Volume 33 Number 5 Summer 2001 Technology
Standards in a Third-Grade Classroom Cindy Kovalik and Lynn Smolen Jazmine Toddy Abstract Multiple factors guide teacher efforts to integrate technology in the classroom. These factors include newly developed standards that detail student technology skills, the availability of technology resources, teacher knowledge of and experience with technology, and administrative support. These factors interact as teachers strive to identify, design, and implement meaningful ways technology can help students learn curricular content while building technology skills. As schools continue to emphasize technology integration, it is important that educators begin to examine actual classroom use of technology to better understand emerging relationships between technology and learning (Nicaise & Crane, 1999; Owston, 1997). Additionally, standards that detail student technology competencies must coincide with student readiness and curricular objectives in order to create cohesive instructional units that encourage student involvement and self-direction. If teachers plan instructional units based on recommended student technology skills, then those skills need to be achievable by students and relevant to the learning activity. Research Question In this study, two technology standard sets for third-grade students were used to investigate the research question, Do technology skills of third-grade students match prescribed technology standards? The two technology standards used in this study were
The NETS were developed and published by ISTE, a professional organization dedicated to technology in education. These standards prescribe technology skills that, if met, result in “technology-literate” students. These technology skills are grouped into four grade ranges, PK–2, 3–5, 6–8, and 9–12. There are 10 performance indicators for each grade level. Six of the 10 performance indicators for students in Grades 3–5 were pertinent to this study (Figure 1). The second technology standard used in this study was developed by and is proprietary to the school district in which the study took place.
Figure 1. The six relevant indicators are in bold type. Reprinted with permission from National Educational Technology Standards for Students: Connecting Curriculum and Technology, copyright © 2000, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@iste.org, www.iste.org. All rights reserved. For more information on the NETS Project, contact Lajeane Thomas, Director, NETS Project, 318.257.3923, lthomas@latech.edu, or visit the NETS Web site at http://cnets.iste.org. The school district technology matrix (SBE, 1997) is incremental, with technology skills becoming more complex and sophisticated as students move from kindergarten through the 12th grade. These technology competencies are organized into seven strands. The strands encompass basic computer operations, communication and information access, and standard application software packages. For this study, strands for computer operations, word processing, multimedia, graphics, and communication and information access were relevant to the curricular topics being addressed. An example of a technology competency for third-grade students in multimedia is “create a navigation button.” This third-grade skill builds on a skill from second grade and is a necessary skill for students prior to fourth grade. In second grade students need to be able to define the term “multimedia.” Fourth-grade students need to be able to create “sound buttons including recorded sound” and “invisible buttons.” The technology matrix provides teachers with information they need as they begin to integrate technology into the curriculum. The Curriculum Component Vertebrates and the food chain, two topics from the third-grade life science curriculum, served as the medium for investigating technology use in this study. After receiving instruction on these topics, students created multimedia stacks on these topics using HyperStudio (1989–2000). The food chain unit focused on student ability to access, select, and retrieve information from the Internet and place selected information into a word-processed document. Study Participants and School Site This study was conducted using a single classroom of 25 third-grade students, their teacher, and a parental volunteer. Because of school absence, not all participants completed all components of the research study. The classroom itself was part of a suburban school district in northeastern Ohio located near a 22-square-mile city with a strong industrial base. The city’s population is approximately 22,000, with more than 4,500 students enrolled in Grades K–12. The community is predominantly middle and upper-middle class with a median income of higher than $58,000. The median sales price of a single family home in this area is $186,000. Average attendance rate in the school district is 96.2%. The administration strongly supports the use of technology for learning. The district has provided technology training opportunities for teachers and has an incentive program to encourage teachers to participate in technology training. Thus, the school district is well positioned to integrate technology; the schools are equipped with technology, teachers are trained, and the administration supports technology efforts. Research Design This case study used a qualitative research design. Qualitative data provides the investigator with ways to interpret relationships within the specific case under study (Stake, 1995). Because a qualitative approach attempts to link research questions, relevant data, and analysis (Yin, 1994), we chose this method to better understand technology integration within a real-life context. Data collected included classroom observations, written student responses to open-ended questions, student products, and teacher responses to interview questions. Description of the Lessons Vertebrates Students were taught declarative knowledge about the characteristics of vertebrates during a unit on vertebrates. Classroom instruction was followed by a computer lab in which students were taught features of HyperStudio (1989–2000) including how to add a “button” and how to add additional cards to a stack. Students then created a six-card HyperStudio stack to display what they had learned about vertebrates. Each stack was to contain one card that included the title of the vertebrate stack with either painted or typed text and five functional buttons to correspond with the five types of vertebrates. To complete the project, five additional cards were to be added, one for each of the five types of vertebrates. Each vertebrate card was to contain factual information about the vertebrate and a button to take the user back to the title card. Students were encouraged to add graphics to their cards (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Example of cards from a HyperStudio stack on vertebrates. The Food Chain In the food chain unit of study, technology skills and competencies introduced earlier in the school year were revisited and reinforced. These skills included the ability to access a Web site, select pertinent information from the Web site, and copy and paste the information from the Web site into a word processing document. The technology component of this unit followed a classroom discussion of owls and their importance in the food chain in which students dissected owl pellets and created an “owl fact sheet” that contained student-selected information on an owl of their choice (e.g., barn owl, snowy owl, spotted owl). These one-page fact sheets were to contain only information students understood and could interpret for others (Figure 3). Students used time in the computer lab to search the Internet for information and produced the fact sheets using the word processing portion of ClarisWorks (now AppleWorks, 1991–1998).
Figure 3. An example of a student-created one-page fact sheet on owls. Data Sources Classroom Observation Direct classroom observation can contribute to our understanding of learning (Drummond, 1994). In this study, observations were conducted in a computer lab, where each student worked individually on a computer. The computer lab is networked and each student has an individual account where computer files are stored. Students gain access to their accounts when they log on to the network. Each student has access only to his or her files, although all students have access to software application packages including ClarisWorks (now AppleWorks, 1991–1998), HyperStudio (1989–2000), and Navigator (1991–2000). The teacher conducted whole-class instruction on a specific aspect of technology at the beginning of computer lab time. This instruction included procedures and terminology related to copying and pasting, reminders of the necessity to save files often, and procedures on how to enter an Internet address and create navigational buttons in multimedia. The researchers took notes and interacted informally with students during computer lab time. These observations were used to provide evidence and descriptive accounts of student interaction with peers, student interaction with the teacher and a parent volunteer, and student ability to complete tasks on the computer. Open-Ended Questionnaires Because time constraints restricted the ability to interview each student, researchers used open-ended questionnaires that students responded to, in writing, to gain evidence and insight into the processes and procedures students used in the two technology-based projects. The researchers hoped students would provide more complete answers to the questions by having to write down their answers as opposed to responding verbally. Though this approach eliminated the ability to gauge the extent of individual student understanding, it enabled researchers to gather data from every student rather than a select few. The multimedia project questionnaire contained three questions related to this study.
The food chain project questionnaire contained four questions related to Internet and word processing skills.
Three additional questions asked students about the use of technology.
Each researcher independently ranked student responses to five of the above questions into one of three predefined categories: limited, competent, and advanced. Limited responses were incorrect or incomplete, competent responses showed a basic understanding related to the content of the question, and advanced responses exhibited a higher level of understanding by the student. After each researcher ranked student responses, rankings were compared. Interrater reliability for these responses was 80.3%. Discrepancies in rankings were resolved through discussion and comparison with student responses without a discrepancy. Student Products Analysis of student work often provides clear evidence of student understanding of technology competencies, comprehension of subject matter, and academic abilities, such as spelling and grammar. In this study, each student produced a HyperStudio (1989–2000) stack for the vertebrate unit and a word-processed document containing information from the Internet for the food chain unit. By examining the HyperStudio stacks, it is a simple matter, through the use of built-in “tools,” to determine if students have “painted” text on a card or used a “text object.” Similarly, a reviewer can determine if a graphic is added as a “graphic object” or as “clip art.” Viewing the stacks also provides a means for assessing aesthetic qualities including readability, layout, and choice of color combinations. The researchers also can judge the technical aspects of a stack including functionality (does everything work?) and complexity (did students add features that were not required?). Word-processed documents can likewise be evaluated on multiple levels. In this study, word-processed documents were reviewed for the amount and type of content included, number and type of graphics, whether graphics were inserted as graphic objects or as text, inclusion of a reference to the Internet site used, and overall organization of information. Results Evidence of student ability to meet technology standards is presented first by the ISTE (2000) NETS and then by the school district’s technology competencies (SBE, 1997). ISTE NETS Grades 3–5 Performance Indictor
Evidence Observation of students in the computer lab provided evidence that students were able to operate the mouse and keyboard of the computers. As soon as students entered the computer lab, they logged on to the system and opened appropriate software without assistance. As students used software applications, questions directed to the teacher, the parent volunteer, or a peer dealt with capabilities of the software application rather than operation of the mouse or keyboard. No instances were observed where students had difficulty operating the mouse or keyboard.
Evidence Common uses of technology are accessing an Internet site, reading information on the site, selecting portions of the information, and copying and pasting that information into a word processor for future use. These uses directly relate to the food chain assignment in which students accessed an Internet site about an owl, read the information, and selected portions of the site to create a one-page “owl fact sheet” in a word processor. Four questions in the student questionnaire provided evidence of student ability to meet Performance Indicator 2. The first question was “Why did you cut and paste information from the Internet site onto a word processing page? Wouldn’t it be easier to just print out all the information from the web site? Explain.” Through this question, the researchers hoped to determine if students understood the assignment (i.e., create a one-page fact sheet about a specific type of owl that contains information that you can understand and interpret for others) and if students were able to recognize advantages and disadvantages of copying and pasting information from the Internet into a word processing document. Twenty-two of the 25 students in the classroom responded to this question. A majority of student responses (73%) were judged to meet or exceed the standard. Six of the 22 students (27%) provided a limited response, 15 (68%) provided a competent response, and 1 (5%) provided an advanced response. Limited responses focused on the assignment guideline that only one page was to be produced. An example of a response judged to be limited was, “Because if you print [the information while] on the [Inter]net you will get at least six sheets of paper.” Competent responses tended to emphasize the importance of understanding the information that was chosen. An example of a competent response was, “I didn’t print out all of the information on the web site because there mite [sic] have been words that I wouldn’t understand.” A second competent response was, “I cut and paste [sic] instead of printing [it all] because it is easier to pick out information you want and need. If you printed [all the information] there would be information you didn’t necessarily need or understand.” One student’s response was judged to be advanced and showed a deeper understanding of the technology components in this assignment, identifying a difference between a word processor and the Internet. This student’s response was, “I cut and paste information because you can write [emphasis added] on a word processing page and you can’t on the Internet. No, it wouldn’t be easier to print out all of the info [sic] because you might not understand some of the info [sic].” A second question that related to Performance Indicator 2 asked students to think about the process of selecting information from the Internet in relation to the food chain assignment and an earlier assignment. The earlier assignment dealt with finding information on the Internet about gypsy moths. The second question was, “Think about your [word processed] pages on the gypsy moth and owls. When you were choosing information for your pages, were you able to include all the information that you wanted? Explain.” This question provided evidence that students were able to identify advantages and disadvantages of using technology within a teacher-structured task. A majority of students (15 out of 22 students, or 68%) said they were not able to include all the information that they wanted. Student-identified limitations included insufficient time (“No because we had a serten [sic] amount of time and we could not copy the hole [sic] site”), too much information (“No because there was to [sic] much”), and the restriction of only being able to print one page (“she said print out one page that you can understand”). Students who indicated they were able to include all the information they wanted for the two projects (7 students, or 32%) wrote that they selected information that they understood. One student responded, “Yes I was able to get all the information I needed because I didn’t want that much and I only took the information I know [sic] what it meant.” The third question that related to Performance Indicator 2 was, “If we already learned about vertebrates in the classroom, why are we making this HyperStudio project?” This question attempted to investigate whether students could recognize that one purpose of using technology is to blend technology skills with content knowledge to help students synthesize knowledge gained as they create a product. We hoped that students would be able to state this relationship between technology and learning. Responses to this questions that were rated competent or limited were evenly split (8 responses each, or 42% respectively). Responses rated as limited tended to see the HyperStudio (1989–2000) project as “sort of like a test” that was completed “because [our teacher] wants us to learn more about vertebrates.” Competent responses viewed the HyperStudio project as a way to “review everything so far” and to “check our knowledge and to make learning about vertebrates fun.” Three responses were judged to be “advanced” (16%). These responses tended to be more complex, including both a technology comment and a comment about the content learned. One response judged to be advanced was, “We could be doing this project because we could be testing our selfs [sic]. Or [our teacher] is trying to see if we remember how to use HyperStudio or to remind us about vertebrates.”
Evidence Classroom observation provided an opportunity to watch students use productivity tools (word processor, multimedia software, Web browser) and a peripheral device (the printer). All students were able to work effectively between an Internet site and a word processing document as they copied and pasted text and graphics. With teacher-created “help sheets” available, students successfully and independently produced multimedia with few “How do you do this?” questions. Students knew how to print documents and save and open files they had created.
Evidence Classroom observation and inspection of student-produced HyperStudio (1989–2000) stacks provided evidence that students met Performance Indicator 5. All 25 students were successful in producing a HyperStudio product that met the criteria specified by the teacher. Student HyperStudio stacks contained a title card with five buttons, graphics, text, and navigation buttons. We rated the stacks on the basis of technical skills, aesthetics, and content. Stacks rated limited in technical skill typically lacked a component such as one or more buttons to take the user from one card to another card. Competent technical skills were exhibited when all required components were included and all components worked properly. Stacks that were judged to be advanced exceeded the teacher-specified criteria by adding additional features such as sounds and transition effects to the buttons and multiple types of graphics (importing clip art in addition to drawing/painting images). Six stacks (24%) were judged limited in technical skills, four stacks (16%) were judged competent, but the majority of stacks (15, or 60%) were judged advanced. Figure 4 shows technology skill levels for students using HyperStudio. Translating the descriptive ratings to numbers with 1 = limited, 2 = competent, and 3 = advanced, the mean score for all students was 2.4. This score can be interpreted as indicating that, overall, student technology skills for multimedia were above the competent level.
Figure 4. Students’ multimedia technology skills.
Evidence One aspect of the owl fact sheet assignment related to Performance Indicator 9. That aspect dealt with the difference between using a text tool and a pointer tool when inserting graphics into a word processing document. By selecting and using the pointer tool for graphics, students have more control over the size and placement of a graphic in a word processing document. During lab time, the teacher explained to students that using the pointer tool for inserting or importing graphics into a word processing documents allows the graphic to be freely moved and manipulated in a word processing document. Using a text tool for graphics, on the other hand, limits the way a graphic image can be moved. Students were asked about these differences in two questions: “What is the difference between bringing in a picture from the Internet as a graphic object or a text object?” and “Which tool in the toolbar would you highlight to copy and paste a graphic? Would you highlight the same tool to copy and paste words? Explain.” For the first question, 19 of the 22 responses (86%) fell into one of two basic differences that students identified between bringing in a picture as a graphic object as opposed to bringing in a picture as a text object. Six of the 19 students (32%) explained the difference in terms of matching the object type with either “words” or “picture.” A typical response from these students was, “The difference is the text object is for words and [the] graphic object is for pictures.” Thirteen of the 19 students (68%) explained the difference in terms of the effect the type of object had on what you could do with the graphic in the word processing application. Two student responses, typical of the responses from these students were, “As a graphic you can move it [the graphic] around but as a text you can’t move it,” and, “The difference is that the text makes the picture so you can’t move it. But the arrow lets you have the pic [sic] anywhere you want.” The remaining three students appeared to know there was a difference, but were either unclear in their response or incorrect. The incorrect response simply mixed up the two objects. The incorrect response was, “A graphic object you use words on. The text object you use to get pictures.” The other two responses indicated an awareness of the difference but failed to explain what the difference meant. The first of these responses was, “The difference is if you used the text tool to bring a graphic, after you put the graphic in there would be a big, giant, blinking cursor next to the graphic. If you used the graphic tool for graphics, the big cursor wouldn’t be there.” The second response was, “as [sic] a text object you would not get handlbars [sic]!” Although both of these responses are essentially correct in describing what one would see on the screen, they fail to interpret the effect this situation will have in the word processing document. The second question dealing with Performance Indicator 9 is similar to the first, but asks students to explain their decision-making process. The second question was, Which tool in the toolbar would you highlight to copy and paste a graphic? Would you highlight the same tool to copy and paste words? Explain. Although 14 of the 22 responses were rated as competent or advanced, it was surprising that eight responses (36%) were rated as limited, because only three responses to the previous question were rated as “limited.” In one instance, a student answered the prior question at a competent level, but wrote a confusing response to this question and appeared to transpose the tools. This student’s response was, “The text tool would [be] to highlight. And the graphic tool to paste words.” Based on all 22 responses, most students (14, or 64%) would be able to choose the appropriate tool for graphics and text objects respectively. One example of a response judged competent was “The tool that you should highlight [for a graphic object] is the arrow pointer. No, you will not use the same tool to paste words. That is the text tool which does the typing.” One response rated as advanced used correct terminology and referred to the effect the tool choice has on the object. This advanced response was, “I would use the pointer, because the text tool will think it’s a word. Why I would use the pointer is it’s the right tool for a graphic object.”
Evidence The question asked in relation to Performance Indicator 10 was, “Should you trust all of the information you find on the Internet? Explain.” All student responses were “No.” The responses contained a number of reasons for why all the information on the Internet should not be trusted. These reasons ranged from “the person who put it on could be wrong” to “it may not be true” to “they don’t show thier [sic] resours [sic].” Other reasons were “someone can be telling a lie to make you think it’s true” and “you don’t know where it came from.” Although students did not actively evaluate the resources they used on the Internet, their responses to this question indicate they are aware that not all the information on the Internet is correct, appropriate, and unbiased. School District Technology Competencies As mentioned previously, the school district’s technology competencies (SBE, 1997) are skill based and more specific than the ISTE (2000) NETS. This section discusses evidence related to how well third-grade students meet the school district’s technology competencies. The subset of the school district’s technology skills addressed by the HyperStudio (1989–2000) project and the owl fact sheet assignment are detailed below.
Evidence Twenty-two of 23 students (96%) included a graphic imported from the Internet in their owl fact sheet. Of these 22 students, 19 (86%) placed the graphic so that no text on the page was obscured, whereas 3 students (14%) placed the graphic so that it concealed some portion of the text on the owl fact sheet.
Evidence All students (100%) were able to do the Strand 5 subset of skills listed above. All HyperStudio (1989–2000) stacks contained text and graphic objects. Students entered text into text objects, and all stacks had at least one navigational button that worked.
Evidence All students (100%) were able to perform a prespecified keyword search on the Internet. The teacher supplied the topic (owls), and students were able to choose the type of owl (e.g., barn, screech, snowy) for their research. The owl fact sheets ranged from a minimum of two sentences with one graphic to a three-page printout of an entire Web site that contained no graphics. Discussion Results from this classroom-based investigation strongly suggest that students in this third-grade classroom are (1) making good progress in meeting the technology competencies specified by the ISTE (2000) NETS for Students in Grades 3–5 and (2) have met the subset of skills addressed in two technology-enhanced classroom assignments aligned with school district technology competencies (SBE, 1997). In relation to the ISTE NETS, written student responses to questions and classroom observation indicated students can
Because these students were in the third grade, their technology competency should continue to grow and develop in Grades 4 and 5, thereby further strengthening their technology knowledge. Generally, we were impressed with the technical skills students exhibited. The technical quality of the HyperStudio (1989–2000) stacks was excellent. In 92% of the stacks (23 of 25), everything worked correctly. Students also exhibited a great deal of creativity in their stacks through the use of color, graphics, and sound. Subject-matter content in the stacks, although not directly related to this study, was measured by tallying the number of ideas contained in the text portions of the HyperStudio stacks. Overall, the number of ideas per type of vertebrate was 5.6. This number means that in the text portion of the HyperStudio card on mammals, for example, approximately 5 separate ideas about mammals were present. These ideas included characteristics of the vertebrate and specific examples of the vertebrate. One weakness of the HyperStudio stacks was the quality of student writing. Even though writing mechanics (spelling, grammar, and punctuation) were not part of the teacher-supplied evaluation criteria for the stacks, these types of errors detracted from the otherwise excellent quality of the final products. As educators become more knowledgeable about technology standards, procedures need to be defined and adopted to track student progress. One method that teachers and researchers may want to implement in documenting student progress is the use of tally sheets or checklists. A second method is to collect anecdotal evidence from observation and informal discussion with students as they work with technology. A third option is to examine student products from several different perspectives (e.g., technology skills, subject matter content, writing mechanics, aesthetics) to provide evidence of technology strengths and weaknesses for individual students. There are several areas in which we feel this study could be improved. One area of improvement is in the wording of questions asked of students. Some students may not have understood, because of their developmental levels, some of the questions, which would affect their responses. Another weakness is that some questions may not have been worded in such a way as to encourage the type of response we sought. Future research in this area may be improved by conducting individual interviews with students, thus allowing the researcher to probe for a fuller understanding of student written responses. Conclusion This study provided evidence that students in this particular third-grade classroom are well positioned to meet technology standards as specified by the ISTE (2000) NETS and the school district in which the study took place. Factors including a supportive environment in the school, a trained teacher who was comfortable with using technology with students, and the development of instructional units that integrate technology into the existing curriculum combined to result in successful technology skill and knowledge acquisition by students. We believe these factors are necessary conditions for enabling students to meet technology standards. As standards continue to evolve, we see a need to interrelate goals and objectives for technology with goals and objectives for subject areas of the curriculum. Educators need to take advantage of what technology offers by encouraging students to apply what they have learned in different subject areas to a final technology-enhanced product rather than approaching curricular subject areas as discrete, unrelated elements. For example, when students use HyperStudio (1989–2000) to produce a final project for a science unit, educators should challenge students to demonstrate their technology skills, language arts skills, and artistic creativity as well as their mastery of science concepts. Moving beyond the acquisition of technology skills, teachers and students need to think critically about the use of technology and its effect on thinking and learning. In this regard, it is important for teachers to be knowledgeable about technology standards. These standards can then serve as an impetus to classroom discussion about the value of technology and how technology can help the learning process. Contributors Cindy Kovalik is an assistant professor at The University of Akron, teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in instructional technology. Her research interests include integration of technology in the classroom, visual literacy, and problem-based learning. Lynn Smolen is an associate professor at The University of Akron, teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in literacy, integrated curriculum, and ESL methodology. Her research interests include curricular integration, language and literacy, and assessment. Jazmine Toddy is a third-grade teacher for the Solon City School District in Solon, Ohio. Her interests include the development and implementation of lessons that allow for meaningful integration of technology in the classroom. Contact Dr. Cindy Kovalik References AppleWorks [Computer software]. (1991–1998). Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer, Inc. Drummond, M. J. (1994). Learning to see: Assessment through observation. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. HyperStudio [Computer software]. (1989–2000). Torrance, CA: Knowledge Adventure, Inc. International Society for Technology in Education (2000). National Educational Technology Standards for Students: Connecting curriculum and technology. Eugene, OR: Author. Available: http://cnets.iste.org. Navigator [Computer software]. (1994–2000). Mountain View, CA: Netscape Communications Corporation. Nicaise, M., & Crane, M. (1999). Knowledge constructing through hypermedia authoring. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 29–50. Owston, R. D. (1997). The World Wide Web: A technology to enhance teaching and learning? Educational Researcher, 26(2), 27–33. Solon Board of Education. (1997). Technology standards. Unpublished manuscript. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. A PDF file of the full article is available. Contact: jrte@iste.org. Please specifiy Volume and Issue number. Copyright © 2001, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). All rights reserved. | |||||||
