nation and the world involved in global


16

communication though Internet technology, the concept o f accessibility takes on greater

importance in American homes and classrooms.

The E-Rate as a Response to the Digital Divide in U.S. Public Schools

In 1996 the new Telecommunications Act (1996 Act) was the first major revision

o f the 1934 Act and added schools, libraries, and health care providers to the policy of

affordable universal service. Within this Act, Congress charged the Federal

Communications Commission (FCC) and states to establish a system that assured that all

Americans, regardless o f income and location, gain access to telecommunications and

information services. The notion of universal service was modified to assure that

programs were established to address rural, insular, and high-cost areas at rates that

would be comparable to those rates in urban areas. The expression, E-Rate, became the

term used to refer to the Universal Service Programs that the FCC defined and

administers to fund reasonable rates for schools, rural areas, and health care providers.

These funds come from communication companies that the FCC regulates and

accumulates. The E-Rate was the promise o f the government to address the growing

Digital Divide in the country. As part o f this promise, “all public and non-profit

elementary and secondary school classrooms, health care providers, and libraries” were

to be provided with access to advanced telecommunications services (NCES, 1999).

The E-Rate program, now in its 11th year, has provided funds to schools and

libraries all over the nation to be wired to the Internet. By 2002, 99% of all public schools

and 88% of all classrooms were connected to the Internet (NCES, 2003). E-Rate has

made a critical difference in the way schools and libraries can deliver educational

resources and teaching and learning. For example, now students and teachers may take


17

classes online, use the Internet to conduct research and investigate issues, and

communicate using e-mail. Up-to-date information is available to urban and rural areas.

The Education and Libraries Networks Coalition ([EdLiNC] 2003) reported five

significant findings following its survey o f the impact o f the E-Rate legislation:

1. E-rate is an important tool for economic empowerment in underserved

communities;

2. E-rate is beginning to bring new learning opportunities to special education

students;

3. E-rate is transforming education in rural America;

4. E-rate technology is helping schools improve student achievement and

comply with No Child Left Behind; and

5. Schools and libraries were devoting significant resources and exercising great

care in completing e-rate applications, (p. 7)

“Probably the single factor driving the expanding importance o f access to

information and the use o f technology is the Internet” (U.S. Department o f Education,

September, 2000). The report, The E-Rate and the Digital Divide, states that “the most

important factors in reducing the digital divide is the growing availability o f entry points

for low-income person at schools...” (p. 3). The E-Rate provides low-rate access to the

Internet with reductions ranging from 20% to 90% to schools, libraries, and community

centers. The E-Rate has helped schools develop and expand their infrastructure to a point

that 99% of schools in the United States have access to the Internet compared to 35% in

1994.


18

The NCES conducted the most recent study of the E-Rate program and found that

schools have been the largest beneficiary of the E-rate where 99% of the schools were

connected to the Internet and 88% had some classroom connection. Carvin (2000) though

The Benton Foundation supported a study of four major urban city school districts

(Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and Milwaukee) and found the following four common

issues:

1. E-Rate discounts allowed the districts to achieve faster deployment o f their

computer networks and Internet access;

2. The funds allowed the districts to leverage other funds for technology;

3. Coordination between technology and instructional administrators was

increased; and

4. Professional development for teachers is critical for the increased availability

of modem technology, (p. 29)

Other researchers have reported that nationally, people support the E-Rate and

what it brings to schools (E-Rate and the Digital Divide, 2000, p. 26). Accesses to

technology and the Internet have become an issue of access to social, economic, and

educational resources. The E-rate is the largest and latest commitment to educational

equity in a generation (Carvin, 2000).

Today, access to technology and to the Internet has become vital to educational,

occupational, and economic opportunities. Technology and the Internet have made it

possible to communicate with hundreds of individuals by sending one e-mail. Shopping,

job hunting, gathering research, and checking on the stock market with a click of a button

can easily occur. More and more, as America is being transformed into a technologically


19

driven nation, with every institution being impacted by the Internet, the American

population is separating into groups o f persons who have access to technology and to the

Internet and into groups of persons who do not have access to technology and to the

Internet.

Closer Look at the Digital Divide

The Digital Divide gap goes beyond a choice made by an individual or household;

it reflects deeper problems that relate to access to infrastructures in education and

business and to economic opportunities (Krieg, 1995, p. 2). In America and at a global

level, economic and personal well-being have become more dependent on the ability to

access, accumulate, and assimilate information.

Race and income play a major role in the Digital Divide and in access to

technology (Hoffman & Novak, 1998; Tapscott, 1998). In the Hoffman & Novak (1998)

report, 73% of the White students reported owning a computer at home whereas only

32% of African American students reported owning a computer at home. White students

who lacked computers at home reported they were more likely to gain access to the

Internet at the home of friends, the library, or a community center than were African

American students who lacked computers at home. When Internet access was viewed by

income, only 31% of children in low-income families (households earning less than

$20,000 a year) had access to a home computer compared to 89% of children in high-

income families (households earning more than $75,000 a year); (NCES, 2003, p. 12);

(see Figure 1.)


20

100

90

80

70

S> 60 S£ 50 fc!S. 40

30

20

10

0

Figure 1. Access to the Internet at Home by Income (NCES, October, 2003).

‘The main reason families buy computers and connect to the Internet at home is

to further education, while low-income families without home computers count on

schools to level the playing field” (Natt, 2000, p. 1). The how, the where, and the who in

terms of access to technology will determine the economic, social, and educational future

o f each individual and our nation. ‘The lack of exposure to technology, at home and in

the classroom dooms millions o f American youths to low-paid, insecure jobs at the

margins o f our economy” (Bolt & Crawford, 2000).

Falling Through the Net Reports

In the report, Falling through the Net (1995), the National Telecommunications

and Information Administration [NTIA] developed a profile o f universal service in

America. This report looked beyond telephone penetration to computers and modems in

view of the persons who are not connected to the National Information Infrastructure

(Nil). Generally, in this 1995 report, the following Information have-nots were identified:

89.3

Under $20,000 $20,000 - $35,000 - $50,000 - $75,000 or more$34,000 $49,000 $74,499


21

In essence, information “have-nots” are disproportionately found in rural and

central cities areas. Though most persons recognize that poor people as a group

have difficulties in connecting to the Nil, less well known is the fact that the

lowest telephone penetration exists in central cities. Concerning personal-

computer penetration and the incidence of modems when computers are present in

a household, however, no situation compares with the plight o f the rural poor. By

race, Native Americans in rural areas proportionately possess the fewest

telephones, followed by rural Hispanics and rural African Americans. Black

households in central cities and particularly in rural areas have the lowest

percentages o f home computers, with central city Hispanics also ranked very low.

On the basis of age, the single most seriously disadvantaged group consisted of

the youngest householders (under 25 years), particularly in rural areas. (NTIA,

1995, p. 2)

Essentially, the less education people have, the lower the penetration of

telephones, computers, and computer-household modems that appears to be present

(NTIA, 1995). After compiling survey data and releasing this report, NTIA requested that

federal, state, and local policy makers collaborate and gather more specific information

regarding the information have-nots.

In 1998, the government released a follow-up report: Falling through the Net II:

New Data on the Digital Divide. This report relied on a collaborative effort between the

NTIA and the U.S. Census Bureau to obtain information regarding PC/Modem ownership

(NTIA, 1998). The following data in figure 2 is descriptive of persons who have access in

America.


22

The 1997 data demonstrate that, as a nation, Americans have increasingly

embraced the Information Age through electronic access in their homes. The nation-wide

penetration rates were 93.8% for telephones, 36.6% for PCs, 26.3% for modems, and

18.6% for online access. Despite this significant growth, the Digital Divide between

certain groups o f Americans has increased between 1994 and 1997 so that there is now an

even greater disparity in penetration levels among some groups. There is a widening gap,

for example, between those at upper and lower income levels. Additionally, even though

all racial groups now own more computers than they did in 1994, Blacks and Hispanics

how lag even further behind Whites in their levels of PC ownership and online access.

too 90 80 70

<DS' 60 2S 50 yID 40 o_

30 20

10

0

Figure 2. Electronic Access Penetration Rates in US Households (NTIA, 1998).

The Federal Communications Commission reported (FCC, 2000) that high-speed

lines connecting homes and small businesses to the Internet increased from 2.8 million in

1999 to 4.5 million by June, 2000.

The 1995 NTIA report showed that those of low socioeconomic status in rural

areas and in the central cities had disproportionately fewer telephones and therefore less

-93r8-

36.6

_____________ 26.3

I18.6

Telephone PC Modem High Speed


23

ability to connect to the information infrastructure. Native Americans in rural areas

possessed the fewest telephones followed by Hispanics and African Americans in rural

areas. African Americans in the central cities had the lowest number of home computers.

Households in central cities had the lowest telephone and computer penetration. Falling

through the Net: Digital Inclusion, included the concern that the United States must

ensure that all Americans have the information tools and skills that are critical to their

participation in the digital economy (NTIA, 2000).

At the center o f the Telecommunications Act is the goal o f universal service, the

concept that all Americans should have access to affordable telephone service. Telephone

penetration became the measurement o f access to telecommunications because it was the

most commonly used measure of the nation’s success in achieving universal service

(Falling Through the Net, July 1995). The NTIA recognized the limitations o f using their

telephone service databases when, “Individuals’ economic and social well-being

increasingly depends on their ability to access, accumulate, and assimilate information”

(p. 5).

In July 1999, President Bill Clinton responded to an updated interim report from

the U.S. Commerce Department's NTIA concerning a once-overlooked aspect o f the

Information Age. Summarizing the NTIA's principal conclusions, President Clinton

warned that, “there is a growing digital divide between those who have access to the

digital economy and those who don't, and that divide exists along the lines o f education,

income, region and race” (Clinton cited in Phi Delta Kappan 1999, p. 90). As this

statement indicates, the core dynamic of the Digital Divide in American society at large

lies in an ongoing transformation of the national economy through the deployment and


24

use of computer and telecommunications technologies, including the Internet. This

structural change is o f potentially vast benefit, but it brings with it enormous challenges

as well. In a free market, the capital, labor, and technology competencies driving the

post-industrial economy are located in the private sector, with corporate entities

controlling both the bulk of these production factors and the leading edge in their further

development. As a result, market forces are re-determining economic opportunity

structures including, but not limited to, skill requirements of stratified labor markets. For

those persons on the wrong side o f the Digital Divide (i.e., members o f economically and

socially disadvantaged groups), impoverishment yields low access to information

technology and negligible participation in the digital economy. Coming at and through a

period of inordinately rapid economic growth and development, such exclusion widens

and deepens existing economic inequality.

A little more than a year after then-President Clinton issued his statement; the

NTIA issued its most comprehensive analysis of the Digital Divide, its socio-economic

fault-lines, causal mechanics, and prospective consequences under the title o f Falling

through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide, (NTIA, 2000).

With the deepening penetration of technologies into the national economy, the

NTIA asserted, the problem of grossly unequal access to this network and the skills

needed to work in a digital environment, class cleavages (strongly associated with

racial/ethnic minority status) had mounted, would continue to mount, and would become

increasingly intractable. The Digital Divide, the NTIA reported, now threatened to:

Establish an impenetrable barrier not only to quality jobs, but also to educational

opportunities and access to information that all Americans need to be successful.


25

The U.S. can avert a potentially devastating new social inequality between the

digitally literate 'haves' and 'have-nots' if the nation's skills, resources, and

commitment are mobilized quickly”, (p. iv)

The inclusion of educational opportunities in the NTIA's summary assessment

was associated with the development o f advanced vocational skill requirements o f the

digital workplace and the unequal technology access in the nation’s educational system.

In fact, the potential for the emergence of a Digital Divide in American society

was first observed and documented in educational research investigating the accelerating

penetration of digital learning technologies into American public schools. As early as

1987, Becker and Sterling published a study constructed on broadly-based survey data

under the title o f “Equity in School Computer Use: National Data and Neglected

Considerations.” They found the existence of large disparities in personal computers per

student among American public schools and school districts, with presumptively poorer

districts having proportionately greater racial/ethnic minority enrollments having much

higher (that is, worse) ratios than their predominantly White middle- and upper-class

counterparts. As first computers and then the Internet became commonplace in American

schools between the mid-1980s and the present, these initial conclusions about the

emergence o f a technological equity problem in American elementary and secondary

schools were updated and reaffirmed. As Becker and Ravitz (1998) wrote in their

introduction to a study of the Digital Divide in American public schools:

In education, innovations designed to improve students’ accomplishments often

have the unintended consequence of increasing inequality by improving the


26

accomplishments o f more advantaged students without helping, or even doing

harm, to disadvantaged students, (p. 1)

The introduction of computer/telecommunications technology into the nation's

school systems and its ongoing integration into the learning process could potentially

help to level the playing field between privileged and disadvantaged learners, and, by

extension, assist in equalizing class, race, and other differentials in post-secondary

education and the labor market. As it now stands, the mega-trend, innovation of

technology in American education, is not helping students who are already

disadvantaged.

As the NTIA's report Falling through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide (2000)

suggested, because the emergence and growth of the Digital Divide took place so rapidly,

formal research on the equity dimension of technology access is only in its initial stages.

Government policy and academic social science researchers are still in the process o f

defining the Digital Divide at large, and this is also true within the particular domain of

public education. This literature review followed a topical approach to a field that is still

in the process o f formation. The investigator delineated the main findings o f recent

investigations into the Digital Divide, as they currently exist in American public schools.

Discussion o f individual studies is restricted to a handful of recently published

representative works in a separate section o f the survey. This approach reflected the fact

that our basic knowledge of what the Digital Divide is in public education actually is

exceedingly limited, yet rapidly growing even as the underlying phenomena undergo

concurrent transformation.


27

The Growth o f Technology in U.S. Public Education

The penetration of technology into American public education has proceeded at

an extraordinary pace. In terms of the now standard measure o f personal computers (PCs)

per elementary and/or secondary students attending public schools, according to Ely

(1996), the ratio increased from one PC per 125 students in 1983 to one PC per 12

students in 1995 (p. 3). Updates to Ely's estimates vary considerably and are subject to

constant revision themselves. In 1999, for example, Phi Delta Kappan indicated that

there was one computer for every six public school students in the United States {Phi

Delta Kappan, 1999, p. 90). At the same time, using alternative statistical sources,

Scheffler and Logan (1999) reported, “Presently, schools have a ratio o f about 1

computer for every 10 students” and then added, “Nearly all districts have at least one

multimedia-capable computer” (p. 306). It is clear that American society is witnessing a

trend that is universal in its scope, although by no means even in its degree; a trend that

continues to advance at an extraordinarily rapid pace.

Whereas the computer itself has gone from being a novelty within American

education during the 1980s to being a standard feature of schools across the nation in an

impressively short time span, the growth of digital telecommunication information

networks accessible through PCs has been even more astounding. Since the advent o f the

hypertext World Wide Web, or Internet, in the early 1990s, the adoption/diffusion rate(s)

within public schools has been unprecedented. Between 1994 and 1998, Yoder (2001)

reported that the percentage of U.S. classrooms with Internet access rose from 3% to 51%

(p. 13). Indeed, according to the NCES (2003), by 2002, a lull 92% of such classrooms

were online. By 2002, according to the United States Department o f Education, 81% of


28

all U.S. public school students in grades 1 through 12 used the Internet at school (NCES,

2003, p. 12). Increasingly, many public school students enjoy the benefits o f home

ownership or use o f personal computers. Although comparable longitudinal data for

public school students in home access to PCs does not exist, the Department o f Education

reported that by 2002, 65% of public school students in grades 1 through 12 had a

personal computer in their households (NCES, 2003, p. 12).

Internet penetration into the homes of this same populace is substantial, though not nearly

as high. According to the same report, in 2002, 45% of all U.S. public school students

had online access within their households (NCES, 2003, p. 16).

Conducted at different times through different methodologies and with the use of

different samples, and invariably behind the curve of actual growth rates, these statistics

nonetheless clearly show that most American public school students currently enjoy some

in-school access to powerful learning technologies. From this finding, it would appear

that most elementary and secondary learners in the United States today have some

opportunity to develop the basic skills that they will need to succeed in college and,

beyond that, in a post-industrial, information age society. But as discussed in detail in the

next section of this review, in terms of such basic measures as the computer/student ratio,

tremendous variability still exists across schools and school districts. Indeed, in some

cases, these gaps have widened as a result of rapid influxes o f technology in some

schools and actual declines o f technology in others. In their survey o f Florida's

elementary, middle, and secondary public schools, Barron and associates (Barron,

Hogarty, Kromrey, & Lenkway, 1999) reported that the vast majority o f schools had

experienced very rapid increases in both classroom computers and in student computer


29

usage between 1993 and 1996. Surprisingly, though, 5% of the schools in the Barron et

al.’s sample said that both their total number of computers and of student computer usage

actually declined during that same three-year time frame (Barron et al., p. 101).

The Main Fault-Lines o f the Digital Divide

One of the most salient and meaningful fault-lines on the Digital Divide occurred

along the dimension o f educational attainment (NTIA, 2000). Thus, the NTIA reported

that Americans who had graduated college were eight times more likely to own a

computer than those persons who did not have a college degree, and that 61.6% of

college graduates reported frequent Internet use as compared to only 6.6% of persons

who did not have a college degree (NTIA, 2000). Clearly, personal educational

attainment is a significant differential o f the Digital Divide at large. For elementary and

secondary public school students, parental educational attainment is undoubtedly a

significant correlate of their technology access within the home and within public schools

as well. Nonetheless, for educational researchers, level o f educational attainment is, quite

obviously, not a direct operational variable. Rather, level of educational attainment

relates to socioeconomic status reflected, for example, in student household income, and

the very closely associated variable of racial/ethnic minority group membership. The

Digital Divide in American public education is most appropriately construed in terms of

long-standing resource disadvantages marked by class and race/ethnicity. It should be

noted that today there is no difference in the rates of computers and the Internet between

boys and girls. The use rate o f boys was higher during the 1990s, but in today’s world

that higher rate has disappeared (Figure 3, NCES, 2003).


30

100

90

80

70

Male Female

Figure 3: Access to the Internet by Gender (NCES, October, 2003).

As noted earlier, Becker and Sterling (1987) published a landmark study of the

equity dimension to computers in American elementary and secondary schools. From an

analysis encompassing a stratified sample of 2,331 public and non-public schools, they

found, among other things, that, “Black elementary school students in 1985 were less

likely to attend schools with computers and blacks o f all ages attend schools with fewer

computer-using teachers than do whites. Socioeconomic status and achievement

differences between schools account for the other differences in access and use o f

computers by students” (p. 310). Minority group students are more likely to come from

households with incomes and wealth below the national average, to live in poor

communities (most notably in inner city neighborhoods), and to attend high poverty

schools in districts that have inadequate local tax bases to support public education

(Orfield, Schely, Glass, & Reardon, 1994).


31

Some evidence exists that being in a racial minority group is related with digital

technology access o f public students independent o f socioeconomic status. For example,

McKissack (1998) stated that, among U.S. households with total incomes of less than

$40,000 a year, Whites are six times more likely than African Americans to have used the

World Wide Web in the last week and twice as likely to own a personal computer than

African Americans (p. 20). Non-white status appears to compound technology access

disadvantages o f students from low-income households/school districts.

In 1992, Becker estimated that poor school districts with a majority African

American student enrollment had 10 to 12% fewer computers than other poor school

districts. Using Chapter 1 (income eligibility for federal educational subsidies) status as a

surrogate for student socioeconomic status, Hayes (1995) reported that, despite the

availability and use o f Chapter 1 funds for technology purchases, schools with the lowest

percentage of Chapter 1 students had the best student-to-computer ratios (p. 52). Hayes

further reported that student enrollment of these digitally enriched schools was almost or

all White. A more recent study by Gladieux and Swail (1999) showed that the lowest

ratio o f computers to students was in schools and school districts that had the largest

proportions o f minority group and poverty household students.

Other researchers have reported findings that were not consistent with the

previous reports o f a relationship between student socioeconomic status and lower access

to digital technology in public schools. In a statistical survey o f 525 Missouri public

school districts, Alspaugh (1999) found “no consistent relationship between financial

resources of the districts and the number of students per computer” (p. 143). Alspaugh

then added an interpretation that “the schools with the smallest number of students per


32

computer are allocating a larger proportion of their financial resources to computing

technology” (p. 143). But Alspaugh’s research results were based on imputed school

district financial ability (annual district expenditures per student) rather than on student

household income or neighborhood socioeconomic status. Similarly, Barron et al. (1999)

reported in their study that, “there were no strong relationships found between the use of

computers in the school and the percentage of students receiving free or reduced lunch”

(p. 101). This unexpected finding appears to be an artifact of the study design rather than

a direct contradiction of a hypothesized relationship between student socioeconomic

status and the students’ school’s digital resources. The bulk of the evidence supports a

strong association between poverty (student, community, and school district) and low

computer student ratios in public elementary, middle, and secondary schools.

With the enhancement o f the personal computer through the advent o f the

Internet, the poverty factor is again evident. Hayes and Bybee (1995) observed,

“generally speaking, schools with poor student-per-computer ratios have limited access to

other modem learning technologies, such as telecommunications, cable in the classroom

and multimedia” (p. 48). In support o f this finding, the NCES, (2003) reported that 85%

of students from high-income households reported using the Internet at school, as

compared to 83% of their peers from middle-income families and 75% of students from

low-income families (see Figure 4). Students who attend school in low-income and

minority areas have less access to the Internet. These findings demonstrated the

differences in access of computers to students who are from low-income households at

schools were Internet connectivity has been established.


33

86

84

82

80<uCl(a% 78uL -Q)

76

74

72

70

Figure 4: Students Who Use the Internet at School by Income (NCES, 2003).

Among public school students, class is an even more powerful predictor of

computer and Internet accessibility at home. Kafai and Sutton state that the available

evidence and their own study results strongly demonstrate that “families at the lower

socio-economic end (have) a much greater likelihood of not having a computer at home”

(Kafai & Sutton 1999, p. 355). According to the United States Department o f Education,

91% of public school students in grades 1 through 12 from high-income families have a

computer at home, whereas 76% of their peers from middle-income families and only

46% of students from low-income families have access to a personal computer at home

(NCES, 2003). The corresponding household-income differentials for at-home Internet

use are even more pronounced within the same population: 75% of students from high-

income families are online at home, compared to 63% of middle-income, and just 37% of

low-income students (Figure 5, NCES, 2003).

High Income Families Middle Income Families Low Income Families


34

80

70

60

<u 50UiBg 40

20

10

0

Figure 5: Students in Public Schools (1-12) with Internet Access at Home by income (NCES, 2003).

In terms of in-school PC usage and student-PC ratios, students who are members

o f traditionally disadvantaged minority groups, especially African-Americans and

Hispanics, demonstrate only a slight disadvantage in usage when the influence of

economic variables is controlled. For example, among White students in public schools,

83% are more likely to report frequent (at least once a week) use o f the Internet at school,

compared to 70% for African-American students and 71% for Hispanic students. The

differentials on this count are not large (Figure 6, (NTIA, 2000). When race and income

are considered together, a more sharply etched portrait o f unequal access along minority

group status lines appears (see Figure 6).

Internet usage is substantially below average in schools with a high percentage of

Black students and/or students receiving free/reduced-cost lunches under Title 1 funding

programs in public elementary and secondary schools (Leigh, 1999). Leigh goes on to

say:

■75-

Total All Students High Income Families Middle Income Low Income FamiliesFamilies


35

White African-American Hispanic

Figure 6: Students Who Use the Internet Once a Week at School by Race (NCES, 2000).

The results o f this study strongly suggest that access to educational technologies

is unequally distributed among schools of differing racial or socio-economic

makeup. Schools with predominantly White students are more likely to have

Internet access than schools with large number of students o f other ethnic

backgrounds. Along the same lines, students o f high socio-economic status [SES]

are more likely to have Internet access at their schools than students o f low socio

economic status, (pp. 122-123)

Although difficult to disaggregate the effects of SES and racial/ethnic minority

group status, students who belong to traditionally disadvantaged groups—African-

Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans—do appear to be substantially

disadvantaged in terms of at-school access to technologies.

Race is a powerful discriminator o f PC home ownership/access availability

among U.S. public school students. In 1998, a full 70% of all White public school

students reported having a computer in their households. By contrast, in that same year,


36

only 28% of all African-American students and 28% of all Hispanic public school

students had a personal computer in their homes (NCES, 2000, p. 71). In terms of

Internet access at home among public school students, a parallel racial divide is evident.

In 1998, 32.2% of White public school students, but only 8.4% of their African-American

peers and 8.0% of their Hispanics peers were had Internet access at home (NCES, p.

161).

Consistent with the findings o f previous studies, access to the Internet at home by

race increased among all ethnic groups but at a disparate rate. In 2001, 66.7% of White

public school students and 64.6% of Asian public school students reported using the

Internet at home while 45.3% of African American and 37.2% Hispanics reported being

online at home. (NCES) These results can be seen in Figure 7.

100

90

80

White Black Hispanic Asian

Figure 7: Access to the Internet at Home by Race (NCES, October, 2003).

In addition to SES and race/ethnicity, some evidence exists o f a significant gap

along geographic setting lines. The distinction here is between relatively privileged


37

suburban and high-income urban school districts, on the one hand, and both rural and

low-income inner city neighborhoods on the other. Overlap exists between these

geographic lines and socioeconomic status/race-ethnicity, with inner city ghettoes being

marked by a high degree of poverty and by high concentrations o f disadvantaged

racial/ethnic minority group members. Costs, especially to provide telephone lines into

classrooms to access the Internet and to pay Internet service providers (ISPs),

substantially limit student in-school (and at-home) access to the World Wide Web

(Johnson, 1995, p. 2). Rural communities tend to have below-mean household incomes

independent o f racial/ethnic composition. But it is in terms o f telecommunications access

that students in rural public schools experience the sharpest inequalities. As several

researchers have observed (Hayes, 1995, p. 51; Johnson, 1995, p. 2), some rural

communities do not have access to a local ISP because Internet access entails long

distance access and is, therefore, is cost-prohibitive (Gunderson & Anderson, 1999). In

terms of at-home Internet access, the NTIA study reported that urban households with

annual incomes in excess of $75,000 were 20 times more likely to have Internet access at

home than were those rural households at the lowest income levels (NTIA, 2000).

There is one further dimension to the Digital Divide in American public schools

that has not been addressed in large scale surveys or in case studies, but was recognized

by Becker and colleagues as early as the late 1980s. Supplementing existing databases

with their own mail questionnaire research, Becker and Sterling found much higher levels

o f computer usage among high-ability students assigned to college-bound tracks than

among low-ability students assigned to vocational tracks within the same schools. They

reported that in addition to greater frequency and total time of computer usage, high-


38

ability students were exposed to a much wider array of computer uses, whereas low-

ability students were constrained to drill and practice exercises (Becker & Sterling,

1987). Becker and Sterling also reported that teachers o f high-ability student classes were

substantially more likely to own their own personal computers than were teachers o f low-

ability class students. This same disparity was found by Becker (1984) and then again

investigated in 1998 by Becker and Ravitz. In addition to class, race, and community

geographic setting, which differentiate largely on a school district-by-school district basis

as well as a school-to-school basis, within any given school we may find another

dimension of the public education Digital Divide along the lines o f

demonstrated/perceived student ability.

The Digital Divide in American Public Schools

Broad statistical data suggest quantitative disparities in the access o f public school

students to digital technology within school and at home along the lines o f class, race,

community geographic setting, and student ability. But there are qualitative aspects to

these same phenomena, for though two schools may have identical student-to-computer

ratios and a coequal percentage of classrooms wired to the Internet, this does not

necessarily mean that there is digital parity between them. Depth of digital experience in

the classroom is as important a dimension of the Digital Divide as the width of the gaps

delineated previously in this chapter. Blanchard (1999) remarked that:

Sophisticated technology demands not only a high level o f knowledge from its

users, but also a concomitant degree of familiarity and comfort. Students must

have exposure to the workings of the computer and develop ease with various

hardware and software to acquire a high degree of competence and skill.


39

Merely occasional usage and/or usage confined to comparatively simple tasks

(e.g., keyboarding, surfing the Web) do not immerse students in digital

technology, (p. 2)

According to proponents of computer-assisted instruction, the process of

exploiting digital technology for educational purposes tends to unfold in stages. As

Johnson (1997) explained, there are three sequential phases in educational computing: (a)

familiarization, (b) acquisition, and (c) integration. Many public schools today are

familiar with digital technology and have acquired some of the hardware and software

necessary for its use, but they vary greatly in terms of the third stage, integration. On this

subject, Moursund (2001) pointed the road ahead:

The curriculum needs to be revised so that IT (information technology) is

thoroughly integrated into the instruction and practice that is designed to produce

fluency in writing, mathematics and science. That is, IT needs to be integrated

into all curriculum areas at all grade levels as a routine and everyday component

o f curriculum, instruction and assessment, (p. 5)

If students are to receive optimal exposure to technology and optimal benefit from

its use as a learning medium, this deeper level o f integration into the learning process

must be implemented.

The available evidence indicates that most American public schools have not

achieved such deep integration o f digital technology into the learning process. According

to Scheffler and Logan (1999), “few teachers routinely use computers for instructional

purposes” (p. 306). Along the same line, Leigh (1999) commented that public school

teachers “are not using or integrating technology tools in the classroom, nor are they


40

incorporating related textual, graphical, or simulated learning materials available or

simulated learning materials available on the Internet into their lessons and learning

environments” (p. 124). Despite the extremely rapid penetration o f digital technologies

into American public schools over the last decade or so, the actual usage of such

technologies often fall well short of what proponents of CAI have advocated (i.e., broadly

integration into the regular classroom and the regular curriculum).

According to Johnson (1997), editor o f the journal Computers in the Schools,

although the rising number of PCs in the schools is encouraging, two problems have

limited the benefits that digital technology can purportedly yield for public school

students: “(a) many existing computers are outdated and... (b) the preponderance of

computing power is in laboratory settings and library media centers” (p. 2). Gunderson

and Anderson (1999) addressed where computers are located in schools stating that, “We

have observed that Internet access is often only available in most elementary schools in

the principal's office and in secondary schools in the administrative offices and in a

computer laboratory” (p. 7). Indeed, according to Fabry and Higgs (1997) about one-half

o f all computers in American public schools are located in centralized computer labs, in

media centers, or in teachers’ offices where they are not accessible to students on a daily

basis (Fabry & Higgs). In fact, "In many American schools, kids are still getting one-half

hour o f computer time in the computer lab per week" (Johnson, 1999, p. 1). Constraints

upon the use of the Internet are especially severe. At one urban elementary school, the

administration paid for 40 hours of Internet time per month; and those 40 hours o f log-on

time a month was shared by 500 students using one computer located in the school

library (Gunderson & Anderson, 1999).


41

In terms of obsolete equipment, American schools have more up-to-date

computers today than was the case in the early 1990s (Johnson, 1997). As reported in Phi

Delta Kappan, only 22% of all computers in American public schools were less than 10

years old, but by 1998, that proportion had risen to over 50%, with 45% being less than

five years old (Phi Delta Kappan, 1999). This appears to be a favorable development:

Nonetheless, due to the short time span for significant upgrades in technology, many

public school computers are now woefully out-dated.

While the United States leads the world in the sheer number o f instructional

computers, half o f these computers are 8-bit machines, incapable of supporting

CD-Rom sized databases, running complex software, or being networked. The

computers in use are predominantly used for lower-order thinking skill activities

such as drill or practice. (Fabry & Higgs, 1997, p. 381)

Though comparisons are difficult to secure, data strongly suggest that schools

serving higher proportions o f disadvantaged students have a higher percentage o f

outdated computer equipment than those schools serving higher proportions o f privileged

(i.e., white, middle- or upper-class, college-bound) students. “For the most part, the

higher the socio-economic status o f the student body, the more likely the school will have

higher levels and faster types of Internet access. Students of low socio-economic status

are likely to have low-level, slow types o f access that allow for transmission of text

information only" (Leigh, 1999, p. 123).

The obvious starting point in any discussion o f the causes behind the current

Digital Divide in American public schools is the availability o f financial resources to

fund the purchase/replacement of equipment and software to pay for various service and


42

maintenance, and for developing the technological skills o f teachers and other staff

members. Typically schools and school districts focus on the obvious initial costs

associated with buying hardware (Fabry & Higgs, 1997). They tend to neglect

consideration o f the costs associated with software acquisition, maintenance and repair,

training and technical staffing, replacement and system upgrades, and

telecommunications connections (Fabry & Higgs). When all o f these costs are totaled, the

total burden o f integrating computer/telecommunications media into American

classrooms is enormous. Indeed, when considering the extent o f this goal, one is led to

conclude with the title of an editorial by Johnson, "A Computer for Every Student? It

Ain't Going to Happen" (1999, p. 3).

According to the NTIA, only about 1.3% of elementary and secondary

educational expenditures are allocated to the acquisition o f instructional technology

(McKissack, 1998). To furnish every public school student with his or her own computer

would reportedly raise that sum two or three times. For most school districts, however,

financial restraints are ensured by the resistance of taxpayers, particularly property tax

payers, to the increase in school budgets that would be required to fully implement

ambitious plans for integrating technology into all public school classrooms. "For the

typical school district administrator who is looking at a budget that had nothing left over

once salaries, building maintenance, instructional materials, and miscellaneous items are

deducted, it (the goal o f a school computer for every student) seems impossible — which,

o f course, it is!" (Johnson, 1999, p. 2).

In the face of the large costs entailed in bringing technology into public schools

and taxpayer resistance to footing these bills, the American educational system’s reliance


43

upon local property tax necessarily yields gross inequalities. Many school districts do not

have an adequate tax base relative to the number of students within their boundaries, and

by definition, low-income and disadvantaged minority group students are over

represented in these poor school districts. By contrast, some Local Education Agencies,

(LEAs) have extensive local property tax bases relative to the size o f their public school

student populations, and can therefore afford the outlays required to bring their schools

into the Information Age. These comparatively rich districts generally have very low

proportions, if any, o f low-income and/or minority group students. The system of public

education funding in the United States is therefore highly unequal. “When a system's

structure is already very unequal, it is likely that when an innovation is introduced

(especially if it is a relatively high-cost innovation), the consequences will lead to even

greater inequality” (Rogers, 1995, p. 436). The net result is that "computers and

telephone access seem very much a luxury to poor families and poor school districts, who

regularly grapple with putting nutritious food on the table and certified teachers in the

classroom" (Gamer & Gillingham, 1996, p. 16). Disadvantaged public school students

suffer unequal access to technology because they attend schools in the districts o f poor

communities.

Deficits in infrastructure and the cost of maintaining computers and obtaining

Internet access represent a major hurdle in any effort to narrow the Digital Divide. In

their survey o f 58 public schools, Gunderson and Anderson (1999) found that every

school had computers, but about 60% lacked the technology needed to access the Internet

(p. 7). Johnson commented in 1994:


44

There are plenty of teacher and students who are ready, willing, and able to pull

the Internet into their classrooms. They have the computers, the modems, the

accounts, and the passwords. What they can't get is the phone lines, (p. 2)

Lack of telephone lines or cable into classrooms represents a major barrier to the

integration o f technology into American public schools. As of 1996 only one U.S. public

school teacher in eight had a classroom telephone (Fabry & Higgs, 1997, p. 391).

This finding is reinforced by the fact that disadvantaged school districts are

comprised chiefly o f students from low-income households who find themselves in

situations that parallel their local schools. Gunderson and Anderson (1999) stated:

Likewise, many poor families are unable to afford a computer or to pay for a

(Internet) service provider. Thus children from middle-class homes who already

tend to have greater access at school tend again to be privileged further in that

they are also much more likely to use the Internet at home. Indeed, the standard

pedagogical approach we have observed is that elementary teachers assume

students have access at home and give homework assignments that require it.

(P- 7)

The Digital Divide that disadvantaged public school students face in the

classroom is essentially widened by a correlative (and substantially greater) gap in their

at-home access to technology and the Internet. Many low-income households in the

United States, particularly those households in inner city neighborhoods, do not yet have

telephones (Gamer & Gillingham, 1996, p. 16). Minority group members are over

represented within this subset as 18% of African-American households do not have

phones (McKissack, 1998, p. 20).


45

Not only do poor communities lack the requisite financial resources to reach the

technological standards o f middle- and upper-income school districts, they also have

substantially fewer community members who are aware o f the importance of technology

and the Internet as a learning resource. In what Becker and Ravitz (1998) term high-

education/high-income communities, local stakeholders, such as parents and business

owners, are often vocal in their support for introduction of information technology into

public schools, whereas in low-education/low-income communities, the chief concern is

about containing costs or meeting basic reading and arithmetic literacy goals. A

normative expectation about their children’s futures introduces further bias into the

equation:

In working class schools there may, in fact, be an emphasis on punctuality,

neatness, obedience and structure because these are the attributes conducive to

subordinate labor. On the other hand, creativity, independence, and higher level

thinking skills are taught in upper middle class and elite schools to prepare

students for their future roles in the workplace. Therefore, an expectation

concerning students and their futures is another potential source of inequality, (pp.

2-3)

It may well be that part o f the Digital Divide in American public education is the

product of differences in the values, goals, and expectations of adult constituencies in

districts with high proportions o f advantaged students public school students and those in

districts with high proportions o f disadvantaged students.

Overlapping the Digital Divide, another gap exists that is apparent in the use of

technology within American public schools, the so-called utilization gap, or the


46

technology literacy gap. Much of the difference between the benefits that computers and

the Internet could bring to public school students and the lower level o f benefits that are

realized in practice centers upon the variable, but generally insufficient, computer skills

o f classroom teachers (Fabry & Higgs, 1997). Several educational researchers have

observed that neither teacher education programs nor in-service training programs have

kept pace with the need to develop digital technology competencies for classroom

teachers (Ellsworth, 1997; Gunderson & Anderson, 1999; Melheim, 1997). "Teachers are

mostly self-taught and spend their own time and resources to expand their knowledge

about technology" (Scheffler & Logan, 1999, p. 306). Their ability and willingness to

tackle this challenge is extremely variable. In their day-to-day activities, classroom

teachers are characteristically on their own in dealing with digital technology: Only 6%

of elementary schools and only 3% of secondary schools have full-time on-site

technology coordinators (Fabry & Higgs).

The absence o f adequate training for classroom teachers in technology and

computer/Intemet-assisted instruction raises teacher anxiety about its usage and about

prospects for losing control over their classrooms (Fisher, 1997, p. 146). What is being

asked of teachers in using technology and the Internet is nothing short o f a revolution in

teaching practice.

To integrate technology into classroom practice in the manner envisioned by

ardent proponents, teachers must make two radical changes — not only must they

learn how to use the technology, but they must also fundamentally change how

they teach. Teachers are being asked to move away from relying on a teacher-

centered classroom to a more student-centered classroom. This represents a more


47

difficult transition for teachers than simply using technology. (Fabry & Higgs,

1997, p. 388)

Under these conditions, some classroom educators are resistant technology

making inroads into familiar. As McKenzie (1996) suggested, a portion o f such resistance

to change is not an explicitly conscious choice or one that teachers overtly recognize.

Teachers trained in one technology and mind-set sometimes find themselves

gridlocked into old patterns and perceptions. Thrust into a world o f new

technologies, they persist in seeing them in terms of the familiar; the word

processor, for example, is viewed as a glorified typewriter with powerful editing

features rather than as the idea processor it can be. (p. 1)

Efforts have been underway for more than a decade to incorporate technology

competencies into teacher training programs (Scheflfler & Logan, 1999). The

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) has led the way in the effort to

identify such core competencies and convey them to teachers in training, and possibly

test them, before certification. But here too there are problems, most notably those

difficulties stemming from the relentless advancement of technological capabilities.

Thus, for example, Hirumi and Grau (1996) used a Delphi panel o f experts to identify 60

broad informational technology proficiencies that classroom teachers should have. When

they compared their roster with digital technology competency lists for public school

teachers prepared by state educational authorities, they found very little consensus about

what teachers should be able to do in the classroom with digital technology. Of the 60

competencies they identified, only four appeared on at least 50% of state lists (Gooden,


48

1996). Moreover, similar fragmentation was evident within computer-related journal

articles and textbooks addressing core digital competencies of classroom teachers.

There may well be a mutually reinforcing relationship between the Digital Divide

and this under-utilization gap. As Herbert Becker reported in a 1992 study, "only half as

many elementary teachers in poor district/majority-black schools were judged to be

‘expert in using instructional software’ as in other elementary schools" (Becker, 1992, p.

17). Very little information is available on the difference between digital technology

skills and knowledge of teachers in rich school districts and those in poor school districts.

Nevertheless, the literature does suggest that high-tech teachers are attracted to

technology-rich schools, demonstrating that disadvantaged students are significantly

under-represented in technologically advanced schools.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use

Technology (PT3) was created to provide grants for school districts, state agencies,

teaching colleges, and non-profit organizations to develop programs to help teachers

become technologically literate (U.S. Department o f Education, 2000, p. 15). The CEO

Forum on Education and Technology developed the Teacher Preparation School

Technology and Readiness (StaR) chart that provides benchmarks for evaluating how

technology is being integrated into teacher preparation programs. Technology Innovation

Challenge Grants and Technology Literacy Challenge Fund (TLCF) programs have

provided funds directly to schools to increase technology literacy in teaching and

learning. These programs are designed to ensure that all new teachers have adequate

training in technology but, for the most part, these programs are new and have not been

evaluated.


49

Studies Concerning the Digital Divide in American Public Schools

In addition to national surveys such as those investigations conducted by the

NTIA and the USDE, during the past decade scholars have published research findings

about the Digital Divide in American public schools in the form of both qualitatively-

oriented case studies and quantitatively-oriented investigations. A sampling of these

works suggests that attention is now focused upon determining what works in raising the

level o f use o f technology in public schools and how the Digital Divide in such schools

can be narrowed.

Milone (1999) published a study of the implementation of a connected

community concept in the Lemon Grove, California school system. A suburb of San

Diego, Lemon Grove has its own local access network (LAN), which allows members of

the community at large, including parents, to monitor events and communicate directly

with their community schools. Milone observed that the at-home Digital Divide was a

significant barrier to the lull implementation of Lemon Grove's connected community

concept:

Without question, the greatest impediment to achieving the learning-related goals

o f the connected community is providing access for low-income families. These

families simply do not have sufficient disposable income to purchase the

hardware, software, and Internet service needed to participate in the connected

community", (p. 21)

Local officials addressed this problem through two approaches: (a) They installed

PCs with Internet connections in several public places within the community, such as

libraries and community centers, and (b) they lent families an Internet-ready personal


50

computer with appropriate software. Milone reported that Lemon Grove had experienced

no significant problems with its loaner approach to overcoming the hardware/software

cost aspect o f the digital divide.

Rhodes (1996) undertook a comparative study of computer usage in the public

schools o f New York City, San Diego, and Iowa City. In New York City, Rhodes

observed, central administration offices had low levels o f technology investment when

compared to the City's schools and classrooms. In San Diego, Rhodes found an opposite

relationship: Central administrative offices enjoyed the latest digital telecommunications

capacity whereas many schools worked with computers that were essentially obsolete. In

this assessment, Iowa City had the best balance in the distribution o f technology assets

between central offices and schools. According to Rhodes, the key to Iowa City's success

lies in the district superintendent's commitment to computer-assisted instruction and the

willingness to reach out to the local business community and form a techno logy-in-the-

schools partnership with private enterprise owners. As a consequence of active leadership

and community support, Rhodes found Iowa City to be a model o f how a working class

school district can bring itself and its students into the Information Age. Rhodes when on

to state:

The Iowa City experience suggests that steady, incremental growth of human and

work process infrastructure necessary to maintain improvements in schools

effectiveness could be facilitated in most school districts. Thus would first require

empowering administrators, teachers, and staff through improved

communications across the district, and then providing them with productivity


51

tools to help them efficiently access and analyze the information they need for

informed decision-making, (p. 39)

Because of the balance in the distribution of technology resources between district

offices and school sites the district superintendent was able to keep in constant

communication with principals, staff members, and classroom teachers using digital

technology in the schools (Rhodes, 1996).

In a year-long study of computer-mediated communications (CMC) tool usage by

280 students in high schools participating in the CoVis Project, Fishman (1999) reported

that CoVis is "an educational networking test bed funded by the National Science

Foundation to explore issues o f advanced computer and communications technology in

practice" (p. 75). The study subjects were generally privileged, with 78.5% of them

reporting home access to a personal computer. The students who had the most

accumulated computer/Internet experience used CMC tools far more extensively than

those students with less experience. Further, those students who were most active in

CMC activities also reported significantly higher levels o f academic self-concept than

those who were less active in CMC activities. According to Fishman (1999), the Digital

Divide can be overcome through the integration of CMC technology into regular

classroom studies. Summarizing these findings and those of the CoVis Project as a

whole, Fishman wrote that it was "best to integrate it (CMC tools) with ongoing

classroom activity, rather than making it a separate activity. Without such training, a gap

between those who have computers at home and those who do not could grow to

represent a difference in educational experience between the “haves” and “have-nots” (p.

86).


52

One of the most significant investigations o f the Digital Divide published is

Becker and Ravitz's (1998) study of technology use among and within schools that

belong to the National School Network (NSN). The NSN is a nationwide alliance of

some 300 public schools united in their commitment to constructivist educational reform

including, but not limited to, the integration of technologies into classroom instruction.

The authors indicated that the 152 schools that responded to their survey questionnaires

were not representative o f American public schools as a whole. The majority was located

in urban communities, serviced students from middle- and upper-income households, and

had partnerships with local business groups and/or mentoring programs. Nevertheless,

Becker and Ravitz found NSN schools to be as racially diverse as U.S. public schools at

large; indeed, they have a slightly higher percentage of non-white students than the mean

for U.S. public schools as a whole.

In terms of their expenditures on technology, NSN schools have modestly higher

outlays per student than national norms for public schools: Their instructional IT budgets

are about 25% greater than average for U.S. schools (Becker & Ravitz, 1998). Becker and

Ravitz (1998) reported a high degree of variance in the depth to which NSN schools in

their sample had integrated digital technologies into the learning process.

Although the NSN schools all have minimal levels of hardware connectivity, the

schools differ among themselves tremendously in how far they have progressed in

bringing Internet-based learning to their teachers and students. Some NSN

schools have programs involving many teachers and many students. In others,

only one or two teachers and a handful o f students are involved. The World Wide

Web in some schools is simply a means o f acquiring encyclopedic information


53

from digital sources, while in other NSN schools teachers and students are

producers and publishers to their community and the outside world, (p. 9)

As a whole, NSN schools are ahead of the educational technology curve, but

though some member schools are in the vanguard, others closely resemble the national

norm in terms o f digital learning implementation.

The first question addressed by Becker and Ravitz in their research was:

.. .whether students in the particularly accomplished NSN schools are

disproportionately upper-middle-class white students or whether the NSN's most

successful institutions serve poor and minority students as frequently as do the

schools that have made the least progress so far in achieving Internet-based

teaching and learning goals, (p. 9)

Among the outcome measures utilized by Becker and Ravitz was the extent of

teacher and student use of CMC activities, number and type of such activities, and

community support for such activities. On most o f these counts, Becker and Ravitz

(1998) found that "there were no statistically significant or sizeable correlations with the

percentage o f students from poor families, the percentage from historically disadvantaged

ethnic groups, or the rating of the community as ‘high,’ ‘high-average,’ or Tow-to-

average’ socio-economically" (p. 10).

Examining the results, they concluded that "overall, NSN schools that serve lower

socioeconomic and historically disadvantaged groups are doing as well in innovating

instructionally useful Internet- and network-based learning experiences for their student

bodies as are NSN schools serving more advantaged populations" (Becker & Ravitz,

1998, p. 11). This finding strongly suggests that with an appropriate educational


54

philosophy and levels of technology expenditure that are only modestly higher than

national norms, schools that serve disadvantaged students can overcome the Digital

Divide separating them from schools serving privileged students.

Becker and Ravitz's study had a second and crucial dimension. It revolved around

the research question of "equity within NSN schools—that is, does privilege rear itself

within a heterogeneous body so that students who are academically more successful are

the ones who are given the opportunity to use the Internet and are challenged more

academically by it" (1998, p. 11). Concentrating on the secondary schools in their sample

(i.e., schools in which students were grouped into classes on the basis o f ability), Becker

and Ravitz found that students in the higher-ability classes received much more frequent

opportunities to use their schools' digital technologies than those students in the lower-

ability classes. As important, in NSN schools with a significant proportion of minority

students and/or students from lower-middle income households, this bias toward high-

ability students was even more pronounced. "Where there was a substantial ability

difference between classes combined with substantial ethnic or social class diversity in

the school and community, the higher ability class was much more often favored with

greater Internet use" (p. 22). Within the NSN schools in disadvantaged communities,

students assigned to lower-ability classes were almost never given the opportunity to

work on the Internet. What Becker and Ravitz found, then, was that a Digital Divide

exists along the lines o f student ability and that the student ability variable is an

inordinately powerful predictor o f student access to technology within schools on the

wrong side o f the Digital Divide (p. 23).


55

The Consequences o f the Digital Divide in American Public Schools

Advocates o f the integration of technology and the Internet into the regular

classroom maintain that computer-assisted instruction yields superior educational

outcomes when compared to traditional teaching methods. Despite decades o f study, the

question o f the relative academic efficacy of computer-assisted instruction (CAI) has not

yet been conclusively resolved (Barron et al., 1999). Kulik and Kulik (1991) and Kulik

(1994) in their meta-analytical reviews found that the introduction o f computer-based

instruction in public schools generated statistically significant improvements in student

performance. Other researchers such as Yang (1991, 1992) found "no significant

difference in student achievements between computer-based instruction and the methods

o f traditional instruction" (Yang, p. 96). Alspaugh (1999) is among those scholars who

have written extensively about the alleged drawbacks of computer-based classroom

instruction, claiming that time spent on learning technological skills detracts from student

absorption o f regular academic course contents. Whether or not students on the

disadvantaged side o f the educational Digital Divide are thereby deprived o f a superior

medium o f instruction is moot. Nevertheless, it is apparent that besides having less

exposure to technology in school, and hence less developed computer/

telecommunications knowledge/skills required on a growing percentage o f quality jobs,

digitally disadvantaged students cannot reap the full benefits o f CAI and are at a

profound handicap in classrooms that do make extensive use o f computer-assisted

instruction.

Investigating the influence of at-home technology upon the academic

performance o f public school students, Kafai and Sutton (1999) noted that although 45%


56

of all computer purchases by people with children are made for expressly educational

purposes, such outlays may not have their intended effect (p. 346). They further cited

observational studies conducted in late 1980s and early 1990s, several o f which reported

that "many students found it difficult to operate on their own at home in the absence of

their teachers or their more knowledgeable peers, key components o f their school

software design environment" (p. 348). Surveying the parents o f277 students attending a

technologically-advanced laboratory school in California, among whom nearly 90%

reported having a PC in the home, Kafai and Sutton (1999) found from parental reports

that most o f these students used the bulk o f their at-home PC time playing computer

games and sending e-mails, rather than in academically-related tasks (e.g., researching

homework assignments). Considering these results, Kafai and Sutton wrote that:

An increase in the quantity o f computers and software does not necessarily

correlate with an increase in the quality o f computer home activities. In many

ways, these results are reminiscent of computer use in the schools. Just putting

computers into classrooms and connecting them to the Internet does not address

how technology is integrated into subject matters, classroom activities, and

student learning and teaching. The same applies to the home setting: just having a

computer at home does not mean that children will use it for educational

purposes. In fact, most children get introduced to interactive technologies within

an entertainment context by playing video games, (pp. 354-355)

These results might prompt a modification o f the assumption that public school

students who do not have an Internet-connected PC at home are disadvantaged vis-a-vis

peers who enjoy such in-home access. Nevertheless, as per Kafai and Sutton, the


57

educational impact o f home PC ownership and connection to the Internet appears to be

significantly greater as schools move from the acquisition to the integration stage of their

digitalization.

Several scholars have investigated the impact o f educational technology upon

student self-concept. For example, Tierney (1996) suggests that immersion in a

technological classroom has a profound and positive impact upon how students see

themselves as learners and as community members.

(In the) Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow Project, technology has become woven

into the fabric o f who they are and what they do both individually and within their

classrooms, schools and wider communities. Technology has played an important

role in how these students view themselves, the roles they assume in their various

communities, and the cultural practices they have come to value", (p. 169)

Other scholars maintain that there is a direct correlation between Internet usage,

on the one hand, and social isolation, on the other (Blanchard, 1999; Egan, 1997;

Sanders, 1994; Sleek 1998). In the main, empirical evidence indicates that exposure to

technology in school contributes to gains in student self-concept. That being so,

technologically disadvantaged students may well be deprived of experiences that could

raise their self-esteem.

Some researchers have sought to find correlations between student-to-school

computer ratios and various measures of student behavior, including conduct violations,

absenteeism, and voluntary student withdrawals. Barron and associates investigated the

relationship between the number of computers per student in Florida schools and student

conduct. Their "results indicated that there was clearly some evidence o f a decrease in


58

student conduct violations with an increase in the availability o f computers" (Barron et

al., 1999, p. 105). On the other hand, Alspaugh (1999) indicated that:

The availability o f computers appears to be unrelated to attendance rates and high

school dropout rates. The results o f the study (also) imply that there is no

relationship between the availability of computers and the traditional measures of

educational outcomes, including achievement, attendance, and dropout rates, (p.

149)

The evidence about the consequences o f the Digital Divide for student in-school

behavior, then, is as yet unclear.

At present, public schools in the United States are under strong pressure from

both reform-minded educators and the public at-large to improve their output

performance through comprehensive restructuring(s). Ely (1996) wrote the most

ambitious educational reforms included technology:

The movement for restructuring education in the schools across the United States

has generated proposals for reform of the entire education system. Virtually every

proposal or plan includes educational technology as one of the major vehicles for

implementing change, (p. 35)

To the extent that digital technology is thought o f as a primary tool for a transition

from teacher-centered to student-centered instruction, the relative dearth o f digital

equipment available to disadvantaged students represents a constraint upon their capacity

to participate in gains via thoroughgoing educational reforms.

As important as these consequences may be, the literature strongly suggests that

technologically disadvantaged public school students experience the full brunt o f the


59

Digital Divide's adverse effects only after they have left school and entered the world of

work in the Information Age. "The disparity between the techno-rich and techno-poor

comes to a head with this statistic: A person who is able to use a computer at work earns

15 percent more than someone in the same position who lacks computer skills"

(McKissack 1998, p. 20). The so-called new economy requires labor market entrants to

bring a well developed set of technological skills with them on their initial job searches;

even old economy employers may make hiring decisions on the basis o f variations in the

respective computer skills o f job candidates. Moreover, with increasing frequency,

"companies are using the Web for making job announcements and collecting resumes"

(McKissack, p. 20). Absent some familiarity with technology, then, recent public

school/college graduates are increasingly at a disadvantage in finding quality

employment opportunities. Indeed, access to the Internet has become an important

determinant o f participation in the nation's political life. At present, "government officials

are using the Web more often to disseminate information. Political parties are holding

major on-line events" (McKissack, p. 20). That being so, the digitally disadvantaged

confront rising barriers to their development o f a full and informed say in politics and

policies, including those barriers that touch upon the Digital Divide in American public

schools.

Government Policy Responses to the Digital Divide in American Public Schools

It has been only in the past five years or so that the existence o f a Digital Divide

in U.S. public education has been elevated to the status o f a national public policy

concern. In the late 1990s, government agencies having a stake in the educational Digital

Divide (e.g., the Department of Education and the Department o f Commerce) sought to


60

educate the public about its existence and prospective consequences. Much of this work

now appears on Internet websites such as "digitaldivide.gov," maintained by the NTIA.

At the federal level, the policy response to the educational Digital Divide has

taken three generic forms: (a) moral exhortation; (b) modest subsidies; and (c) programs

targeted to high-risk groups. As an example o f moral exhortation, as early as 1994 then-

Vice President Al Gore announced that one portion o f his plan to reduce the Digital

Divide in the nation's public schools hinged upon persuading telecommunications

companies to furnish public schools with free Internet hook-ups (Johnson, 1994). Some

computer equipment and service provider companies have been persuaded to furnish poor

or disadvantaged students, schools, and/or school districts with lower cost or, on

occasion, free equipment. Nevertheless, as Johnson (1994) lamented, "American business

is only interested in helping education if there is a profit to be made" (p. 3). This

statement may appear to be an excessively harsh judgment, but it is apparent from the

modest contributions that the private sector has made to closing the Digital Divide in

American schools that moral exhortation is inadequate for the task at hand.

At both federal and state levels, efforts have been undertaken to close the Digital

Divide as it affects certain defined groups o f at-risk students. Representative o f such

targeted programs, the Department of Commerce now sponsors the Encouraging Students

Through Technology to Reach High Expectations in Learning Lifeskills and

Achievement (ESTRELLA) project (Kinser, Pessin, & Meyertholen, 2001). The program

furnishes Internet-ready laptop computers to students o f migrant farm worker families,

many of whom are doubly disadvantaged by their economic level and lack o f English

language fluency.


61

As the NTIA's report demonstrates, moral exhortation, limited federal subsidies,

and programs targeted at high risk groups have not made a significant impact upon the

Digital Divide in American public schools as a whole. Despairing of greater local- and

state-level funding for educational technology, Johnson (1999) recommends a lowering

of expectations, telling colleagues that "instead of thinking about universal access

through $2,000 computers, we need to start thinking about $50 basic learning units" (p.

4). This approach would narrow the Digital Divide gap at a surface level, but as the

integration of technology into the school curriculum proceeds, reliance upon such basic

learning units is plainly less than optimal.

The federal government has created programs that furnish public schools with

dedicated subsidies. The School and Libraries Universal Service Program, established by

Congress through the provisions o f the Telecommunications Act o f 1996 and also known

as the "E-rate," permits fees imposed on telecommunications companies to be used to

subsidize Internet service to public schools. From the inception of the program in 1996

until the end of the year 2000, some $4 billion in Internet service subsidies has been

cycled to public schools via the E-rate mechanism. Because of the gains in access to

technology by all Americans, the administration's budget cuts in 2003 called for cuts in

funding to programs that have been bridging the Digital Divide. This reduction in funding

might slow or dampen the progress schools have made in expanding access to all public

school students.

Summary

The Digital Divide in American public schools became a matter o f national policy

concern in the late 1990s. As in society at-large, available evidence indicates that


62

students from traditionally disadvantaged groups, notably low-income households and

non-white racial/ethnic minority groups, have significantly less access to technology in

public schools than students from privileged groups. This gap is even greater when class

and racial disparities in at-home access to technology are taken into account, and is likely

to increase as American public schools move from the acquisition to the integration phase

of the digitalization process.


63

Chapter 3

Methodology

Purpose o f the Study

The potential consequences o f the educational Digital Divide are manifold,

profound, and enduring: Absent a concerted effort to close the gap, American society is

likely to be bifurcated between technological haves and technological have-nots.

Nevertheless, although the existence of the Digital Divide in American public education

has been elevated to a major policy problem, at the national level at least, policy

responses initiated to date have been fragmentary and inadequate to the challenge at

hand.

The purpose o f the study was to explore the use of technology and the Internet by

students in a technologically rich, ethnically diverse school to determine if access to

computers and Internet at school differs from the use of computers and the Internet in

other places and if the results from the study of one school can be generalized to other

populations. The study is designed to address the following research questions:




4. Is the use by students related to demographic characteristics such as

race/ethnicity, gender, or other factors?

To the extent that technology is thought of as a primary tool for accessing

information, this study will provide research on technology and Internet use o f students

and possible boarder implications o f what can and should be done in schools. New


64

research can help support the growing use of technology in schools and educational

reform. Figure 8 shows a graphical presentation of the study.

Questions/Data Data Source/Results Synthesis/ Analysis

Focus GroupsQualitative

Final Student Survey Design

Review of Literature

Student SurveyQuantitative

ObservationsQualitative

Interviews Qualitative

School Affect on Digital Divide

Document AnalysisQuantitative I Qualitative

Analysis / Inference

Figure 8: Graphic Organization of Mixed Model / Design.

The investigator o f this study used multiple sources o f data collection to enhance

reliability o f the findings. The source of the data collection was derived from an Internet

Student Technology Survey, student interviews, and classroom observations. A

parent/staff focus group helped frame the survey and provide reciprocity. Reciprocity

involved the development o f a survey that would remain on the school’s LAN and


65

thereby is reusable by the school at any time. The investigator was able to gather

data in a culture o f openness and involvement.

Research Design

To address the research questions, the investigator employed both qualitative and

quantitative methods in a descriptive case study design. Descriptive research involves

describing attitudes, behaviors, or conditions. Kane, cited in Fraenkel & Wallen (2003),

“Descriptive studies describe a given state of affairs as folly and carefully as possible” (p.

15). “A case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon

within its real-life context” (Yin, 1994, p. 13). Case study design thus provided for data

collection and analysis in a variety of ways. In case study research the process, context,

and discovery are more important than the outcomes, variables, or confirmation

(Merriam, 1998). A limitation o f using a case study design is the generalizability because

of the specificity o f the sample studied (Merriam; Yin).

Newman and Benz (1998) state that both qualitative and quantitative research

“are needed to conceptualize research holistically” (p. 20). Because qualitative research

usually deals with theory building and quantitative research usually deals with theory

testing, the use o f both methods will provide a complete methodology conceptualization

(Newman & Benz, p. 21) and provides for a richer understanding of the variables and

their relationships (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998, p. 126) than either method used in

isolation from the other method. “Data conveyed through words have been labeled

qualitative, whereas data presented in number form are quantitative” (Merriam, 1998, p.

69). Tashakkori and Teddlie, (1998) outlined a mixed model study as being both

quantitative and qualitative (parallel) in all stages o f the design.


66

Instruments fo r Data Collection

The investigator developed instruments to collect data based on a review of

literature, focus groups conducted at the school site, and the government reports Falling

though the Net, Computer and Internet Use by Children and Adolescents and, Internet

Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994-2002. Data collection methods

included the Internet Student Technology Survey, Classroom Observations, and Student

Group Interviews. The investigator developed the Internet Student Technology Survey,

Classroom Observation Checklist, and the Interview Protocol with the assistance of a

parent/staff focus group.

Focus Group

After reviewing the literature on technology in schools, the Standard Workstation

Software on the computers at this school (see appendix A) and tenets o f this school (see

appendix B), as well as maintaining an ongoing involvement at this school site, the

investigator conducted several focus group meetings. The administrative team selected

the focus group members comprised o f administrator, teachers, and parents (see appendix

C), with a variety o f technological skills (i.e., low or no skills at all, medium, and high).

The focus group was designed to provide the investigator with information that would

help frame the student survey, student interview questions, and classroom observations

and to assure obtaining information regarding technology use in schools and homes.

The first meeting was held in the spring o f 2001 and generated discussion about students

who have access to technology and to the Internet and indicators that students might

demonstrate which could be documented. At the second meeting, four months later, the

focus group reviewed the draft survey and interview protocol and made recommendations


67

about wording and questions to be included or excluded. The investigator conducted

guided discussions with focus group participants to review the survey with respect to

objectives o f the research and their perceptions and experiences with students and

technology (see Appendix C). There was a focus on clarity o f the wording, items that

might need to be added or deleted to enhance outcome, and key words that would be

needed to assess student completion of the survey. According to Fowler (1993) “the

general protocol is to discuss people’s perceptions, experiences, and perhaps feeling

related to what is to be measured in the survey” (p. 96). With each focus group meeting,

discussions were directed to what counted as access to technology and Internet use, what

would demonstrate student abilities to use technology in learning, and the role played by

the school in developing these skills.

Pilot Testing o f Student Survey

Fowler states:

Once a survey instrument has been designed that a researcher thinks is nearly

ready to be used, a field pretest o f the instrument and procedures should be done.

The purpose of such pretests is to find out how data collection protocols and the

survey instruments work under realistic conditions”, (p. 100)

The investigator conducted a pilot study of 22 fifth grade students prior to a third

parent, teacher, and administrator focus group. Parents signed consent forms before

students could participate in this group. After administering the survey, the investigator

asked students about the reading level o f the survey and the difficulty o f the questions

(Fowler, p. 101). The investigator shared results o f the student pretest with the focus

group at the third meeting and again made modifications to include formatting changes


68

and rewriting several questions. Another student group took the survey and the

investigator again made changes to clarify wording and the order o f questions based on

discussion with these students. The investigator held a final meeting with the members of

the focus group and staff to review the final student survey and interview protocol.

Internet Student Technology Survey

According to Fowler (1993), the purpose of a survey is to produce a quantitative

description o f some aspects o f the study populations. Fowler went on to say, “Good

questions are reliable (providing consistent measures in comparable situations) and valid

(answers correspond to what they are intended to measure)” (p. 69). The anonymous

quantitative Internet Student Technology Survey was developed and organized around

the information provided from the review of literature, the government documents,

“Falling through the Net,” “National Center for Education Statistics” reports, five years

o f observation, working at the site of this study, and Focus Group meetings. The survey

included closed-ended questions for the numerical parameters of the research. A few

open-ended questions allowed students to provide information concerning specific

applications and uses. The instrument identified demographics o f the student population,

their access to computers and the Internet (classroom and home use), and their

technology skills (see Appendix D).

The advantage of using a survey at this school is that it could be placed on the

LAN and accessed during a common homeroom period. The survey was developed in

Microsoft Access, which would automatically generate raw data through file transfer

protocol. All middle school students completed the survey at the same time (in


69

homeroom), which increased the number of respondents. Students who were absent took

the survey in homeroom the day they returned to school.

Following Fowler (1993), six suggestions for developing a self-reporting survey

the following format were established:

1. The survey was self-explanatory.

2. Most of the questions require closed-end answers.

3. There were a limited number o f questions (there are 34 in this survey).

4. The survey was typed, laid out clearly, and uncluttered.

5. There are no skipped questions (i.e., if no, go to number x). With Access, if

the question does not apply, it does not come up on that student’s survey (i.e.,

if the student does not use a computer at home, none of the home questions on

the survey will appear for answers).

6. It provides a redundant pattern of information, (p. 100)

The survey was completed in school therefore eliminating the problem Merriam

(1998) addressed of automatic exclusion because of a lack of access Fowler (1993) listed

several advantages and disadvantages o f self-reporting. Advantages include the ease of

administering online, presenting questions that have complex response categories, having

a lot o f similar questions, and the fact the respondent does not have to answer to an

interviewer. Disadvantages include (a) having to design a survey, which was addressed

by working with the parent/staff focus group before the final design and (b) quality o f

answers when using a self-reporting survey. The investigator addressed the issue of

individual student bias affecting self-report measures by conducting interviews and

observations. Further, to assure that students did not experience difficulty completing the


70

survey, there was no requirement for writing and the reading level was within the range

of high primary grades. Instructions to teachers were to provide any words needed, spell

any items that the respondent requested, and to encourage students to answer all

questions. A hard copy of the survey was provided for students with disabilities and

classroom aides administrated the survey. The survey could be completed within 20

minutes.

The investigator built confidentiality into the design o f the survey by using the

LAN at t school and online responses. Students logged into the network and responded

online without indicating their names or other identifying information. Data were

collected in the aggregate, with no student identification made available to the

investigator. Parents were notified of the study and were provided access to the survey.

Parents were informed that the survey was voluntary and that they and the students had a

right not to participate.

Interview Protocol

Merriam (1998) stated, ‘The main purpose of an interview is to obtain a special

kind of information (p. 71). Further, “interviewing is also the best technique to use when

conducting intensive case studies o f a few selected individuals (Merriam, p. 72).

According to Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998), “In traditional quantitative research, the

open-ended interviews are used for early research on issues, when information is not

already available” (p. 101). From these interviews, an initial item pool is used for more

structured interviews (Tashakkori & Teddlie p. 101). Qualitative data for classroom

observations and student interviews were collected from individual interviews with the

principal, technology coordinator, and selected teachers and parents (see Appendix E).


71

Interview questions addressed access to technology and the Internet at the school,

individual teacher and/or student use, and the types o f projects and assignments one

would use at school. The parent/staff focus group approved the structured interview

protocol and a parent or teacher was present at each student meeting (see Appendix E).

Classroom Observation Checklist

Observations are delineated from interviews because observations “take place in

the natural field setting instead of location designated for the purpose o f interviewing”

and “observational data represent a firsthand encounter with the phenomenon o f interest”

(Merriam, 1998, p. 94). Merriam added, “In the real world of collecting data, however,

informal interviews and conversations are often interwoven with observation” (p. 94).

Classroom observations were conducted over several months. The investigator visited

each middle school teacher’s class a minimum of two times to observe the use o f

technology. If the class, individual student, or teacher was not using technology during

that period, the investigator went to another class. The investigator designed a classroom

observation checklist (see Appendix F) to observe the degree of student use o f

technology, the Internet, and software applications and collected these data to compare

and correlate them with the self-reporting survey. No students or teachers were identified

on the checklist. Classroom observations were conducted in November o f 2003. It was

important that the observation fit into the structure of the school and therefore several

visits took place before data collection began. Observations were done on a weekly basis

during several different periods until all 20 classrooms were observed while using

technology. Extensive notes were recorded documenting the observation on a checklist

(see Appendix F).


72

Student Interviews

There were four student interview sessions with middle school students.

Participants were referred by administrators, coordinators, and teachers who had

knowledge of the technological skills o f the students. Students were selected because

they demonstrated high technological skills, medium technological skills, or minimal

technological skills. These sessions were held during November and December, 2003 for

one hour in the technology lab at lunchtime and/or after school. Lunch or snacks were

provided. There were 10 students in each session. During the 50-minute focus group

students were permitted to demonstrate their skills and talk about how this school has

affected their view on technology and their technological skills. The student interview

protocol focal point was on access and use o f technology and the Internet and where and

when they acquired their skills (see Appendix G). The investigator contacted parents of

these students personally after the administrator obtained permission from their parents to

submit their names. At each student interview session, a parent or teacher was present.

School Case

The investigator used a purposive sampling methodology (Tashakkori & Teddlie,

1998) and selected a school with technology as a major part o f its program, where

students had access to technology and the Internet in their regular classes. The school is

in the nation’s fifth largest school district, with over 13,000 teachers and 250,000

students in an urban city. Over 88% of the students are minority and disadvantaged. In

August o f 1994, the school under study was opened as a partnership effort between the

school district and a major university. In addition to the emphasis on technology, the

school opened with the belief that the school would provide a diverse group o f children


73

with challenging academic experiences and the nurturing environment necessary to be

come lifelong learners; critical thinkers; and responsible citizens in a diverse, democratic,

and global society. Technology learning goals were one of the primary functions o f the

school. The school offered a technology-rich environment with over 1,100 networked

computers. Each student has access to technology throughout the day, making technology

an integral part o f the curriculum. Further, the software used at the school was

appropriate for student needs and consistent with workplace software. A large part o f the

school’s strength in technology can be attributed to its association with the university.

The university faculty and staff members have taken an active part in design of the

building, contributing to the development o f the curriculum, and adopting technology and

integrating it into classrooms. The university provided teachers at this school with

training and helpdesk support during the first few years, before the school district

Information Technology Department took over Internet connectivity using the district

enterprise network.

When the school opened its doors to 1,200 students, all 50 regular classrooms had

a teacher computer that was connected to a large classroom monitor. Teachers also had

laptops at their office desk. Dozens more were available to students at the school’s two

electronic studios, in the library, and in all the classrooms. Each computer was equipped

with basic, off-the-shelf software, including such typical office application as word

processing, database, and spreadsheets, as well as more specialized networking and

educational programs such as FLASH, TASS tutoring, and Accelerated Reading.

The school has an open enrollment policy with diversity and busing written into

the guidelines. The school in this study is a technology-rich K - 8 school where every


74

student enrolled has an Internet account. Glennan and Melmed, (1996) identified the

following eight shared common practices found in five technology-rich schools,

described as representative of best practices:

1. Each of the schools was learner-centered.

2. Each was goals- and student-outcome oriented.

3. Each had a density o f computers that far exceeded other schools.

4. All had restructured their programs substantially.

5. All had explicit, focused development efforts.

6. External funding pushed each forward.

7. Relations among adults in the schools appeared changed.

8. Annual per-student technology cost ranged from under three and over five

times the average, (p. 32)

This school met or exceeded all o f these standards. It is a unique school where

extensive uses o f computers and Internet resources have been available to all students

from the day the school doors opened. A core group of teachers and parents worked with

architects in designing the ultramodern school that was build around the idea o f creating

communities o f learners to include teachers as well as students. The original vision for

the school was multi-dimensional. These dimensions were called tenets. As several o f the

school’s 12 tenets state, the school is learner-centered with teachers, students, parents,

and administrators responsible for governance at the school level (see Appendix A).

Learning is structure to real-life situations, with teachers as role models. The number o f

computers to students (almost 1-1) far exceeds other K-8 schools. This technology-rich

school, with collaboration with a university and a computer company, restructured the


75

curriculum to be interdisciplinary and integrated using technology as a focus. A computer

company donated over 1200 computers and the networking unit in the school. This

school district as well as the university has continued to provide technological and

budgetary support for upgrading and training. The 12 tenets were embedded in the

planning of the school in a way that the intellectual resources o f the university, the

computer company, and other community institutions would become key components in

supporting the innovative work at the school.

Student Sample

All sixth through eight grade students who attended the school (434) were

administered the online Internet survey and constituted the study sample. Results from

those who had attended for three or more years were analyzed. The rationale for choosing

this sample for analysis was that they were representative of students who have had

access to technology and the Internet at school during a three- to five-year period. Of

these students, 149 were six graders, 150 were seventh graders, and 135 were eighth

graders. Self-identified ethnically, 54 were Caucasians, 157 were African Americans, 186

were Hispanics, and 37 were Asians. The school reported that 40% of the students

qualified to receive free- or reduced-priced lunches {School Report Card, 2000-2001).

Sources o f Data and Instruments fo r Data Collection

Multiple instruments were used to gather data to address the research questions in

this dissertation. Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) defined mixed model studies (or mixed

methodology designs) as “studies that are products o f the pragmatist paradigm and that

combine the qualitative and quantitative approaches within different phases o f the

research process” (p. 19). These triangulation methods provide for a stronger study then a


76

mono-method and provide for a “greater opportunities for causal inference” (Tashakkori

& Teddlie, 1998, p. 42). Table 1 shows the alignment o f the research questions, data

sources, and means of analyzing data.

Table 1

Data Analysis Chart

Research Question Data Source Data Analysis1. Which students at

this school use computers and the Internet?

■ Student Survey Questions: 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 30

■ Classroom Observation

■ Student Interviews

■ Statistics from survey

■ Checklist Profile■ Description o f use

2. Where do the students use computers and the Internet?A. At school?

Questions: 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 22, &30

■ Student Survey■ Classroom

Observation■ Student Interviews


■ Checklist Profile■ Description of use

B. At home?Questions: 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 23, &30

■ Student Survey■ Student Interviews


■ Description of use3. What kind of computer activities do these students engage?A. At school?

Questions: 4, 9, 11, 13, 15, 22, 24 & 30




■ Checklist Profile■ Description of use

B. At home?Questions: 4, 10, 12, 14, 16, 23, &30

■ Student Survey■ Student Interviews


■ Description o f use4. Is the use of

computer by students related to demographic characteristics such as race, gender or other factors? Questions: 30, 31 & 32




■ Description o f use


77

Data Collection Procedures

Data collection for this research study consisted of a multidisciplinary approach

that included selection of site, site visitations, interviews, focus groups, observations, a

student survey, and document analysis. The investigator was familiar with the school,

having spent two years as principal and maintaining continuous contact with

administrators, coordinators, teachers, parents, and students for more then 5 years. The

investigator continued to be a resource to the school, assisting staff members in

maintaining a degree of comfort with the research process. The investigator:

1. Had a formal introduction to the new principal at the site to ensure participation in

the study. Held discussions and made recommendations for participants (staff,

parents, and students).

2. Met with the technology coordinator and developed a needs assessment for

parents and teachers to accompany the student survey.

3. Met with the Focus Group four different times over a two-year period and

completed the development o f the Student Internet Survey, Student Interview

Protocol, and the Classroom Observation Checklist.

4. Provided the principal with a letter confirming participation in the study, the

purpose of the study, the protocols and student survey, and the how, when, and

where data would be collected (see Appendix H). All sixth through eighth grade

teachers were notified by e-mail o f the purpose of the study and who would be

participating (see Appendix I). Parents were notified by newsletter and copies o f


78

the Student Survey were made available for review in the main office (see

Appendix J). The following components were provided for all adult participants:

• An overview of the study and the importance that the focus group, interviews,

and student survey would bring to the study.

• An assurance that all information gathered would remain confidential, that the

school, individual students, individual staff members, and individual parents

would not be identified, and that a summary o f protocols would be available for

clarification and accuracy as the final report was completed.

• A letter and telephone contact information of the parents o f students who would

participate in interviews. Permission/release forms were obtained (see

Appendix K).

• A review of questions and protocols used during the study.

• The investigator’s e-mail address for private comments and recommendations.

5. The first focus group was conducted away from the school at a parent’s home.

Follow-up meetings were held at the school in the technology lab.

6. Lunch or snacks were provided at all meetings.

7. The first student survey was administered to a fifth grade group and refined after

discussion with students and teachers.

8. The final student survey was developed and administered.

9. Data analysis was completed by the investigator using all the data sources.

10. A preliminary report was presented to administrators, technology coordinators,

and parent/staff group for review, verification of facts, and comments.


79

11. The final draft o f the report was provided to the administrator, technology

coordinator, teachers, and parents involved in the focus group.

12. Student data were collected online with a survey. This survey was developed by

the investigator with input from a parent/staff focus group. Classroom

observations and student interviews were completed. Qualitative and quantitative

data were collected and analyzed.

13. The last focus group with parents and staff met to review the results and to

discuss final perceptions about the outcomes and inferences.

Data in this study were collected from a single school site and used (a) an

anonymous quantitative Internet Student Technology Survey where students responded to

questions regarding their use o f computers, (b) observations o f students using technology

and the Internet in class, (c) a review of the school’s demographic documents, and (d)

interviews with principals, teachers, parents, and student groups. These methods o f data

gathering included quantitative and qualitative methods. Formal and informal

observations at this school site over five years sustained reliability to this study of school

effect on the Digital Divide. The Internet Student Technology Survey, Interview, and

observation data were contrasted and compared with data gathered from the government

reports Falling through the Net and National Center fo r Education Statistics.

Sources o f Data

The anonymous quantitative Internet Student Technology Survey was placed on

the school’s LAN (see Appendix D). Classroom observations were conducted. The

investigator completed a classroom observation to all 20 classrooms and 3 computer labs

to provide documentation o f data/information provided from the survey. Classroom


80

observations were conducted over a 6 month period. Parents, teachers, principals, and

technology coordinator were interviewed for description of students’ work using

technology and the Internet in learning. The information gathered from these interviews

was used to guide the questions for student interviews where students demonstrated their

use of technology and the Internet. Documents o f hardware and software relative to

student-computer ratio, and student demographics were also catalogued, observed, and

analyzed.

Document Analysis

The demographic, technological assets o f the school including hardware and

software, samples o f student technology projects (web pages, graphic and text-based

presentations, etc.), and the school report card (which includes test scores) were collected

and analyzed prior to beginning the study. This information was also used to examine

data collected through survey, observations, and interviews. The research questions were

clustered around computer use in the schools and at home; computer activities including

use of the Internet, and how use is related to demographic characteristics. The Internet

Student Technology Survey was used to produce a statistical analysis for each question.

In the observation of classrooms, the specific pieces o f technology equipment used and

the manner in which they were used was documented. The information gather in the

classroom observations and the student group interviews were used to support and

corroborate data obtained from the survey.

Validity o f Instrument

Internal validity, the extent to which the instruments measured what it is supposed

to measure was ensured through the design o f multiple data collections. Validity is


81

strengthened when data and the design of the study are valid (Newman & Benz, 1998).

The study was designed to collect data from multiple data sources and to create multiple

verification o f continuing findings. Merriam (1998) asserted the following regarding

internal validity:

The extent to which research findings are congruent with reality is addressed by

using triangulation, checking interpretations with individuals interviewed or

observed, staying on-site over a period of time, asking peers to comment on

emerging findings, involving participants in all phases o f the research, and

clarifying investigator biases and assumptions, (p. 218)

Of these six basic strategies, all were employed in this study by using both

quantitative and qualitative instruments to corroborate and to illustrate the findings. The

student survey was reviewed by the focus group that provided recommendations for the

final document. Two pretests were administered to fifth grade students and modifications

were again made for the final document. Part of the data collection occurred throughout a

six-year period of time while the investigator sustained involvement with the focus group

to ensure confirmation of emerging findings. To avoid investigator’s biases,

interpretations o f data were reviewed by colleagues in the field o f educational technology

(Newman & Benz, 1998, p. 66).

External validity, “the extent to which the design and the data match the world”

(Newman & Benz, 1998, p. 35), or the study can be generalized to other situations

(Merriam, 1998, p. 218) was explored though a comparative analysis o f the national

statistics generated by the federal report Falling through the Net. This analysis was a

descriptive comparative of that document and the Internet student technology survey.


8 2

Reliability o f the Instrument

Reliability, “to extent to which there is consistency in the findings” (Merriam,

year, p. 218), was established through triangulation o f data collected, structured

interviews and observations, and detailed descriptions o f how data were collected.

Because the student survey was a large part o f this study, the wording of each question

was designed for understanding at no higher then a fifth grade reading level. Each item

was written for clarity and simplicity o f response. Fowler (1993) indicated that

respondents perform better and results can be reliably interpreted if alternatives are

provided in the survey (p. 82). Most o f the survey items consisted of closed-end questions

with open-ended questions added for additional technology that the student might use.

All students received the same survey on the Internet with provisions for hardcopy to

enable teachers or aides to read and/or respond for students with disabilities.

Human Subjects Considerations

Protection of human subjects was dictated by school district guidelines and

requirement by the University’s Human Subject Clearance. Because this research study

was conducted in a public educational setting and involved minor children, the

investigator obtained consent forms from students participating in interviews and from

their parents before they could participate in the pretest and student group interviews. The

Internet Student Technology Survey was part of the school’s Needs Assessment used for

school planning and parents were also notified. Parents, teachers, and administrators all

participated in the study voluntarily. Because the district, school, staff members, parents,

and students were guaranteed complete confidentiality and anonymity, involvement

presented minimal risk to participants.


83

Procedures fo r Data Analysis

Data were analyzed and synthesized through an ongoing exercise o f comparing

and contrasting between the Internet student technology survey (quantitative data) against

observations and interviews (qualitative data). Continuous triangulation of the data

occurred throughout the study. All documents were altered to ensure confidentiality and

anonymity. There was an item-by-item analysis o f data collected from the survey for the

purpose of identifying patterns in documents. Qualitative data from interviews and

classroom observations were tabulated to see if there was an identifiable pattern.

Responses were compared and contrasted to national data. Summary charts were

developed to aggregate results and to demonstrate relationships and trends.


determined by this descriptive study of one highly technological school. The school has

its own LAN and was connected to the WAN of the school district. This school, with

1200 students with 1300 networked computers, is not typical o f most public schools in

the United States. Other highly technological schools are not included in this study. The


urban public school. The school is part of an urban school district and all socio-economic

levels are represented in the school population; however, a majority o f the students were

from minority groups. The investigator did not have the ability to ascertain the income

level o f students, which research shows is an important factor in technological access.

Therefore, generalization to other schools and students in general are not known. Readers

are urged to be cautious in the extent to which generalizations are made from the findings

o f this study.


84

Summary

In this chapter the investigator reviewed the methodology and research design of

the study and explored access to technology and Internet access by students in a highly

technological school to determine whether that access is different from the use o f others

in the general population. The development o f the survey and other protocols was

outlined to establish the validity and reliability of the instruments and the rigor o f data

analysis.


85

Chapter 4

Results o f the Study

Introduction

The purpose o f this study was to examine and to explore student access to

technology and the role schools play in bridging the Digital Divide. In this chapter the

investigator provides an analysis o f data collected from student surveys, student

observations, and student interviews at one highly technological K - 8 school. The

student survey was placed on the school’s LAN and participants were able to respond

online for one week, usually during homeroom. The survey was created in Microsoft

Access and the network specialist provided the investigator with raw data.

Research Questions

Data were analyzed to respond to the following dissertation questions:


2. Where do these students use computers and the Internet?


4. Is computer use by students related to demographic characteristics such as


To address these questions, the investigator used both qualitative and quantitative

methods in a descriptive design. Quantitative data were collected from the survey and

statistical analysis was performed using SPSS for MS WINDOWS Release 6.1 (SPSS,

Inc., 1994). The mixed model study strategy (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998) employed in

this study provided for data to be collected from multiple sources to provide for

triangulation (Marshall & Rossman, 1995). Triangulation in this study helped corroborate


86

information obtained from student self-report surveys, with classroom observations and

focus groups.

The analysis o f the data is divided into two sections, the raw data and a

comparative analysis o f these raw data to a national study. The raw data represent the

findings o f the Individual Student Survey placed on the, classroom observations, and

student focus groups. Results o f data analysis were compared to the findings o f the

National Center for Education Statistics (Computer and Internet Use by Children and

Adolescents in 2001, Statistical Analysis Report, October, 2003).

The raw data reflect the questions asked on the student survey, observations, and

focus groups, and are broken down into the following categories: (a) demographics; (b)

student assess to computers; (c) student computers activities; (d) observations and focus

groups; and (e) comparison to national data.

The following tables represent an outline o f the questions on the student survey

that was distributed at the school. Red denotes statistically significant data. There were a

total o f 434 students enrolled in grades 6 - and a total of 393 students completed the

survey during the week it was placed on the LAN. Of the 393 students, 351, or 81%,

provided complete and usable responses. If students responded yes to questions 5, 1 use a

computer only at school, questions 8, 10,12,14,16 and 23 (referring the use o f computers

at home) were not presented.

Table 2 displays aspects of respondents who were in the sixth grade (35%),

seventh grade (38%), and eighth grade (27%) who completed the survey. There were no

hard copies o f the survey given to students. If a student needed assistance in completing

the survey a teacher was available to provide it.


87

Demographics: Survey Results

Table 2

Demographics, Question 29, Grade

Question 29: GradeAll

StudentsSixth

GradersSeventhGraders

EighthGraders

Number (N= 351) («=125) (n=137) («=97)% 100% 35% 38% 27%

Table 3 shows the respondents’ self-reported ethnicity. Seventy-eight percent of

the students were African American or Hispanic American and 85% were minorities.

Seventy-nine percent of the students were minority (African American and Hispanic

American) and 21% were Caucasian and other. This data is consistent with the data

reflected on the School Accountability Report (School Report Card, 2000-2001).

Table 3

Demographics, Question 30, Ethnicity

Question 30: Ethnicity AllStudents

African-American

Asian-American

Caucasian/White

Hispanic-American

Number (A=351) (n = lll) (n=26) (#i=48) («=166)% 100% 32% 7% 14% 47%

Table 4 indicates that there were fewer boys than girls who responded to the

survey. Fifty-six percent o f the students who completed the survey were female and 44%

were male. This data is also consistent with the information on the school’s

accountability report.


8 8

Table 4

Demographics, Question 31, Gender

Question 31: Gender AllStudents Female Male

Number (Ar=351) (n=197) (»=153)% 100% 56% 44%

Fifty-eight percent o f the respondents reported attending this school for three or

more years (see Table 5).

Table 5Demographics, Question 34, Years Attended this School

Question 34: How many years have you attended this school?

AllStudents

FirstYear

SecondYear

ThirdYear

Fourth/plusYear

Number (N= 351) (n=12) (n=76) (n=64) (w=139)% 100% 21% 22% 18% 40%

Student Access to Computers: Survey Results

Students displayed similar patterns in computer usage at home, school,

community centers, and libraries. African-American and Hispanic-American students

were most likely to use computers only at school (11% and 7%, respectively, shown in

Table 6). However, the 11% of African-Americans who responded that they use

computers only at school conflicts with the data presented in the previous answer

(question 4) where 95% indicated they use a computer at home. Table 6 shows that 95%

of African-American and 93% of Hispanic respondents use computers at home,

suggesting that a few respondents may have answered these questions inconsistently.


89

Table 6

Location o f Computer Use, Questions 4 and 5

Question 4 :1 use a computer a t...

AllStudents

African-American

Asian-American

Caucasian/White

Hispanic-American

Number (N=329) («=111) (»=26) (n=26) (n=166)a. Home 94% 95% 100% 89% 93%b. School 88% 93% 85% 85% 86%c. Community

Center, Church, or Temple

12% 17% 8% 12% 8%

d. Library 75% 80% 81% 69% 72%Question 5 :1 use a computer only at school (If yes, skip questions (8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 23)

(N=329) («=111) («=26) («=26) (#i=166)

a. Yes 7% 11% 0% 4% 7%b. No 93% 89% 100% 96% 93%

The data displayed in Table 7 show that Caucasian students are more likely to

have access to desktop computers, color printers, and e-mail at the school than their

African-American, Asian-American, or Hispanic-American student counterparts.

Caucasian students were granted greater access to desktop computers o f their own then

other minorities, with a 16 to 26 percentage point difference.

These figures are consistent with other reports regarding students’ access to

technology in schools. The availability of color printers for all students was low, but

Caucasians were more likely to have access. This data mirrors other similar data gather

by the USDE and the Benton Foundation on the inequalities o f access to computers and

the Internet o f sectors of American students in and out o f our public schools.


90

Table 7

Types o f Technology Resources Available to Students at School, Question 7

Question 7: What kinds o f technology resources do you have available to you at school?

AllStudents

African-American

Asian-American

Caucasian/White

Hispanic-American

Number (A=329) (h=111) (n=26) (n=26) (77=166)a. Personal

Desktop Computer

45% 49% 54% 65% 39%

b. Personal Laptop Computer

4% 4% 0% 4% 5%

c. Computer Printer 97% 96% 100% 100% 96%

d. Access to a Color Printer

13% 12% 8% 27% 13%

e. Access to Email 88% 88% 92% 100% 86%

f. Access to the Internet 94% 95% 92% 92% 95%

g. Computers to Borrow for Home Use

10% 14% 4% 4% 9%

h. None of the Above 2% 3% 0% 0% 1%

i. Other 2% 4% 4% 4% 0%

As shown in Table 8, Asian-American respondents were more likely to have

access to several forms of technology at home than were other ethnic groups. Nearly all

responding Asian-American students had access to desktop computers, e-mail, and

Internet at their homes. In contrast, only between 73 and 85% of the other students

reported having access to the same forms of technology at home. African-American and

Hispanic respondents reported having the least access to e-mail at home 78% and 77%


91

compared to 96% and 81%, respectively. While almost half (47%) of the students across

racial groups reported having high speed access to the Internet, only 38% of the Hispanic

students reported having the same access.

Table 8

Types o f Technology Resources Available to Students at Home, Question 8

Question 8: What kinds o f technology resources do you have available to you at home?

AllStudents

African-American

Asian-American

Caucasian/White

Hispanic-American

Number (N=329) (n=l 11) (n=26) (n=26) (n=166)a. Telephone in

Student’s Room

51% 50% 65% 54% 49%

b. Easy Access to Photocopy 40 36 65 54 36

c. A Fax Machine 37 48 50 35 28

d. A Desktop Computer for Student’s Use

76 75 96 81 73

e. A Laptop for Student’s Use 25 25 35 23 24

f. A Computer Printer 84 81 96 96 82

g. Access to a Color Printer 79 74 89 92 80

h. Access to Email 79 78 96 81 77

i. Access to the Internet 80 78 100 85 77

j. High Speed Internet Access

47 57 50 54 38

k. Access to the School’s Computer Network

18 24 8 15 16

(table continues)


92

Question 8: What kinds of technology resources do you have available to you at home?

AllStudents

African-American

Asian-American

Caucasian/White

Hispanic-American

1. Access to the Internet from Home Through a School Connection

15 23 8 8 11

m. None of the Above 3 5 0 0 2

n. Other 1 2 0 0 0

All responding students reported a comparable level o f Internet access at school.

Similarly, over 80% of the students across ethnicities reported using the Internet at home.

At home, Asian-American and Caucasian student respondents were the most likely to

have access to the Internet (see Table 9).

Table 9

Access to the Internet, Questions 9 and 10

Question 9 :1 use the internet at School

AllStudents

African-American

Asian-American

Caucasian/White

Hispanic-American

(N=329) («=111) (n=26) (n=26) («=166)a. Yes 95% 94% 92% 96% 96%b. No 5% 6% 8% 4% 4%

Question 10:1 use the internet at Home

AllStudents

African-American

Asian-American

Caucasian/White

Hispanic-American

(N=329) (n = lll) (n=26) (n=26) (n=166)a. Yes 81% 79% 96% 85% 80%b. No 19% 21% 4% 15% 20%


93

Types o f Computer Activities: Survey Results

Overall, all respondents check their e-mail at school at least once a month. Over

two of five (44%) students check their e-mail on a weekly basis. At least two o f five

(40%) students from every ethnic group check their e-mail at home on a daily basis,

suggesting that students prefer to use e-mail programs at home rather than at school.

Despite the ready access that most o f the students have to the Internet at home, many o f

them never check their e-mail at home. Overall, one in four (25%) students either checks

their e-mail elsewhere or do not use e-mail (see Table 10).

Table 10

Frequency with Which Students Check Email, Questions 11 and 12

Question 11:1 check All African- Asian- Caucasian/ Hispanic-my e-mail at school Students American American White American

Number (7V=321) (n=107) («=25) («=26) («=163)a. Daily 13% 15% 4% 23% 12%b. Weekly 44% 51% 60% 35% 39%c. Monthly 28% 23% 28% 27% 31%d. Never 15% 11% 8% 15% 19%

Question 12:1 check All African- Asian- Caucasian/ Hispanic-my e-mail at home Students American American White AmericanNumber (N=297) («=96) («=25) (n=25) (n=151)

a. Daily 45% 48% 48% 40% 44%b. Weekly 23% 21% 32% 20% 24%c. Monthly 7% 7% 4% 8% 7%d. Never 25% 24% 16% 32% 26%

Over seven of ten (73%) surveyed students reported browsing the web at least

once a week at school. This trend is also reflected among students o f different ethnic

groups: African-Americans at 73%, Asian-Americans at 80%, Caucasians at 72%, and

Hispanic-Americans at 72%. Overall, about one in ten (9%) of the respondents reported


94

never checking their e-mail at school. Compared to students who browse the web daily at

school, nearly twice as many students reported browsing the web daily at home. Also, in

comparison to data presented in Table 7, there was a sizable increase in the percentage of

Caucasian and Hispanic-American students who reported that they never browse the web

at home (16% and 17%, respectively).

Table 11

Frequency with Which Students Browse the Web, Questions 13 and 14

Question 13:1 browse the World Wide Web at school

AllStudents

African-American

Asian-American

Caucasian/White

Hispanic-American

(A=320) («=107) (*=25) («=26) (ft=162)a. Daily 24% 26% 24% 31% 21%b. Weekly 49% 47% 56% 42% 51%c. Monthly 18% 16% 16% 23% 19%d. Never 9% 11% 4% 4% 10%

Question 14:1 browse the World Wide Web at home

AllStudents

African-American

Asian-American

Caucasian/White

Hispanic-American

Number (A=297) («=96) (ti=25) (n=25) («=151)a. Daily 52% 53% 64% 60% 48%b. Weekly 25% 23% 24% 16% 27%c. Monthly 9% 10% 12% 8% 8%d. Never 15% 14% 0% 16% 17%

As shown in Table 12, few students reported using chat rooms or newsgroups at

school, while nearly half (44%) reported never using chat rooms or newsgroups at home.

Table 11 shows that students are much more willing to participate in these activities at

home than at school. Overall, over one-third (37%) of the responding students use chat

rooms or newsgroups at least weekly.


95

Table 12

Frequency with Which Students use Chat Rooms or Newsgroups, Questions 15 and 16

Question 15:1 use chat rooms or newsgroups at school

AllStudents

African-American

Asian-American

Caucasian/White

Hispanic-American

Number (A=319) (71=107) (/i=25) (ti=26) (77 = 161)a. Daily 3% 5% 0% 8% 2%b. Weekly 6 7 4 4 6c. Monthly 10 8 24 8 9d. Never 82 81 72 81 83

Question 16:1 use chat rooms or newsgroups at home

AllStudents

African-American

Asian-American

Caucasian/White

Hispanic-American

Number (N=296) (n=96) (71=25) (71=25) (7 7 = 150)a. Daily 20% 18% 20% 8% 23%b. Weekly 17 19 24 24 13c. Monthly 20 17 28 12 21d. Never 44 47 28 56 43

While one in five (20%) students overall felt that Excel and other Spreadsheet

programs were very useful or essential, few (9%) Hispanic-American students felt the

same way. Nine percent o f all students felt that newsgroups were very useful or essential,

while none of the surveyed Asian American students felt that newsgroups were either.

Overall, 18% of students felt that chat rooms were very useful or essential. Twenty-eight

percent o f the surveyed Asian American students replied that chat rooms were useful

while only four percent o f the Caucasian students felt the same. Online, four o f every five

(80%) students surveyed felt that the Internet, the World Wide Web, and e-mail were

either very useful or essential. In comparison, less than 18% of the surveyed students felt

that chat rooms, news groups, or list serves were comparably useful (see Table 13).


96

Table 13

Usefulness o f Different Programs, Questions 20

Question 20: How useful is each of the following programs / software for completing projects?

AllStudents

African-American

Asian-American

Caucasian/White

Hispanic-American

a. Word Processing (7V=383) («=111) (#i=25) (#i=25) (#i=160)Not Useful 1% 2% 4% 0% 1%Slightly Useful 7% 7% 4% 0% 10%Moderately Useful 13% 13% 12% 4% 15%Very Useful 53% 52% 52% 36% 53%Essential 26% 26% 28% 60% 21%

b. PowerPoint (iV=383) («=111) (#i=25) (#i=25) (#i=160)Not Useful 6% 6% 4% 12% 6%Slightly Useful 23% 20% 28% 20% 25%Moderately Useful 29% 23% 32% 20% 33%Very Useful 33% 28% 28% 32% 30%Essential 10% 14% 8% 16% 6%

c. Excel/Spreadsheets (V=383) (n = l l l ) (##=25) (##=25) (#i=160)Not Useful 21% 24% 16% 24% 23%Slightly Useful 35% 34% 28% 36% 34%Moderately Useful 24% 18% 40% 24% 18%Very Useful 18% 22% 16% 12% 7%Essential 2% 2% 0% 4% 2%

d. Newsgroups (V=383) (w=lll) (#i=25) (#z=25) (#i=160)Not Useful 44% 43% 52% 48% 40%Slightly Useful 31% 30% 12% 20% 34%Moderately Useful 17% 16% 36% 20% 18%Very Useful 8% 10% 0% 12% 7%Essential 1% 1% 0% 0% 2%

e. Chat Rooms (V=382) (#1=110) (#i=25) (#i=25) (#i=160)Not Useful 54% 61% 28% 72% 49%Slightly Useful 17% 11% 36% 12% 20%Moderately Useful 12% 15% 8% 12% 13%Very Useful 11% 6% 16% 4% 11%Essential 7% 7% 12% 0% 8%

f. Internet, WWW, E- ail (N=382) (#i=110) (#1=25) (#1=25) (#i=160)

(table continues)


97

Question 20: How useful is each of the following programs / software for completing projects?

AllStudents

African-American

Asian-American

Caucasian/White

Hispanic-American

Not Useful 3% 4% 0% 0% 3%Slightly Useful 4% 2% 4% 0% 6%Moderately Useful 13% 13% 4% 12% 15%Very Useful 43% 46% 44% 44% 46%Essential 37% 36% 48% 44% 31%

g. List serve (N=382) (n=110) (n=25) (n=25) (n=160)Not Useful 40% 41% 36% 36% 43%Slightly Useful 28% 23% 28% 12% 33%Moderately Useful 20% 18% 32% 36% 14%Very Useful 11% 16% 4% 16% 9%Essential 2% 3% 0% 0% 7%

World Wide Web Browsers were the most frequently used programs in all

classrooms (72% of the students reported using a web browser at least three times a

week), followed by word processing programs, which over one-half (57%) of the

respondents said they used at least three times a week. Overall, most o f the responding

students displayed similar distributions o f software usage at school across all ethnicities.

An exception to this trend was found in African-American usage of word processors at

school. Thirty-two percent of the respondents reported using word processors over 10

times a week.

Graphic software was reported as the least used software in school. Fifty percent

o f all the respondents reported never using graphic software during the week. The use of

spreadsheets or database programs was frequently used at school by all groups.

In comparison, only 4% of responding Asian-American students reported using

word processors at school with such frequency (see Table 14).


98

Table 14

Number o f Times per Week Software is Used at School, Question 22

Question 22: For each o f the following types o f software, please indicate how many times you use that software in a week in ANY class

AllStudents

African-American

Asian-American

Caucasian/White

Hispanic-American

Number (A=319) («=107) (n=26) (n=24) (#i=162)Skill Building (1Larson’s Math, STAR, Accelerated Reader, Sleek, etc.)

No times per week 18% 16% 19% 25% 17%1-2 times per week 44% 41% 58% 33% 45%3-9 times per week 31% 34% 19% 29% 32%10+ times per week 7% 9% 4% 13% 6%

Simulations or exploratory gamesNo times per week 38% 36% 40% 29% 40%1 -2 times per week 42% 41% 36% 50% 43%3-9 times per week 14% 15% 20% 13% 12%10+ times per week 6% 8% 4% 8% 4%

Encyclopedias or Other References on CD-RomNo times per week 40% 35% 32% 38% 46%1 -2 times per week 34% 34% 48% 33% 32%3-9 times per week 19% 21% 16% 25% 18%10+ times per week 7% 11% 4% 4% 4%

Word Processing (ie ., MS Word)No times per week 10% 10% 8% 8% 11%1 -2 times per week 33% 26% 48% 29% 35%3-9 times per week 38% 32% 40% 46% 41%10+ times per week 19% 32% 4% 17% 12%

Software for Making Presentations (i.e., PowerPoint)No times per week 21% 17% 16% 25% 23%1 -2 times per week 51% 42% 68% 46% 55%3-9 times per week 21% 27% 16% 17% 18%10+ times per week 8% 14% 0% 13% 4%

Grap lies (ie., PhotoShop)No times per week 57% 51% 60% 63% 60%1 -2 times per week 24% 25% 20% 8% 26%3-9 times per week 14% 17% 20% 17% 11%10+ times per week 5% 7% 0% 13% 4%

Spreadsheets or database programs (ie., MS Excel, etc.)No times per week 50% 51% 48% 38% 52%

<table continues)


99

Question 22: For each of the following types of software, please indicate how many times you use that software in a week in ANY class

AllStudents

African-American

Asian-American

Caucasian/White

Hispanic-American

1 -2 times per week 40% 36% 44% 50% 41%3-9 times per week 8% 10% 8% 8% 6%10+ times per week 2% 3% 0% 4% 1%

Multimedia Programs (ie., HyperStudio)No times per week 77% 73% 76% 71% 81%1 -2 times per week 16% 19% 12% 25% 13%3-9 times per week 6% 7% 12% 0% 5%10+ times per week 2% 2% 0% 4% 1%

World Wide Web Browser (ie., > etscape / MS Explorer)No times per week 6% 4% 0% 4% 9%1-2 times per week 22% 23% 20% 17% 23%3-9 times per week 39% 33% 60% 42% 38%10+ times per week 33% 41% 20% 38% 29%

Electronic Mail (e-mail)No times per week 21% 16% 8% 8% 28%1 -2 times per week 40% 29% 60% 42% 45%3-9 times per week 25% 33% 24% 25% 19%10+ times per week 14% 22% 8% 25% 9%

At home, students also reported using web browsers and word processors more

often than any other programs. Over three-quarters (77%) reported using web browsers at

least three times a week, whereas over two-thirds (67%) use word processors with similar

frequencies. At home, 65% of responding students also use e-mail programs at least three

times a week. African-American respondents reported using several types o f programs at

home more often than their counterparts. African-Americans reported using presentation

software, graphics software, and multimedia programs more frequently than other

students (see Table 15).


1 0 0

Table 15

Number o f Times per Week Software is Used at Home, Questions 23

Question 23: For each of the following types o f software, please indicate how many times you use that software in a week at HOME.

AllStudents

African-American

Asian-American

Caucasian/White

Hispanic-American

(A -292) (n=95) (/i=25) (»=23) (n=149)Skill Building and Practice (Drills)

No times per week 75% 69% 81% 65% 79%1-2 times per week 15% 14% 12% 30% 14%3-9 times per week 6% 12% 8% 4% 3%10+ times per week 4% 6% 0% 0% 3%

Simulations or exploratory gamesNo times per week 25% 17% 28% 30% 30%1 -2 times per week 20% 18% 24% 17% 20%3-9 times per week 25% 27% 28% 35% 22%10+ times per week 30% 38% 20% 17% 28%

Encyclopedias and other references on CD-RomNo times per week 29% 25% 24% 26% 32%1-2 times per week 34% 32% 32% 39% 35%3-9 times per week 24% 27% 32% 26% 20%10+ times per week 13% 16% 12% 9% 13%

Word Processing (ie., MS Word)No times per week 14% 12% 20% 4% 15%1 -2 times per week 20% 12% 16% 26% 25%3-9 times per week 35% 30% 40% 39% 37%10+ times per week 32% 47% 24% 30% 23%

Software for making presentations (ie ., PowerPointNo times per week 45% 35% 44% 39% 53%1-2 times per week 26% 23% 28% 35% 22%3-9 times per week 16% 25% 12% 4% 18%10+ times per week 13% 17% 16% 22% 7%

Graphics - oriented printing (e.g., Prints lOpNo times per week 47% 36% 68% 61% 71%1 -2 times per week 22% 22% 28% 17% 20%3-9 times per week 21% 27% 0% 17% 6%10+ times per week 10% 15% 4% 4% 3%

(table continues)


101

Question 23: For each of the following types of software, please indicate how many times you use that software in a week at HOME.

AllStudents

African-American

Asian-American

Caucasian/White

Hispanic-American

Spreadsheets or Database programs (ie., MS Exce , MS Access)No times per week 67% 59% 76% 70% 77%1 -2 times per week 22% 23% 12% 22% 13%3-9 times per week 8% 15% 4% 4% 3%10+ times per week 3% 3% 8% 4% 7%

Multimedia Program (ie., HyperStudio)No times per week 73% 65% 76% 78% 77%1-2 times per week 15% 19% 12% 17% 13%3-9 times per week 6% 11% 4% 4% 3%10+ times per week 6% 5% 8% 0% 7%

World Wide Web Browser (ie., Netscape / MS Explorer)No times per week 12% 11% 4% 13% 15%1 -2 times per week 10% 8% 4% 9% 13%3-9 times per week 24% 22% 40% 22% 23%10+ times per week 53% 59% 52% 57% 49%

Electronic Mail (e-mail)No times per week 23% 22% 16% 30% 23%1-2 times per week 13% 15% 12% 9% 13%3-9 times per week 23% 15% 36% 22% 26%10+ times per week 42% 48% 36% 39% 39%

For schoolwork, students were most likely to use their computers to search for

data online or to retrieve pictures online (73% and 64% of responding students reported

doing so at least on a weekly basis). A sizable percentage also uses their computers to e-

mail friends or write reports (53% and 44%, respectively, reported doing so on a weekly

basis). No more than 13% of students reported sending cards over the Internet, e-mailing

parents, using multimedia equipment, or exchanging computer files more than once a

week. Technology use for schoolwork demonstrated similar trends across all four ethnic

sub-groups (see Table 16).


1 0 2

Table 16

Frequency and Methods with which Technology is Used fo r School Preparation, Question 24

Question 24: In which of these ways do you use computers to prepare for your classes or other activities? I use computers to...

AllStudents

African-American

Asian-American

Caucasian/White

Hispanic-American

Number (N=318) («=109) (77=24) (77=25) (7 7 = 160)Write Letters or Reports

Do Not Use 3% 6% 0% 0% 3%Occasionally 52% 38% 63% 52% 61%Weekly 22% 33% 13% 20% 17%More Often 22% 24% 25% 28% 20%

Emailing friendsDo Not Use 16% 16% 4% 12% 19%Occasionally 32% 29% 33% 36% 33%Weekly 26% 22% 38% 24% 26%More Often 27% 33% 25% 28% 23%

Send cards over the internetDo Not Use 57% 53% 50% 44% 63%Occasionally 30% 30% 38% 40% 27%Weekly 8% 7% 8% 12% 8%More Often 5% 10% 4% 4% 3%

Emailing my parentsDo Not Use 59% 47% 67% 4% 68%Occasionally 29% 36% 29% 44% 21%Weekly 8% 8% 4% 8% 8%More Often 5% 9% 0% 4% 3%

Use the Internet to search for data information and for a projectDo Not Use 2% 3% 0% 4% 1%Occasionally 25% 21% 29% 20% 29%Weekly 29% 23% 25% 40% 31%More Often 44% 53% 46% 36% 39%

Retrieving Pictures from the InternetDo Not Use 3% 0% 4% 6% 4%Occasionally 33% 33% 40% 38% 36%Weekly 22% 33% 24% 27% 26%More Often 42% 33% 32% 29% 34%

(table continues)


103

Question 24: In which of these ways do you use computers to prepare for your classes or other activities? I use computers to...

AllStudents

African-American

Asian-American

Caucasian/White

Hispanic-American

Use Camcorders, digita cameras, or scanners to prepare for a classDo Not Use 65% 61% 58% 60% 69%Occasionally 23% 23% 33% 24% 21%Weekly 5% 7% 8% 4% 4%More Often 7% 9% 0% 12% 6%

Exchanging computer files with othersDo Not Use 64% 62% 71% 44% 67%Occasionally 28% 29% 21% 40% 26%Weekly 5% 6% 4% 8% 5%More Often 4% 4% 4% 8% 3%

Observations and Student Interviews

The investigator visited and observed students in all 20 classrooms that served

students in sixth to eighth grade, as well as the computer lab and multimedia center (22

formal visits). The investigator spent over three months documenting student activities in

these classes with the Student Observation Form (informal visits, see Appendix J).

Nearly all the students were observed using a Word Processing software program

in class with no assistance from either the teacher or the aide. Regardless o f their

ethnicity, over 90% of the students demonstrated intermediate or higher skill level in

using a Word Processing software program. The investigator observed only 60 students

using a spreadsheet software program. These students were working in groups of three to

complete a math project. African-American and Hispanic-American students were

observed using skill-building programs at a higher rate then their White and Asian

counterparts. The investigator observed only a small number of students using a

PowerPoint program («=57), but during the focus groups several students brought their


104

PowerPoint projects. Most of these projects were animated with sound and graphics and

the students had received a letter grade o f A from their teachers.

Table 17

Classroom Observation o f Students Using Technology

Observations AllStudents

African-American

Asian-American

Caucasian/White

Hispanic-American

a. Writing with a Word Processing (N= 192) («=78) («=16) (>7=21) (n=77)

Beginner 6% 14% 0% 11% 18%Intermediate 61% 56% 63% 58% 61%Advanced 32% 30% 34% 31% 28%

b. Using a Spreadsheet (N=60) (n=23) (n=11) (>7=10) (n=16)

No levels documented 100% 38% 18% 17% 27%

c. Drill/practice programs/tutorials (7V=132) (n=43) (n=16) (> 7 = 11) (n=62)

No levels documented 33% 12% 8% 47%

d. Graphics/ PowerPoint presentation

(N= 57) (n=21) (w=4) (>7=7) (n=25)


e. Building Web Pages (N= 5) (»=1) («=1) («=3) (»=0)


f. Constructing Hypermedia/Multi media

(AM)) (n=0) (n=0) (>7=0) (n=0)


g. Searching the Internet (N= 148) (n=54) (n=15) (> 7 = 11) (n=68)


(table continues)


105

Observations AllStudents

African-American

Asian-American

Caucasian/White

Hispanic-American

h. Emailing (iV=38) (n=5) (n=9) (n=16) (n=8)No levels documented 100% 13% 24% 42% 21%

i. Chat/Instant Messaging (N=0) («=0) («=0) (n=0) («=0)


j. WebBoard/newsgroup (N=0) (n=0) (n=0) (n=0) (n=0)


The students who participated in the interview sessions were also the students

who were observed building web pages in class. This was a very small number (n -5). No

students were observed using multimedia but several teachers did use several multimedia

techniques in the instructional program. All students at this school have access to the

Internet and have a student e-mail account. Regardless o f ethnicity, students had access to

demonstrated good skills in the use of the Internet. Very few students were observed

using e-mail in their classes or in labs.

Even though responses on the survey and students in the focus groups indicated

use of chat groups and instant messaging at home, no students were observed using these

applications in school because these activities are blocked on the LAN. The same was

true for Web Board and newsgroups.

In student interviews, students indicated that they used their e-mail accounts at

lunch and break because most o f the teachers will not let them use e-mail during class.

Several students indicated that the teachers let them e-mail their parents, elected officers,

and friends. During the student focus groups the following questions were discussed:


106

1. Imagine what you would do without computers.

2. How do computers impact your world now? What do you see as the fiiture o f

computers in your life? In your career? In your home?

3. What do you like about having a lot of technology at school?

4. Where do you use the computer and the Internet the most (in homeroom, in

English class, Math class, etc.)?

5. Do you use technology at home? Describe.

6. Do you feel you have an advantage over your other friends who do not have this

much access to technology at their schools?

7. How do you feel technology has changed your work habits, study skills, school

attendance?

8. Describe/show U.S. some of the work/projects you do on the computer.

This investigator permitted students to express freely their technology experiences

and documented the following:

None of the students could imagine what they would do without computers. They

felt that computers were ubiquitous in the world. Over 75% (30 of 40 students

interviewed), regardless o f ethnicity, said they had no problem accessing a computer at

home or school any day. Ten o f the students, six African American and four Hispanic,

indicated that they did not have access to a computer or the Internet at home but were

able to use a friend's or relative's computer frequently. During interview sessions,

students were permitted to share their projects with the investigator and each other. A few

students presented a word processed report but most had PowerPoint presentations with

animation, videos, graphics, and sound. One student presented a web page developed


107

with a parent. All o f the students demonstrated the ability to execute the full functions of

the Office systems (Word, PowerPoint, and Excel) with varying degrees o f proficiency.

Classroom observations revealed that students willingly help each other use technology

to produce their projects. In their projects, there was evidence of their ability to retrieve

images and sound from the web and place them into their projects.

All students expressed the feeling that they had an advantage over their friends

that attended other schools with fewer computers but complained that several times

during week the server had been down. They added that it happens only once or twice a

month and not for very long (an hour or two). They also indicated that their parents had

selected this school for them because of access to computers. They stated that they rarely

missed school and completed most o f their assignments on the computer. Several o f the

students indicated that many times they would e-mail their homework from home to their

school e-mail address so as not to lose or misplace the assignment. Everyone said that

printing assignments at school was not a problem since there are printers in each cluster

area. Most complained that they did not have enough time to browse the web at school

for information for assignments or just for fun. When describing the skill building/

simulations programs on the LAN, several students indicated that they had better

simulations games at home. Only one student of the 40 students in the interview sessions

indicated interest in a career in technology.

Comparison to National Data

In this study the investigator was unable to ascertain socioeconomic status o f the

students responding to the survey. School officials reported that 40% o f the students

qualified to receive free- or reduced-price lunches. When gender was considered, there


108

was no difference is access. In fact, there were more girls (56%) enrolled in the school

then boys (44%), which matches national data. The key demographic variable that

surrounded this study was race. Approximately 80% of the students at this school were

African American or Hispanic. The National Center for Education Statistics reports that

race/ethnicity is one of the characteristics that indicate a disparity in the use o f computers

and the Internet.

Research question one asked what percentage o f the students at the school use

computers and the Internet. Ninety-four percent o f students indicated they had access to

computers at school and 88% indicated they had access to the Internet (see Table 17). A

comparison to national survey data indicated that, overall, students at this school use both

computers and the Internet at a higher rate then students nationwide. Overall, 90% or

more of the students studied and across the United States of America have access to

computers at school. Use of the Internet at school is significantly higher at this school

than in the nation. Eighty-eight percent o f the students at this school reported having

access to the Internet, while only 59% of students nationally have access to the Internet at

school. This is evidence o f the importance of schools being connected to the Internet.

■ School □ NCES 2003

Access to Computer Access to Internet

Figure 9: All Students Access to Computers and the Internet (Questions 4, 9 and 10 vs. NCES 2003, p.3).


109

Research questions two asked where students use computers and the Internet. An

analysis o f the data indicates that students on the NCES survey demonstrated a greater

percentage using computers at school than at home (see Figures 9 and 10).

100

■ Survey □ NCES 2003

All S tu d en ts A frican-A m erican A sian-A m erican C aucasian /W hite H ispanic-A m erican

Figure 10: Location of Computer Use at Home (Questions 4 and 5 vs. NCES 2003, p. 12).

While 94% of the students at this school reported having access to a computer at

home, the national data was significantly lower, at 65%. This was particularly true when

race was considered. Large racial differences exist when one compares access at home.

Where Asian and White students reported 76% and 77%, respectively, that they use a

computer at home, only 41% of African American and Hispanic students report using

computers at home. The rate o f computer use for these groups is 54 percentage points

lower than for Asian students and 45 percentage points lower than for White students.

These rates of use at home are significantly lower than for students from this one school

and for their Asian and White counterparts. The Digital Divide exists for these students.


110

85 84


All S tu d e n ts African-A m erican A sian-A m erican C aucasian /W hite H ispanic-A m erican

Figure 11: Location o f Computer Use at School (Questions 4 and 5 vs. NCES 2003,p. 12).

Figure 11 shows computer use rates at school by race/ethnicity. Where there are

small differences, computer access at school is consistently higher for African American

and Hispanic students. These findings also suggest that access to computers at school is

the fundamental source o f use for many minority students.

100

80<V

S' 60<U<v

Cl.40

20 42-17

42-

■ Survey

□ NCES 2003

All S tu d e n ts A frican-A m erican A sian-A m erican C aucasian /W hite H ispanic-A m erican

Figure 12: Location o f Computer Use at Community Center (Questions 4 and 5 vs. NCES 2003, p.23).


I l l

When reviewing other venues for the use of computers by students, the school

survey revealed that more students use computers at community centers and the library

than reported in the national survey (see Figures 12 andl3). All race/ethnicity groups

reported a higher rate o f using computers at community centers and libraries then the

national norm. Libraries and community centers appear to complement access offered to

students outside o f school.

1 0 0

All S tudents African-American Asian-American Caucasian/W hite Hispanic-American

Figure 13: Location o f Computer Use at Library (Questions 4 and 5 vs. NCES 2003, p.23).

There were no detectable race/ethnicity differences in rate o f Internet access (see

Figure 14). At this school, all students have Internet accounts with e-mail. If a student did

not have access, it could be due to a violation o f the acceptable use policy. The rate of

Internet access reported on the national survey at schools was considerable lower for all

students regardless of race/ethnicity. The rate of Internet use for all students was 64

percentage points lower than the students at this school. Asian and White student rates


112

were even lower, at 81% and 69%, respectively. This huge discrepancy supports research

that addresses the need for all public school classrooms to be connected to the Internet.


All S tu d en ts African-Am erican Asian-Am erican C aucasian/W hite Hispanic-American

Figure 14\ Access to the Internet at Home (Questions 9 and 10 vs. NCES 2003, p.26).

At home, both surveys presented Asian-American and White students as the most

likely to have access to the Internet at home (see Figure 14). The comparison shows that

African-American (49%) and Hispanic-American (48%) students were 15 percentage

points or more below their Asian (84%) and White (69%) counterparts in having access

to the Internet at home. This data is consistent across demographic and geographic

bounding as reported in Fall Though the Net (2000). The level o f Internet access at home

continues to be a significant divide. At this school, the comparison data reflects a

slightly less gap between racial groups then in the national survey.


113

■ Survey

□ NCES 2003


Figure 15: Access to the Internet at School (Questions 9 and 10 vs. NCES 2003, p.26).

Research question three asked in what kind of computer activities students

engage. Computers and the Internet use provide an array of activities for students. From

finding information on the web, to communicating though e-mail, to completing

homework, the Internet supports a wide range of activities. As shown in Figure 16 and

17, from 79 to 88% of students at the school had access to e-mail at home and at school.

There are significant differences in the use o f e-mail by race/ethnicity in the general

population. Again, African American and Hispanic students were far below their Asian

and White counterparts in the use of e-mail at home. Only 19 of African Americans and

15% of Hispanic students indicated that they had access to e-mail at home (Figure 16)

while 44% and 43% of Asian and White students, respectively, indicated that they had

access to e-mail at home.


114


All Students African-American Asian-American Caucasian/White Hispanic-American

Figure 16: Access to Email at Home (Questions 7 and 8 vs. NCES 2003, p. 16).

Access to e-mail at school was consistently higher for all groups (see Figure 17).

The data show that although African American and Hispanic students have less access to

e-mail at school, the percentage is significantly higher than home access.

100


All S tu d en ts African-A m erican A sian-A m erican C aucasian /W hite H ispanic-A merican

Figure 17: Access to Email at School (Questions 7 and 8 vs. NCES 2003, p.34).


classrooms (72% of the students reported using a web browser at least three times a

week) followed by word processing programs, wherein over one-half (57%) o f the


115

respondents stated that they used the programs at least three times a week. Overall, most

o f the students displayed similar distributions o f software usage at school across all

ethnicities. An exception o f this trend was found in African-American usage o f word

processors at school. Thirty-two percent of the students reported using word processors

over 10 times a week. In comparison, only 4% of Asian students reported using word

processors at school with such frequency.

The investigator found that 86% of the students studied use word processing at

home, compared to 50% nationally. There was no significant divide when looking at the

data along race/ethnicity (see Figure 18).

All S tu d e n ts A frican-A m erican A sian-A m erican C aucasian /W hite H ispan ic-A m erican

Figure 18: Use of Word Processing at Home (Question 23 vs. NCES 2003, p. 19).

This study and national data were essentially the same with regard to the use of

other software at home. Students at the study site indicated higher use at home than

students nationwide. All race/ethnicity groups indicated a low use o f graphic software

except for African American students, who responded with a higher (64%, compared to

32% Asian American, 39% Whites, and 29% Hispanic American) use at home on the

national survey (see Figure 19). The use of spreadsheet software by African American


116

students was 41%, which was also significantly higher then their counterparts, at 24% by

Asian American, 30% by Whites, and 23% by Hispanic Americans (see Figure 20).

100

80<DS ' 604 _ j v v

c.<v

S 40Q .

20

0All S tuden ts African-American Asian-American Caucasian/W hite Hispanic-American

Figure 19: Use of Graphics Software at Home (Questions 23 vs. NCES 2003, p. 19).

100

80


Figure 20: Use of Spreadsheet Software at Home (Questions 23 vs. NCES 2003, p. 19).

Research question four addressed whether the use of computers and the Internet

related to demographic characteristics such as race, gender, or other factors. When gender

was considered, there was no difference is access. In fact, there were more girls (56%)

enrolled in this school then boys (44%), which matches the national data. Figure 21

shows computer use by gender, with no significant difference in access. A close look at

□ NCES 2003


117

Figure 22 shows that access to the Internet is significantly higher at this school site by

both female and male students than it is nationally.


Female Male

Figure 21: All Students Access to Computers by Gender (Questions 4, 8, 9 and 31 vs. NCES 2003, p.4).


F em ale Male

Figure 22: All Students Access to Internet by Gender (Questions 4, 8, 9 and 31 vs. NCES 2003, p.4).

The key demographic variable that surrounded this study was race. Since the

investigator could not collect data related to socioeconomic status or parent’s educational

level, the differences were among racial lines. Forty percent o f the students at this school


118

qualified for free- or reduced-price lunches and therefore were at the poverty level. In all

but one case (graphic software use by White students), students had access to the Internet

more at school than at home. Use at school exceeds sixty percentage points at this school

compared to the national survey. While 94% of the students at this school reported

having access to a computer at home, the national data were significantly lower, at 65%.

This was particularly true when race was considered. Large racial differences exist when

one compares access at home. Where Asian and White students reported 76% and 77%,

respectively, only 41% of the African American and Hispanic students reported use of

computers at home. The rate of computer use for these groups is 54 percentage points

lower than Asian students and 45 percentage points lower than White students. These

rates o f use at home are significantly lower then the students from this one school and

significantly lower then their Asian and White counterparts. The Digital Divide exists for

these students. At home, both surveys presented Asian-American and White students as

most likely to have access to the Internet (see Figure 15). The comparison shows that

African-American and Hispanic-American students were 15 percentage points or more

below their Asian and White counterparts in having access to the Internet at home.

Summary

In summary, a significant amount o f data was collected to answer the research

questions. The investigator triangulated data from multiple sources to complete a

descriptive case study. There are significant demographic race/ethnicity differences in the

use o f information technologies. Triangulation o f student surveys, student focus groups,

observations, and data analysis indicated significant findings which are summarized in

Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations.


119

Chapter 5

Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Introduction

In this chapter the investigator presents a brief summary o f the study, summarizes

the findings o f each research question, discusses the strengths and limitations o f the

study, probes both the theoretical and practical implications o f the study, elaborates on

the conclusions drawn from the data analysis, and offers recommendations for future

research.

As noted in the methodology chapter, the purpose of this study was to explore the

use o f technology and the Internet by students in one school. Through this examination,

this investigator hoped to determine if access at school creates the Digital Divide, by

favoring students in technology-rich schools over those in the general population. The

investigator created and validated a survey and students were interviewed in order to

guide the data collection in this study.

Much research literature exists on the role that race and income have on the

Digital Divide. Those interpreting existing research literature indicate that direct access

to the Internet, which is not typically found among lower socio-economic ethnic groups,

increases people’s overall ability to function in the global economy. In fact, the Digital

Divide gap goes well beyond a choice made by an individual or household; rather, it

reflects deeper problems that directly relate to access to infrastructures in education,

business, and to economic opportunities.

One of the most significant aspects o f the effort to bridge the Digital Divide is the

role schools can play and have played. Hoffman & Novak (1998) indicate that white


120

students are much more likely than African American students to have used the Web at

locations other than home, school or work, regardless o f whether there is a computer at

home. Access and the quality of access is a critical issue to use. In several research

studies (Hoffman, et al, Becker, et al, Leigh), race always matters.

This study adds to the body of research by examining the following research

questions:

1. Which students at the school use computers and the Internet?



4. Is the use by students related to demographic characteristics such as


The investigator created an organizational framework based on a review of

literature and teacher, administrator, and parent focus groups to guide this descriptive

study. The framework also served as a guide for developing the student technology

survey instrument and for analyzing content of the observation data and questions

addressed in student interview sessions. Participants in this study were the sixth, seventh,

and eighth graders at one school. The data obtained were rich and provided ample

information to achieve successfully the purpose o f this study.

Limitations o f the Study

Methods used in this study were reviewed and evaluated for possible limitations.


determined by this descriptive study of one highly technological school. The school has


121

its own LAN and is connected to the WAN of the school district. This school, with 1200

students and 1300 networked computers, is not typical o f most public schools in the

United States. Other highly technological schools are not included in this study. The


school. The school is part o f an urban school district and all socio-economic levels are

represented in the school population; however, a majority o f students are from minority

groups. The investigator did not have the ability to ascertain the income level o f the

students, which research shows is an important factor in technological access. Therefore,

translation to other schools and students in general are not known. Readers are urged to

be cautious in the extent to which generalizations are made from the findings o f this

study.

Research Question 1: Which Students at this School use Computers and the Internet?

Review offindings. A review of the literature revealed large disparities in the

number o f computers per public school student, greater racial/ethnic minority enrollments

having less use o f computers and the Internet. National data revealed that African

Americans and Hispanic Americans appeared to be substantially disadvantaged in terms

of at-school access to computers and the Internet.

Triangulation o f data from the student survey, student interviews, and

observations showed that all students at the study site used computers and the Internet on

a daily basis regardless of gender or ethnicity. The availability o f computers and the

Internet made it more likely that all the students would participate compared to traditional

schools where there are fewer computers. Technology was infused into the instructional


122

program to support learning and student use o f computers to conduct research and to

develop projects.

Students said that their parents had selected this school because of the opportunity

to use technology regularly. All o f the students interviewed stated that classrooms and the

computer labs are accessible during lunch and recess daily. They indicated that this was

the time when they most frequently were able to log on to the Internet and learn

independently.

The investigator observed students using computers and the Internet throughout

the school day. Few students had any difficulty logging on, and if they did have

problems, their peers were quick to assist them. They used most of their computer time to

complete individual assignments with little or no direct instruction from a teacher.

It should be noted that, even though some students self-reported that they did not

have access to a computer or the Internet at school, to complete the student survey they

needed to have access. No hardcopies o f the survey were given to students.

Conclusion 1. All students at this school, regardless of ethnicity, participate in the

direct use o f computers and the Internet. Access to technologies for these students is far

above the national average, where the literature indicates that there is one computer for

every 10 students in public schools. This school had a ratio o f 1:1 computer to every

student, thereby providing extraordinarily ability for all students to participate. In

addition to access, this public school provided powerful ways for students to engage in

producing computer- and Internet-generated projects. Technology was woven into

everyday activities of students and not provided as a reward or extracurricular activity.


123

Conclusion 2. Students were actively engaged in using the computers every day at

school where they were provided access during class time and the ability to go into

classrooms or computer labs during recess and lunch. Students’ reliance on technology

was indicated by access in all the regular classroom settings and in computer labs. There

was no pull-out program for technology instruction. All classes, thereby all students,

were scheduled for computer lab time.

Research Question 2: Where do the Students use Computers and the Internet?

Review o f findings. A review of the data showed similar patterns in computer

usage of the students at this school. The number of students who have access to a

computer or who have access to the Internet, whether from school, home, or other places,

was significantly higher at this school than national figures. Ninety-four percent o f the

students at this school indicated that they had access to computers at home and 88%

indicated that they had access at school. Again, it should be noted that all the students

who completed the survey had access to a computer and the Internet at school. Over 48%

o f the students had attended this school for three or more years. African American and

Hispanic students were less likely to report having access to the Internet at home than

their White or Asian counterparts, but all had significantly higher access when compared

to data reported from the national survey. Eighty percent of the students across ethnicities

reported using the Internet at home.

In comparing this data to the national survey overall, students at this school have

access to computers both at home and school at a higher rate then students nation-wide.

Student access to the Internet reflects a larger gap. Whereas 94% of the students at this

school used the Internet at home, only 65% nationally reported using the Internet.


124

Overall, access is fundamental and basic to closing the digital gap. Many students

who talked about using computers at school indicated that they rode the bus and did not

have time to complete their projects on the computer because they could not stay after

school. All responding students reported a similar higher level o f Internet access at school

and at home.

Conclusion 1. Significant data are provided to support the finding that computer

access and Internet access are available to all students at this school but that the same

level o f access is not available in the home. Several o f the African American and

Hispanic students in the interview sessions indicated that they had to use their friends’

and family members’ computers outside o f school. The literature also indicates that,

among these ethnic groups, accessibility at home is significantly lower.

Conclusion 2. Much less o f a disparity exists when comparing student access to

computers at school and at home than that found nationally. Due to the better than 1:1

computer-to-student ratio at this school, there is much less disparity between ethnic

groups at the school compared to national norms. Still, African-American and Hispanic

students have the lowest access to the Internet at home, as revealed from data collected at

the school. In investigating the influence o f at-home technology upon academic

performance of students, the data are inclusive. In interview sessions, many students

spend more time playing games, sending e-mails to friends, or searching the web for fun

than doing academically-related tasks.

Research Question 3: In What Kind o f Computer Activities do these Students Engage?

Review o f findings. The data showed that White students are more likely to have

access to desktop computers, color printers, and e-mail at school than their African-


125

American, Asian-American, or Hispanic-American counterparts. White students were

granted greater access to desktop computers of their own at home than other ethnic

groups. This correlates with the literature review.

Computer and the Internet use provide an array of activities for students. From

finding information on the web, to communicating though e-mail, to completing

homework the Internet supports a wide range of activities. In this study, 79 to 88% of the

students at this school had access to e-mail at home and at school. There are significant

differences in the use o f e-mail by race/ethnicity in the general population. Again,

African American and Hispanic students were far below there Asian and White

counterparts in the use of e-mail at home. Only 19% of the African American and 15

percent o f the Hispanic students indicated that they had access to e-mail at home (table

24) while 44 and 43 Asian and White students respectively, indicated that they had access

to e-mail at home.

All responding students check their e-mail at school at least once a month. More

than two in five (44%) students check their e-mail on a weekly basis. Despite the ready

access most o f the students have to the Internet at home, many of them never check their

e-mail at home. Overall, one in four (25%) students either checks their e-mail elsewhere

or do not use e-mail. At least two of five (40%) students from every ethnic group check

their e-mail at home on a daily basis, suggesting that students prefer to use e-mail

programs at home rather than at school.

Over seven of 10 (73%) surveyed students reported browsing the web at least

once a week at school. This trend is also reflected among students o f different ethnic

groups, with African-Americans at 73%, Asian-Americans at 80%, Caucasians at 72%,


126

and Hispanic-Americans at 72%. Overall, about one in 10 (9%) of the respondents

reported never checking their e-mail at school. Compared to the students who browse the

web daily at school, nearly twice as many students reported browsing the web daily at

home. Further, a sizable increase in the percentage of Caucasian and Hispanic-American

students reported that they never browse the web at home (16% and 17%, respectively).


classrooms, with 72% of the students reported using a web browser at least three times a

week, followed by word processing programs, which over one-half (57%) of respondents

said they used at least three times a week. Overall, most of the responding students

displayed similar distributions o f software use at school across all ethnicities. An

exception to this trend was found in African-American usage o f word processing

software at school. Thirty-two percent o f the respondents reported using word processing

software over 10 times a week. In comparison, only 4% of responding Asian-American

students reported using word processing software at school with such frequency. Though

not statistically significant, and representing only a small number o f students (132), the

investigator observed more African American (33%) and Hispanic (47%) students using

drill/practices programs than their White (12%) or Asian (8%) counterparts.

At home, students also reported using web browsers and word processors more

often than any other programs. Over three-quarters (77%) reported using web browsers at

least three times a week, whereas over two-thirds (67%) of the respondents used word

processors with similar frequency. At home, 65% of responding students also used e-mail

programs at least three times a week. African-American respondents reported using

several types o f programs at home more often than their counterparts. More African-


127

Americans reported using presentation software, graphics software, and multimedia

programs than other students. Using these types o f programs are not reliant on the

Internet. These findings are not consistent with national findings, where African

American and Hispanic students have less access to computers, the Internet and e-mail

than their white and Asian counterparts.

Conclusion 1. In both focus groups and surveys, students reported that they use

the World Wide Web to find information and conduct research. From the survey, all

students, regardless of ethnicity, use the web at home and at school. Internet use at school

was more consistent than at home, where some students share access with other family

members or where their access levels are very low.

Conclusion 2. Overall, students of all ethnicities use software at school at about

the same rate, with slight increase by African American and Hispanic students using skill

building programs. This software use was evident in classroom observations and student

interview groups.

Research Question 4: Is computer Use by .Students Related to .Demographic

Characteristics such as E ace/Ethnicity, Gender, or other Factors?

Review o f findings. Overall, the results were consistent with the literature that

shows that there are significant demographic and socioeconomic differences in the use o f

computers and the Internet. The key demographic variable that was considered in this

study was race. Since the investigator could not collect data related to socioeconomic

status or parents’ educational level, the differences were among typical racial lines. The

number o f students who have access to a computer or to the Internet, whether from

school, home, or other places, has increased. The increase has been across income, racial,


128

and educational levels. As to gender, the gap in computer and Internet use by males and

females has all but disappeared.

Forty percent o f the students at this school qualified for free- or reduced-price

lunches at the time of the study, and therefore were considered to be at the poverty level.

While 94% of the students reported having access to a computer at home, the national

data was significantly lower, at 65%. This was particularly true when race was

considered. Large racial differences exist when comparing access at home. Whereas

Asian and White students reported 76% and 77% respectively, only 41% of African

American and Hispanic students report use of computers at home. The Digital Divide

also exists when considered racial makeup of homes nationally. More than 70% o f Asian

and White homes have computers, compared with about 41% of African American and

Hispanic households. White students were more likely to have computers o f their own at

home than other minorities, with 16 to 26% difference. Internet access reflects a similar

gap-

The rate of computer use at home nationally for African Americans and Hispanics

is 54 percentage points lower than that o f Asian students and 45 percentage points lower

than that for White students. These rates o f use at home are significantly lower than the

students from this one school and significantly lower then their Asian and White

counterparts at that school.

Conclusion 1. Computer and Internet access is widespread but use o f both is

higher among Asian and White students. The gap in access among households of

different groups falls along the same racial lines as is constant through America.


129

Conclusion 2. This School does appear to have narrowed the Digital Divide with

computer and Internet access. The number of computers at this school and the fact that

they were all networked enable all students at this school to have access to computers and

the Internet.

Summary

In this chapter the investigator summarized the findings o f student use of

technology at one school. The school and the results were unusual because o f the large

number of networked computers at this school and the high number of students who use

computers both at home and at school. The study permitted the investigator to explore the

extent to which networked computers in schools can bridge the Digital Divide. The

investigator compared the data collected from this one school to national outcomes, in an

attempt to provide data which could inform attitudes and practices o f policy-makers and

educators.

Computers have infiltrated all aspects o f daily life and challenge the teaching and

learning processes in today’s schools. The conclusions o f this study, supported by the

data presented, have enormous implications. This highly technological school

substantially reduced the Digital Divide among a diverse student population. What was

well-documented in this study was that access to computers and the Internet was wide

spread, regardless o f race. Without this access, computer and Internet access might

continue along social and economic lines. The investment by the school district, the local

university, and the computer company in the infrastructure at this one school has had

major impact on access to technology and on bridging the Digital Divide. Despite


130

successful expansion of access to computers into public schools nationally, the data

indicate that there is still is a gap in schools in rural and low socioeconomic areas.

Recommendations

Access is the first step to bridging the Digital Divide and everyone needs to

support effective ways to approach this issue. E-rate programs need to continue to

provide the infrastructure for all schools and libraries. Computers and Internet

connectivity should be an integral part of the infrastructure o f building and expanding

schools. This should include wireless connectivity and laptop computers that can be

accessed anywhere, any place, any time. Computer loan programs would allow students

to have access to technology at home.

Every student will need to have access to computers and the Internet in order to

become competitive. Schools should be provided with flexibility in scheduling and

programs to promote strategies to raise the skills o f all students. After-school and

weekend programs should be developed to support learning about how to use

technologies and acquire information.

Educators, business leaders, politicians, and parents should explore how to

provide remote access to all students and households. Many cities across the United

States are providing wireless access in all municipal, city-central locations and airports.

Cost-effective/free computer and Internet access at locations that have 24-hour service

like markets, post offices, restaurants, and gas stations can enable all communities and

students to have access. Cable companies have the capability to provide high-speed

access at no cost or low cost to households. Providing the opportunity for remote/high

speed access could possibly help close the Digital Divide.


131

All stakeholders should engage in discussions around the importance the role o f

technology plays in the global market and how it will shape our nation’s ability to

compete in the global economy. Government needs to provide incentives for public-

private partnerships to identify and provide resources for schools to maintain effective

levels o f access for teaching and learning.

More opportunities should be created for students to use e-mail as a tool for

sharing and receiving information. Accessibility to online information should be

broadened and available in multiple languages, so students can fully harness learning

opportunities. Different staffing models should be created to support schools and

community centers to extend hours o f access. Making access to computers and the

Internet before and after school, and even into the evening, with classes for parents and

students, could provide for access to knowledge, skills, and support for more students and

families.

Recommendations fo r Further Research

One of the most significant aspects o f the effort to bridge the Digital Divide is the

role schools can play and have played in this process. Billions o f dollars have been spent

purchasing computers and related equipment and in connecting schools to the Internet.

Several empirical studies have been conducted to analyze the gap between the technology

haves and have-nots and the growing programs that are intended to address this issue.

The Digital Divide is not only alive and well; it is a big problem that many

organizations, schools, and universities are trying to address. Schools can play a major

role in narrowing the gap.


132

In this school district and other large school districts across the nation, officials

are looking for ways to provide more computer access to students and their families. In

some cases, school programs give computers to students to take home and/or allow

parents access to school computers.

The study of this one public school confirms that schools can have a profound

effect on the Digital Divide. The research supports the fact that disadvantage groups are

still less likely to have computers at home or Internet access. Research studies are lacking

in terms o f the potential for schools to narrow the Digital Divide and whether students

with access to technology and to the Internet have basic computer literacy skills to use

the information available from these tools. Determining whether wired (or wireless)

schools increase students’ and teachers’ ability to use technology and the Internet

effectively and to raise student achievement is a concern of parents, teachers,

administrators, and researchers (Milone et al., 1996).

Student use o f the World Wide Web should be tracked to link use with academic

achievement and school projects. For example, investigate the reliance o f disadvantage

groups on public venues (schools and libraries) to complete homework assignments or

accessing information.

More research needs to be conducted to document further the findings o f this

study, especially in the following areas:

1. Because the study was limited to one school with a majority o f minority

students, the findings are limited. There is a need to examine access in relation to

income.


133

2. Because the study was limited to one school, the findings are limited.

There is a need to examine other highly technological schools regarding access of

disadvantaged groups.

3. Because the study was limited to middle school students, there is a need to

examine the relationship o f access o f high school students and grade point

average.

4. Because there are so few schools with the level o f technology that was

present at the school used for this study, there is a need to examine the role o f

technology in closing the achievement gap.

5. Because the study was limited to student access and activity to computers,

there is a need to examine teacher training and use of technology in teaching.

Final Thoughts

The current challenge for schools, regardless o f whether they have a lot or a little

technology, is the need for ongoing support. Hardware and software upgrades, high speed

internet connectivity, system down time, staff technology training, and school hours are

still major issues in public schools. Despite public school gains in access and equity to

technology, lack o f adequate funding is still a key barrier to all schools being highly

technological. In recent years, there has been a shift in priorities and a reduction in the

focus on the Digital Divide and the role schools have played and can play in closing the

gap. The No Child Left Behind Act o f 2001 provides the flexibility for states to use Title I

money for technology. A state education agency can transfer 50% non-administrative

state funds of State Technology Grants to other funded programs. Many states have

needed to use technology money to fund other mandated federal regulations.


134

Thanks to the e-rate, the majority o f public schools in the nation have Internet

access in classrooms. But there is no universal formula for how to use technology to raise

achievement or close the Digital Divide. There are some critical factors that must be in

place in order for schools to be successful. At the top is equal access to technology and

the Internet by all students. The Digital Divide is one of the most important civil rights

issues o f our time. Whether in public schools or in homes, technology will become the

nation’s leading strength or major weakness.

Some people argue that technology is a reward of development, making it

inevitable that the Digital Divide follows the income divide. True, as incomes rises,

people gain access to the benefits of technological advancement. But many technologies

are tools o f human development that enable people to increase their incomes, live longer,

be healthier, enjoy a better standard of living, participate more in their communities, and

led more creative lives. Technology is like education — it enables people to lift

themselves out of poverty. Thus, technology is a tool for, not just a reward of, growth and

development (Riley, 2001).

Educators must concentrate efforts to provide access to computers and the

Internet to all students. Technology is a tool just like a pencil. Would educators stand by

and let students come to school and expect them to learn and compete without a pencil?


135

References

Alspaugh, J.W. (1999). "The Relationship Between the Number o f Students Per Computer and Educational Outcomes," Journal o f Educational Computing Research, 21(2), 141-150.

Barron, A.E., Hogarty, K.Y., Kromery, J.D. and Lenkway, P. (1999). An Examination of the Relationship Between Student Conduct and the Number o f Computers in Florida Schools. Journal o f Research on Computing in Education, 52(1), 98-107.

Becker, H.J. (1984). School Use o f Microcomputers: Report #3 from a National Survey. Journal o f Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching. 3, 26-32.

Becker, H.J. (1992). Equity and the Big Picture. Technos, 7(1), 16-18. Retrieved April 15, 2001, from http://www.technos.net/joumal/volumel/becker.htm

Becker, H.J. and Ravitz, J.L. (1998). The Equity Threat o f Promising Innovations: Pioneering Internet-Connected Schools. Journal o f Educational Computing Research, 79(1) 1-26.

Becker, H.J. and Sterling, C.W. (1987). Equity in School Computer Use: National Data and Neglected Considerations. Journal o f Educational Computing Research,13(3), 289-311.

Benton Foundation (2001). Who used the term ‘Digital Divide ’first?, Retrieved February 6, 2002, from http://www.benton.org/archives/digitaldivide.html

Blanchard, J. (1999). Technology, Communication, and Literacy: Critical Issues. Computers in the Schools, 75(1), 1-4.

Bolt, D., & Crawford, R. (2000). Digital Divide. New York: TV Books, LLC.

Bowe, F. G. (1993). Access in the Information Age: Fundamental Decision in Telecommunications Policy, Policy Studies Journal, 21, 4.

Carvin, A. (2000). The E-Rate in America: A Tale of Four Cities. Washington, D.C.: The Benton Foundation. Retrieved June 10, 2001, from http://www.benton.org/e-rate/e-rate.4cities.pdf

Clinton, President W. (1997). President Clinton’s call to action fo r all Americans in the 21st century. Retrieved March 24, 1998 from http://www.ed.gov/updates/PresEDPlan/artll.html [1998, August].

Coleman, J. (1966). Equality o f educational opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (Now Closed).


http://www.technos.net/joumal/volumel/becker.htm

http://www.benton.org/archives/digitaldivide.html

http://www.benton.org/e-rate/e-rate.4cities.pdf

http://www.ed.gov/updates/PresEDPlan/artll.html

136

Cooper, M. N. (2000). Disconnected. Disadvantaged and Disenfranchised: Explorations in the Digital Divide. The Digital Divide Network, Retrieved May 5, 2002, from http://www.consumersunion.org/pdfrdisconnect.pdf

Cummins, J. & Sayers, D. (1997). Brave New Schools: Challenging Cultural Illiteracy Through Global Learning Networks. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Education and Library Networks Coalition [EDLiNC] (2003, July), e-rate: A Vision o f Opportunity and Innovation, Retrieved August 3, 2003, from http://www.edlinc.org/pdfrErateReport070803.pdC pp.2-13

Egan, K. (1997). The Educated Mind. Chicago: University o f Chicago Press.

e-Leaming: Putting A World-Class Education at the Fingertips o f all Children (2000, November). U.S. Department o f Education, Retrieved October 2, 2001, from http://www.ed.gov/technology

E-Rate and the Digital Divide: A preliminary Analysis from the Integrated Studies ofEducational Technology. (2000, September). US Department o f Education (Doc

00-17), Retrieved December 28, 2000, from http://www.ed.gOv/offices/OUS/eval/elem.html#Technology

Ellsworth, J. (1997). Curricular Integration of the World Wide Web. TechTrends, 42(2), 24-30.

Ely, D.P. (1996). Trends in Educational Technology. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.

Evans, R. (1996). The Human Side o f School Change, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fabry, D.L. & Higgs, J.R. (1997). Barriers to the Effective Use of Technology inEducation: Current Status, Journal o f Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 385-395.

Federal Communications Commission. (2000) Federal Communications Commission Releases Data On High-Speed Services For Internet Access. FCC News. Retrieved July 7, 2001, fromhttp://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/2000/nrcc0054.html

Fisher, M.M. (1997). The Voice of Experience: Inservice Teacher TechnologyCompetency Recommendations for Preservice Teacher Preparation Programs. Journal o f Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2/3) 139-147.


http://www.consumersunion.org/pdfrdisconnect.pdf

http://www.edlinc.org/pdfrErateReport070803.pdC

http://www.ed.gov/technology

http://www.ed.gOv/offices/OUS/eval/elem.html%23Technology

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/2000/nrcc0054.ht

137

Fishman, B.J. (1999). Characteristics o f Students Related to Computer-MediatedCommunications Activities. Journal o f Research on Computing in Education, 32(1) 73-97.

Fowler, F. J. (1993). Survey Research Methods, California: Saga Publications

Fraenkel, J.R. & Wallen, N.E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education, 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gamer, R., & Gillingham, M. (1996). Internet communication in six classrooms:Conversations across time, space and culture. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Gladieux, L.E., & Swail, W.S. (1990). Policy brief: The Digital Divide and educational opportunity. College Board Review, 188, 28.

Gladieux, L.E., & Swail, W.S. (1999). The growing divide. Phi Delta Kappan. 81(1), 90.

Glennan, T. K., & Melmed, A. (1996). Fostering the use of educational technology:Elements of a national strategy (MR-682-OSTP/ED). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved November 15, 2000, from http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR682/

Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994). Title I -National Education Goals [H.R.1804], Retrieved April 1, 1998 fromhttp://www.edgov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/secl 02.html

Gooden, A. R. (1996). Computers in the Classroom: How Teachers and Students are Using Technology to Transform Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1st edition.

Gunderson, L., & Anderson, J. (1999). An exploration of Internet access for literacy teachers and learners. Computers in the Schools, 75(1), 5-11.

Hayes, J. (1995). Equality and technology. Learning and Leading with Technology,23(2), 51-53.

Hayes, J., & Bybee, D.L. (1995). Defining the greatest need for educational technology. Learning and Leading with Technology, 23(2), 48-50.

Herman, J. (1995). Evaluating the effects o f technology in school reform. In B. Means (Ed.), Technology and education reform (pp. 133-165). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Hirumi, A., & Grau, I. (1996). A review of computer-related state standards, Textbooks, and journal articles: Implications for preservice teacher education and


http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR682/

http://www.edgov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/secl

138

professional development. Journal o f Computing in Teacher Education, 12(4), 6- 17.

Hoffman, F.L., & Novak, T.P. (1998). Bridging the racial divide on the Internet. Science, 280 (5362), 390.

Johnson, D.L. (1994). Who are the telecommunications disadvantaged? Computers in the Schools, 10{ 1), 1-3.

Johnson, D.L. (1995). The question of student access to the Internet. Computers in the Schools, 77(3), 1-6.

Johnson, D.L. (1997). Integrating technology in the classroom: The time has come. Computers in the Schools, 13(1/2), 1-5.

Johnson, D.L. (1999). A computer for every student? It ain't going to happen. Computers in the Schools, 75(2), 1-4.

Kafai, Y.B., & Sutton, S. (1999). Elementary school students' computer and Internet use at home: Current trends and issues. Journal o f Educational Computing Research, 21(3), 345-362.

Kallick, B., & Wilson, J., editors, (2001). Information Technology fo r Schools: Creating Practical Knowledge to Improve Student Performance, San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Kennard, W. (2000, January 14). “E-Rate: A Success Story” Speech presented at the Educational Technology Leadership Conference - 2000 Council o f Chief State School Officers. Retrieved August 27, 2000, from http://www.fecc.gov/Speeches/Kennard/2000/spwek002.html

Kinser, J., Pessin, B., & Meyertholen, P. (2001). From the fields to the laptop. Learning and Leading with Technology, 28(5), 14-17, 48.

Krieg, R. (1995) Information Technology and Low-Income, Inner City Communities. The Journal o f Urban Technology, 3(1).

Kulik, C.C., & Kulik, J.A. (1991). Effectiveness o f computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75-94.

Kulik, J.A. (1994). Meta-analytical studies on findings in computer-based instruction.(pp. 9-23). In Baker, E.L., and O’Neil, H.E. (Eds.), Technology Assessment in Education and Training. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.


http://www.fecc.gov/Speeches/Kennard/2000/spwek002.html

139

Leigh, P.R. (1999). Electronic connections and equal opportunities: An analysis o f telecommunications distribution in public schools. Journal o f Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 108-127.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G.B. (1995). Designing qualitative research. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

McKenzie, J. (1996). Designing staff development for the Information Age. From Now On, 1(4), 1.

McKissack, F.L., Jr. (1998). Cyber-Ghetto: Blacks are falling through the net. Progressive, 62(6), 20-22.

Means, B. (Ed.). (1995). Technology and education reform: The reality behind the promise. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mehlinger, H.D. (1995). School reform in the Information Age. Bloomington, IN: Center for Excellence in Education.

Melheim, W. (1997). Instructional utilization of the Internet in public school settings. TechTrends, 42(2), 19-23.

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Milone, M. (1999). Connecting schools and communities: Challenges along the way. Computers in the Schools, 75(1), 19-23.

Milone, M. Jr., & Salpeter, J. (1996, January). Technology and equity issues. Technology and Learning, 38—47.

Moursund, D. (2001). The learner and teacher sides o f the Digital Divide. Learning and Leading with Technology, 28(5), 4-5, 48.

National Center for Education Statistics (2000). The Condition o f Education: 2000, (NCES 2000-062). Washington, D.C: U.S. Department o f Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994-2001 (NCES 2002-018). Washington, DC: U.S. Department o f Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994-2002 (NCES 2004-011). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.


140

National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Computer and Internet Use by Children and Adolescents in 2001 (NCES 2004-014). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994-2003 (NCES 2005-015). Washington, DC: U.S.Department o f Education.

National Task Force on Educational Technology, (1986). Transforming AmericanEducation: Reducing the Risk to the Nation. (1986-04-00), Washington, DC:U.S. Department o f Education.

National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (1995). Falling Through The Net: A Survey o f the “Have Nots ” in Rural and Urban America. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved May 24, 2000 from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html

National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (1998). Falling Through The Net: New Data on the Digital Divide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved May 24, 2000, from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/net2/

National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (1999). Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. Washington, DC: U. S. Department o f Commerce. Retrieved February 4, 2000 from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html

National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (2000). Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion. Washington, DC: U. S. Department o f Commerce. Retrieved May 10, 2001 from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttnOO/contentsOO.html

Natt, J.G. (2000). Low-income Families rely on Schools to supply the Connection. Leadership News (2000, April 5). American Association of School Administrators.

Newman, J., & Benz, C. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology. Carbondale & Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

The 1996 Act amends the Communications At 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. (Act). Public Law 1040104, 110 Stature 56.

Orfield, G., Schely, S., Glass, D., & Reardon, S. (1994). The growth of segregation in American schools: Changing patterns o f separation and poverty since 1968.Equity and Excellence, 27(1), 5-8.


http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/net2/

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttnOO/contentsOO.html

141

Phi Delta Kappan (1999). The Growing Divide. 57(1), 90.

Rhodes, L. (1996). Looking through a different lens: Snapshots of three school districts. Learning and Leading with Technology, 23(7), 35-39.

Reich, R. (1992). The work o f nations. New York: Vintage

Riley, Richard W. “Closing the Fault Lines.” Secretary’s Conference on Educational Technology. Washington D.C. 7 Mar. 1995. Retrieved July 7, 2001, from http http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/makehappen/speechl.ht ml

Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion o f innovations. New York: Free Press.

Sanders, B. (1994). A is fo r ox. New York: Vantage Books.

Scheffler, F.L., & Logan, J.P. (1999). Computer technology in schools: What teachers should know and be able to do. Journal o f Research on Computing in Education, 31(3), 305-322.

School Report Card (2000 -2001). School Accountability Report. School Number: 101912080. (Permission given to keep school and district private)

Sleek, S. (1998). Isolation increases with Internet use. A PA Monitor, 29 (9), 1, 30-31.

Tapscott, D. (1998) Growing Up Digital: The Rise o f the Net Generation. New York, McGraw-Hill.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed Methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative Approaches, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Thornburg, D. (1995). Keynote Address at Secretary’s Conference on EducationalTechnology, March 1995, “Making it Happen, Sowing the Seeds for the Year 2020” Retrieved March 6, 2000, fromhttp://www.ed.gOv/T echnology/Plan?MakeHappen/Speechl .html

Tierney, R.J. (1996). Redefining Computer Appropriation, (pp.169-183). In Fisher, C., Dwyer, D.C., & Yocam, K. (Eds.), Education and Technology: Reflections on Computing in Classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

United States Department o f Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative fo reducational reform. (065-000-00177-2). National Commission on Excellence in Education. Washington, D.C.: Department o f Education.

United States Department o f Education. (No date). Technology, education reform, and goals 2000. Retrieved fromtp://www.ed.gov/News/Indx.html [March 16].


http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/makehappen/speechl.ht

http://www.ed.gOv/T

http://www.ed.gov/News/Indx.html

142

United States Department o f Commerce. Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. Washington: Department of Commerce, 2000.

United States Department of Education. The Condition of Education: 2000. Washington: United States Department o f Education, 2000.

United States Department of Education, Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools andClassrooms: 1994-2001. National Center for Education Statistics. NCES 2002- 018, Anne Kleiner and Elizabeth Farris. Project Officer: Bermard Greene. Washington, D.C.: 2002 Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch

United States Department of Labor. (1991). What Work Requires o f Schools. The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS Report) [On-line]. Retrieved October 2, 2000 from http://wdr.doleta.gov/WSCANS/whatwork/Whatwork.html

Yang, Y. C. (1991/92). The effects o f media on motivation and content recall:Comparison o f computer and print-based instruction. Journal o f Educational Technology Systems, 20(2), 95-105.

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: design and methods. (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Yoder, M.B. (2001). The Digital Divide. Learning and Leading with Technology, 28(5), 10-13,50-51.


http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch

http://wdr.doleta.gov/WSCANS/whatwork/Whatwork.html

143

APPENDIX A

STANDARD WORKSTATION SOFTWARE

Instructors Students6-8

StudentsK-5

LABI&

LAB2Library Owl

Link

Windows 97 X X X X XAccelerated Reader 5.01 X X X XKids Work 2 X X X XReader Rabbit X X X XSTAR Reading Program X X X XGeometry Sketchpad X XThe Learning Company X X X XMicrosoft Office 97 X X X X XNetscape 4.6 X X X X XExchange Client 5.0 X X X X XTAAS Reading and Writing Sleek 6-8 X XTAAS Reading and Writing Sleek 3-5 X X X XTvelite Software XLview Pro X X X XDr. Solomon for Windows 95 X X X XEncarta 99 X X X X XTeacher’s Gradebook XFortress 1.01 X X X XWinnebago Library Software XLarson's Elementary Leapfrog Math X X XLarson's Intermediate Leapfrog Math X X XLarson's Middle School Math X X X XHARCOURT-BRACE Mighty Math Zoo Zillions X X X


144

Instructors Students6-8

StudentsK-5

LABI&

LAB2Library Owl

Link

HARCOURT-BRACE Carnival Countdown X X XHARCOURT-BRACE Number Heros X X XHARCOURT-BRACE Calculating Crew X X XMaking The Grade XHARCOURT-BRACE Mighty Math Class Management XS.T.A.R. Reading XCBT Training Software XConnected University XNetscape Publisher X XInspiration X XAll The Right Type X XKidspiration XAP Photo Archive X XGrolier Online X XSibelius XWeb Feet X XWorld Book Online X X


145

APPENDIX B

K - 8 SCHOOL A Center for Professional Development

Tenets of the school

Decision-making and school governance are best carried out by those most affected - teachers, students, parents, and administrators.

High expectations and community values will be clearly articulated and upheld through a school honor code, developed and enforced by students,

teachers, parents, and administrators.

Every child needs and deserves two languages to function in a global society.

Learning in school is most effective when it relates to real-life problems andchallenges.

Natural connections among school subjects will be emphasized through an inter-disciplinary and integrated curriculum.

Teachers are important role models for children, and must be life-longlearners themselves.

The school should serve as a “lighthouse” school and reach out to other schools and communities to share resources and innovations.

A Technology-rich environment must be present and used as a tool across all disciplines to prepare students for educational and work environments.

Community service helps children develop important values and some form of community service will be required of all students.

All children have gifts and talents that need to be recognized and nurtured.

Public education can be high quality education.

The intellectual resources of the University and other community institutions are key ingredients in supporting the innovative work of the school.

A Joint Partnership between the Independent School District and the University


146

APPENDIX C

Focus Group

S.A.B., Science/Technology Teacher

S. J., Technology Coordinator

L. L., Assistant Principal

M. M. G., Network Specialist

D. P., Member, Shared Decision Making Committee Parent, Middle School Student

M. P., ParentElementary School Students

D. K. S., Assistant Principal

V. R. S., 5th Grade Teacher

J. M. S., Bilingual Teacher

J. M. S., Member, Shared Decision Making Team Middle School Student

G. S., Member, Shared Decision Making Team Parent, Middle School Students

R. S. S., Associate Provost Rice University

Questions for the Focus Group Regarding the Internet Student Survey:

1. Were instructions clear? Were the questions clear?

2. Did you understand what answers were expected?

3. Which questions would you eliminate? Which questions would you add?

4. How long did it take you to complete the survey? How long do you think it will take the students to complete the survey?


147

APPENDIX D

Student’s Technology Survey

PLEASE DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ON THIS SURVEY

1.I am comfortable using computers

a. Yes □

b. No □

2. Using computers, I rate myself a. Beginner □b. Intermediate □c. Advanced □

3. My computer skills are in a. Macintosh □b. PC (Windows) □c. Other (specify) □

4. I use a computer at

a. Home a. Yes □ b. No □b. School and other after school sites

(specify)a. Yes □ b. No □

c. Community Center, Church or Temple a. Yes □ b. No □

d. Library a. Yes □ b. No □

5. I use computers only at school a. Yes □

If yes, skip questions (8, 10, 12,14, 16, b. No □23, and 32)

6. Check all the things you use a computer forCheck all that Apply

a. Practices or drill (math and reading) □b. Create or complete a report or writing assignment □c. Email or chat □d. Searching the Internet for data/information □e. Making a presentation □f. Improving computer skills □g. Working with others on an assignment or project □h. Other (describe) □


148

7. What kinds o f technology resources do you have availab e to vou at school?Check all that Apply

a. A desktop computer for your own use □b. A laptop computer for your own use □c. A computer printer □d. Access to a color printer □e. Access to email □f. Access to the Internet □g. A computer to borrow to use at home □h. None of the above □i. Other (specify) □

8. What kinds of technology resources do you have available to vou at home?Check all

that Applya. A telephone in my room □b. Easy access to photocopying (copier at home or a copy store

close) □

c. A fax machine □d. A desktop computer for your own use □e. A laptop computer for your own use □f. A computer printer □g. Access to a color printer □h. Access to email □i. Access to the Internet □j. High speed access to the Internet (such as cable, DSL, T l) □k. Access to the school’s computer network from home □1. Access to the Internet from home through a school

connection □

m. None of the above □n. Other (please specify) □

9. I use the Internet at school a. Yes □b. No □

10. I use the Internet at home a. Yes □b. No □

11. I check mv e-mail at school a. Daily □b. Weekly □c. Monthly □d. Never □


149

12. I check mv e-mail at home a. Daily □b. Weekly □c. Monthly □d. Never □

13. I browse the World Wide Web at a. Daily □school b. Weekly □

c. Monthly □d. Never □

14. I browse the World Wide Web at home a. Daily □b. Weekly □c. Monthly □d. Never □

15. I use chat rooms, MOOs, Newsgroups a. Daily □at school b. Weekly □


16. I use chat rooms, MOOs, Newsgroups a. Daily □at home b. Weekly □


17. I use listserv to receive and share a. Yes □information b. No □

18. I use the word processing program on a. Daily □the computer to complete projects b. Weekly □


19. I use the computer and other software a. Daily □to complete projects (other than word b. Weekly □processing projects) Excel, c. Monthly □PowerPoint, d. Never □Others, please list:


150

20. How Useful are each of the following programs/software for completing projects?Not

UsefulSlightlyUseful

Moderatel y Useful

VeryUseful

Essential

a. Word Processing □ □ □ □ □b. PowerPoint □ □ □ □ □c. Excel/Spreadsheet □ □ □ □ □d. Newsgroups □ □ □ □ □e. Chat rooms □ □ □ □ □f. Internet, WWW,

E-mail□ □ □ □ □

& List serve □ □ □ □ □

21. At school which number of people do you usually share the computer with? Check the most common occurrence, or check two i f two are equally common.

a. No one □b. One person □

c. Groups o f 3 - 4 □

22. For Each of the following types o f software, please indicate how many times you use that software in a week in ANY class.

NoTime

1 -2 Times

3 - 9Times

10+Times

a. Skill building (Larson’s Math, STAR, Accelerated Reader, Sleek, etc.) □ □ □ □

b. Simulations or exploratory games □ □ □ □c. Encyclopedias or other references on

CD-ROM □ □ □ □

d. Word Processing (i.e., MS Word) □ □ □ □e. Software for making presentations

(i.e., PowerPoint) □ □ □ □

f. Graphics (i.e., Photo Shop) □ □ □ □g. Spreadsheets or database programs

(i.e., MS Excel, MS Access, etc.) □ □ □ □

h. Multimedia programs (i.e., Hyper studio) □ □ □ □

i. World Wide Wed browser (i.e., Netscape/ MS Explorer) □ □ □ □

j. Electronic mail (email) □ □ □ □


151

23. For Each of the following types o f software, please indicate how many times you use that software in a week at HOME.

NoTime

1 -2 Times

3 - 9Times

10+Times

a. Skill building and practice (Drills) □ □ □ □b. Simulations or exploratory games □ □ □ □c. Encyclopedias and other references

on CD-ROM □ □ □ □

d. Word Processing (i.e., MS Word) □ □ □ □e. Software for making presentations

(i.e., PowerPoint)□ □ □ □

f. Graphics - oriented printing (e.g., Print Shop) □ □ □ □

g. Spreadsheets or database programs (i.e., MS Excel, MS Access) □ □ □ □

h. Multimedia program (i.e., Hyper studio) □ □ □ □

i. World Wide Wed browser (i.e., Netscape/MS Explorer) □ □ □ □

j. Electronic mail (email) □ □ □ □

24. In which of these ways do you use computers to prepare for your classes or other activities?

I use computers to:DoNotUse Occasionally Weekly

MoreOften

a. Write letters/or reports □ □ □ □b. Emailing friends □ □ □ □c. Send cards over the internet □ □ □ □d. Emailing my parents □ □ □ □e. Use the Internet to search for

data information and for a project □ □ □ □

f. Get pictures from the Internet □ □ □ □g. Use camcorders, digital cameras,

or scanners to prepare for class □ □ □ □

h. Exchange computer files with others □ □ □ □


152

25. Where/When did you first become reasonably comfortable with using computers? Check only onea. While I was a student at this school □b. While at home □c. While in an after school program □d. At the library □

26. I know how toNo Somewhat Yes

a. Display the directory of a disk □ □ □b. Format and/or copy files a floppy disk □ □ □c. Format documents (fonts, margins, spacing, □ □ □tabs)d. Insert graphic, chart, or table into a Word or □ □ □presentation documente. Prepare a slide show using presentation

software□ □ □

f. Insert clip art, sound, and/or animation into □ □ □a document8- Use a World Wide Web to search for □ □ □data/informationh. Retrieve and save Internet resources □ □ □i. Import a picture from the Internet or file into

a document □ □ □

j- Use a graphic or drawing tool □ □ □k. Forward and Delete E-mail messages □ □ □1. Attach files to an E-mail message □ □ □m. Create a web page □ □ □n. Troubleshoot / Solve everyday computer

problems□ □ □

27. Have you ever used computers in the following ways?No Partly Yes

a. Collect data from people, newspapers, or the Internet, enter the results into the computer, and presented it to the class using presentation software

□ □ □

b. Collaborate with classes in other schools on a project □ □ □c. Write a story, illustrate it with scanned images or

digitized pictures, record sound for the story, and make a multimedia presentation

□ □ □

d. Place text and pictures on the Web on a specific topic □ □ □e. Create a web page □ □ □


153

28. Computers have helped me academically byCheck all that apply

a. Providing me with practice exercises in Read/math □

b. Improving my writing skills □c. Improving my reports □d. Permitting me to explore new areas/subjects □e. Increasing my knowledge base in several

areas □

f. Increasing my ability to problem solve □g. Helping me communicate with other students

and experts□

DEMOGRAPHICS29. Age

Grade

30. Ethnicity:African American/Black □Alaskan Native □American Indian □Asian □Caucasian/White □Mexican American/Hispanic □Pacific Islander □Other □

31. My parent(s) use a computer at

a. Home □b. At work □c. At home & work □d. Do not use a computer □e. Other (specify) □

32. I share my computer at home with

a. No one □b. My parents □c. My sibling(s) □


154

33. Number o f Siblings

1 □2 □3 □4 □More than 4 □

34. How many years have you attended this school1 □2 □3 □4 □5 □6 □7 □


155

APPENDIX E

Teacher, Parent, Staff Interview Guide

1. How many o f the students do you feel are comfortable using computers and the Internet?

2. What do you see students using the computers for (skill building [drill and kill], writing reports, developing projects, group work, etc.,)

3. What is the major use o f the computers by students (email, bulletin boards, get resources from outside sources, etc.,)

4. How much access do they have to technology (everyday at school, everyday at home, etc.). Approximately how many hours per week?

5. Typically, how many students use a computer each day? For about how long?

6. How useful is it to have this much technology available to students? How has it helped them academically?

7. What are the students’ most popular programs?

8. How many students say they have access to computers and the Internet at home?

9. What do you see as the difference between students who have computers at home and those who do not?

10. What other information can you share with me about when, where, and how much technology is used by students in learning?


156

APPENDIX F

Classroom Observation of Students using Technology

(Written observational notes are on the back)

Student/Students were usine the folio wine aoolications in erotics or indeoendentlv:Rating scale of A - D (A-Beginner, B-Intermediate, C-Advanced, D-Guru) with number o f students at that level (e.g., B-7, C-2, D-l, etc.). Rate #

1. Word Processing (creating/revising a report)

2. Word Processing (cutting, pasting and formatting)

3. Presentation software (i.e., Power Point)

4. Drill/practice programs/tutorials

5. Simulations program

6. Spreadsheets/calculations

7. Creating/revising a Database

8. Graphics or other visual presentation

9. Hypermedia/Multimedia

10. Graphical applications

11. Exploring/Searching the Internet

12. Making Web Pages

13. Emailing/Chatroom

Whole Class activities:No rating; number of students and Activity ( 1 - 1 3 above, i.e., 6-5) A #

Teacher directed from large screen hook-up

Teacher directed with students in small groups

Teacher directed with students in pairs

Teacher directed with individual on computers

Technology literacy lesson

Tutorial/remediation for core objective content


157

APPENDIX G

Student Interview Guide

Questions, which might give better understanding of what students, do with technology

1. Imagine what you would do with out computers.

2. How do computers impact your world now? What do you see as the future of computers in your life? In your career? In your home?

3. What do you like about having a lot o f technology at school?

4. Where do you use the computer and the Internet the most (in homeroom, in English class, Math class, etc.)?

5. Do you use technology at home? Describe

6. Do you feel you have an advantage over your other friends who do not have this much access to technology at their schools?

7. How do you feel technology has changed your work habits, study skills, school attendance?

8. Describe/show us some of the work/projects you do on the computer?


158

APPENDIX H

Sharon Valear Robinson

Dear D r.________

Thank you for talking with me and expressing your willingness for your school to participate in this data collection phase of my doctoral dissertation. My studies are in the areas o f educational technology and how students use technology in learning. My hope is that by gathering this data, research and funding for technology in schools will increase so all schools become high technological resources. The following research questions are being addressed:

1. Which Students at this school use computers and the Internet?2. Where do the students use computers and the Internet (at school, home,

community centers, etc.)?3. In what kind of computer activities do these students engage (word-processing,

presentation programs, multimedia, information gathering from a variety of sources, e.g., the Internet)?

4. Is computer use by students related to demographic characteristics such as race/ethnicity, gender or other factors (compared to national statistics)?

Your school was selected because of several factors:□ It is a highly technological school□ Students who attend can possibly have up to nine years (K-8) of

technology access; and□ The population is diverse

I also want to make it perfectly clear that there will be no identification o f the school, district, staff or students in this study. All data will be gathered in the aggregate. The focus is not on teachers’ but on students’ access to technology and how they use that technology in learning. Anonymity of all responses will be strictly preserved.

I will be collecting data in six different ways:

Focus Group: A group of parents, teachers, administrators, the technology coordinator and I will need to meet to review the purpose of the study and the student survey. This group will review the survey and make recommendations for the final edition. This group should have persons with a variety o f technological skills (low or no skills at all, medium, and high skills). You or your staff may select the members o f this group. Each person will be asked the questions on the attached questionnaire. At the end of the study, the findings will be submitted to this group before final submission.


159

Interviews: I will need to conduct individual interviews with the members o f the focus group. I would like to conduct these interviews during the lunch hour (I will provide lunch) or after school. I will compensate teachers for this time.

Internet Student Survey: The student survey was developed in Microsoft Access, which can be made available to students on the school’s LAN and will automatically generate raw data through file transfer protocol. Students will not be identified and data is collected in the aggregate. The survey can be given during homeroom. It should not take more then 20 minutes to complete.

Classroom Observations: To ensure triangulation of data collection, I will need to conduct classroom observations. I will be observing students using technology and not teachers. Teachers need to be informed that if technology is not being used in their room on those days that I am visiting, I will leave and go to another classroom. This is not personal: the nature o f the study is focused on students using technoOlogy. I would like to do this over a week’s period of time and would like to visit all middle school classrooms. Because o f my close connection with your school, my observations have been going on for the past three years.

Student Interviews: There will need to be several student interview sessions comprised o f middle school students who demonstrate high, medium, minimal technological skills. Administrators, coordinators, and teachers who have knowledge of the skills o f the students can refer participants. These sessions will be held during the lunch hour (I will provide lunches for the students). There should be approximately 10 students in each session. I will contact these students’ parents personally after the school has gained permission from their parents to participate.

School Documents: I will need the demographics o f the school. This information can be faxed or emailed to the above addresses.

I understand you will be doing testing soon. I do not want to interfere with this schedule or concentration. Please provide me with dates that I can conduct the interviews and observations after the testing period.

Thank you in advance four your support and cooperation

Sincerely,

Sharon Valear RobinsonDoctoral Student, Pepperdine University

Enclosure: Teacher, Parent, & Staff Interview Guide Student Interview GuideInstructions for teachers and Students Internet Student SurveyQuestions for the Focus Group Article for the school’s paper


160

APPENDIX I

Email to the middle school teachers

Dear Middle School Teachers:

We are conducting a student survey on technology. We are trying to ascertain whether students at a highly technological school have more technology skills and access to computers and the Internet than their peer group nationally. This information will help us as we write grants and provide data about our school. This information will be gathered in the aggregate — NO STUDENTS OR SCHOOLS WILL BE IDENTIFIED. The survey is on the LAN at the school. Students will only be able to access it with a teacher provided pass code for one day only. Those students who are absent, will be provided with a different pass code on another day. It should take less than one-homeroom period to complete and should be at approximately a 5th grade reading level. Teachers may provide any assistance needed. THIS IS NOT A TEST. You will need to write the attached instruction on the board so every student can access it. If you have a student who needs aide assistance, please let the aide access the survey, read the questions to the student, and type in the answer. Teachers and aides may provide any assistance needed. The data is gathered within the application (Access) and is summarized. We are shooting for 100% of the middle school students to complete this survey

Instructions for the Internet Student Survey

(To be read or provided to the students by the teacher)

Students:

You will be taking a survey on the computer about your technology skills. THIS IS NOT A TEST. I can answer any questions you need about the survey. If you have a question

raise your hand. Please be as truthful as you can and if you do not understand a question, answer it to the best o f your knowledge. Here are the instructions to bring the survey up

on your computer (this will be handed out, placed on an overhead or written on theboard).


161

APPENDIX J

Article for the School’s Newsletter

Dear parents:

Because technology is such an important part o f our school, we want to conduct a survey with our middle school students to ascertain how they use technology. Mrs. Sharon Robinson, the former Principal, and our Technology Coordinator, are conducting this survey in hopes o f increasing funding, grants, and research for technology in our school. The survey will be placed on the Local Area Network (LAN) and it should take our 6th, 7th, and 8th graders approximately 15 minutes to complete. Students will be anonymous and all the data will be collected in the aggregate, so neither the school nor the students will be identified. A copy of the survey is available in the school office for review. Students will be taking the survey in homeroom.

Mrs. Robinson and Mr. Johnson will also interview several students (10 - 20) about their experience with technology. They will be asked to share some of the work they created or developed on a computer. Staff and teachers will be recommending students for this group interview. We will send a permission form for your signature if your child is selected for the interview. If your child is recommended, you will also receive a copy of the questions that will be used in the group interviews.

If you have any questions or do not want your child to be apart o f this survey, please notify the assistant principal in writing.


162

APPENDIX K

Permission/Release Form

Technology in Schools: A Case Study of A School’s Computer Usage

and its Effect in Bridging the Digital Divide

I give my permission for Sharon Robinson to interview my child, _________________

_______________________________________ and view his/her work. I understand theinterview will take place during my child’s lunch period and Ms. Robinson will provide lunch. My child is to bring a project that he/she completed on the computer (PowerPoint presentation, word processing report, web page developed, etc.). I also understand that my name, my child’s name, the school’s name and other specifies o f personal data will not be used in the study. A code of confidentially and anonymity will be strictly in force throughout the study.

Parent’s Signature:_____________________________________________________

Ms. Robinson may be reached at ###-###-####. Her email address is: [email protected]

Thank you for your support in this research on Technology in Schools.


mailto:[email protected]

Technology in schools:A descriptive study of computer usage in a school and its effect on bridging the digital divide

Education

perm ission

copyright owner

umi umi microform

graduate faculty

proquest information

school reform

learning company

degree of doctor