Please consider a donation to the Higher Intellect project. See https://preterhuman.net/donate.php or the Donate to Higher Intellect page for more info. |
Student Engagement: Views from Technology-Rich Classrooms
Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow Research
ACOT Report Number 21
Student Engagement: Views from Technology-Rich Classrooms
Authors
Judith Haymore Sandholtz
UC-Riverside
Cathy Ringstaff and David C. Dwyer
Apple Computer, Inc.
Apple Computer, Inc.
1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino, CA 95014
Abstract
Student engagement, an important link to learning, is easy to recognize
but difficult to define operationally. Many researchers use "time-on-task,"
a measurement made by outside observers who watch randomly selected students
for short periods. This study, using self-report data from 32 elementary
and secondary teachers whose students used technology in an ongoing basis,
suggests a different way of measuring engagement. It also challenges the
commonly held belief that students' engagement with technology is merely
the result of novelty. And it provides guidelines for the classroom use
of technology that are necessary to achieving an enduring and positive impact
on student engagement.
Introduction
Engagement is difficult to define operationally, but we know it when we see it, and we know when it is missing. Students are engaged when they devote substantial time and effort to a task, when they care about the quality of their work, and when they commit themselves because the work seems to have significance beyond its personal instrumental value (Newmann, 1986, p. 242).
Despite being difficult to operationalize, student engagement is recognized
by teachers and researchers alike as an important link to student achievement
and other learning outcomes (McGarity & Butts, 1984; Capie & Tobin,
1981; Fisher, Berliner, Filby, Marliave, Cahen & Dishaw, 1980). Studies
have been conducted investigating how variables such as teacher management
styles (Tobin, 1984), student grouping (Anderson & Scott, 1978), instructional
activities (Delquadri, Greenwood & Hall, 1979), and even the day of
the week (Cornbleth & Korth, 1979) affect student engagement.
The difficulty researchers have had in operationalizing student engagement
has led many to adopt "time-on-task" as a proxy measure for engagement.
Time-on-task researchers commonly use observable behavioral measures--such
as whether the student is gazing out the window or looking at the teacher
while he or she is talking--to determine students' rate of engagement. Wilson
(1987) states,
For the purpose of observation, on-task behavior can be defined as the time a student spends actively looking at some appropriate instructional object or person. . . If students have their eyes closed or oriented toward a window, door, floor, or a nonparticipating classmate, they are considered off-task. . . Of course, there will be errors. Students who are looking out the window but thinking of math will be judged off-task, while those who are looking at the teacher but daydreaming will be rated on-task. Still, these errors occur infrequently, and they tend to cancel one another (p. 15).
Data collection in time-on-task research often involves observing randomly
selected students for five or ten seconds of each minute during a short
segment of the school day (McGarity & Butts, 1984; MacArthur, Haynes
& Malouf, 1986; Magliaro & Borko, 1986).
In related studies of student engagement, researchers have examined Academic
Learning Time (ALT)--a variable that combines time-on-task with student
success rate--and its relationship to student achievement. The six-year
Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study contends that the amount of time a student
spends successfully performing relevant and appropriate academic tasks is
positively related to basic skills achievement among elementary school children
(Far West Laboratory, 1979). Some researchers go so far as to say that "Academic
Learning Time is more strongly related to academic success than any other
variable over which the teacher can exercise control" (Vockell, 1987,
p. 72).
This apparent connection between time and student achievement has led policymakers
in some states to increase the length of the school day or school year with
the hope that more time in school will mean higher test scores. In some
districts, recommendations have been handed down specifying the number of
minutes that students should spend studying each subject area or how many
minutes students should devote to homework.
Given this emphasis on time, it is not surprising that the introduction
of any innovative teaching technique or tool will be closely followed by
studies to determine how the innovation influences time-on-task or academic
learning time. Such is the case with the increased use of computers and
other technology in classrooms. Researchers have examined how technology
influences time-on-task in special education classes (Perkins, 1988; MacArthur,
Haynes & Malouf, 1986); in specific subject areas such as mathematics
(Bright, 1988), reading (Zuk & Danner, 1986), and English (Latham &
Stoddard, 1986); and in a variety of grade levels (Mevarech, 1986; Johnston
& Joscelyn, 1989). Results of these studies suggest that technology
use has a positive impact on student engagement.
Some researchers contend that increases in student engagement in classrooms
with technology result from the novelty of the computers. They propose that
student engagement may have been enhanced simply because the computers were
newly introduced prior to or during the studies (Fish & Feldman, 1988;
Hawkins, Sheingold, Gearhart & Berger, 1982). Even in studies where
students had been using computers for one or two years, student access to
computers was limited and relatively scarce (MacArthur et al., 1986) and
the novelty of using computers may not have worn off.
Unlike previous studies, our research investigated the long-term impact
of technology on student engagement in classrooms where students have constant
access to a multitude of technologies. In the settings for this study, technology
has been an integral part of classroom life for over six years, rather than
a novel, add-on feature to the curriculum that students use for a few minutes
every week. While the initial interest and enthusiasm that technology generates
in students often leads teachers to believe that the simple addition of
technology will increase student engagement indefinitely, we wanted to determine
whether these changes endure over time.
Our research differs from other studies of student engagement in a variety
of other ways. In this study, teachers, rather than outside observers, determined
if students were engaged. Unlike outside observers who are forced to make
inferences based on brief observations of unfamiliar students, teachers
are in the position to know how much time and effort individual students
devote to different tasks, and how their level of engagement changes from
day to day and from month to month as the academic year progresses.
This study also defines engagement in ways that differ from traditional
measures. We consider student engagement to include variables such as initiative,
self-motivation, independent experimentation, spontaneous collaboration
and peer coaching, and enthusiasm or frustration. In addition, we include
not only on-task behavior in the classroom, but also time spent on projects
both in and out of the classroom. Finally, this paper differs dramatically
from other studies because it examines challenges for teachers that resulted
from changes in students' engagement. Teachers were challenged when they
had to move students from technology-oriented tasks to other classroom activities,
to set appropriate boundaries for assignments, or to respond to students'
disruption of their plans.
Settings
This qualitative study utilizes data from 32 elementary and secondary
teachers in five schools located in four different states. The ACOT project
sites represent the diverse populations and conditions found in contemporary
public schooling. ACOT teachers are all volunteers selected by individual
school districts. Most participants teaching in ACOT classrooms were experienced
teachers who were already teaching within the district, but few had worked
closely with technology before joining the project.
Each of these sites began with one classroom per school in the fall of 1986,
adding classrooms, staff, and students in subsequent years. Although each
site serves students from a variety of grade levels, none of the sites encompasses
an entire school.
Table 1 summarizes the status of each site. In each of these settings, students
and teachers have constant access to interactive technologies. The elementary
classes are equipped with Apple IIe, Apple IIGS, and Macintosh computers.
The high school is an all-Macintosh installation. In addition to the computers,
classrooms are equipped with printers, scanners, laserdisc and videotape
players, modems, CD-ROM drives, and hundreds of software titles.
Site | Grades | Teachers | Students | Community/SES | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1-4 | 8 | 180 | Suburban/High | |||||||
2 | 5-6 | 7 | 180 | Rural/Middle | |||||||
3 | 4-6 | 4 | 90 | Inner-City/Low | |||||||
4 | 4 & Sp. Ed. | 4 | 80 | Surburban-Urban/Low-Middle | |||||||
5 | 9-12 | 9 | 120 | Urban/Low-Middle |
The technology is used as a tool to support learning across the curriculum.
No attempt is made to replace existing instructional technologies with computers.
By design, the classrooms are true multimedia environments where students
and teachers use textbooks, workbooks, manipulative math materials, white
boards, crayons, paper, glue, overhead projectors, televisions, and pianos,
as well as computers. The operating principle is to use the medium that
best supports the particular learning goal.
Data Collection
The sources of data for this study, covering October 1985 through February
1991, include bimonthly audiotapes on which teachers reflected about their
experiences, weekly reports sent via electronic mail, and correspondence
between sites.1 In addition, we reviewed reports of independent
researchers who had observed in ACOT classrooms to investigate the impact
of technology on various aspects of learning and teaching. In their reports,
we looked for evidence related to student engagement (Baker, Gearhart &
Herman, 1990; Phelan, 1989).
Audiotape Journals
Teachers recorded their personal observations of events in their classrooms
and their reflections on those events on audiotape, producing on the average
two 60-minute tapes per month. Instructions about content on the tapes were
left purposefully vague, leaving teachers free to report what was most salient
to each of them at the time. These tapes are understood by the teachers
to be research data, listened to and indexed by research staff. Since these
journals are treated confidentially, teachers often took the opportunity
to vent their frustrations and share their triumphs, giving the tapes an
emotionally charged quality.
Weekly Reports
The teaching staff at each site wrote weekly summaries of major events and
developments. These summaries were electronically distributed among all
ACOT participants via Apple Computer's electronic mail system. The content
of these reports was also left to the discretion of the teachers. However,
because these reports were publicly aired to everyone connected with the
project, they tended to be more self-conscious than the personal, frequently
introspective reports contained in the audiotape journals. Often they provided
either corroboration of events mentioned in teachers' journals or revealing
contrasts.
Correspondence Between Sites (Site Links)
ACOT teachers communicated with their colleagues at other sites via the
electronic mail system. This correspondence was initiated by the teachers
and typically solicited or offered information related to different software
programs, equipment, or classroom activities.
Methodology
Unlike researchers who attempt to reduce qualitative data to quantifiable
codes or symbols, we decided at the outset of this study to use as our data
source the actual text information generated in the weekly reports, site
links, and audiotapes. To facilitate this, we wanted to develop an indexing
system that would direct researchers to episodes illustrating various areas
of interest--places where the textual data itself could be studied.
Researchers transcribed all written communications and summarized the audiotapes.
To facilitate analysis, narratives were divided into episodes; each episode
represents an event, with a beginning, middle, and end. Episodes were indexed
for retrieval using a variety of categories and subcategories (e.g., participant,
affective tone, context, general theme). The development of content categories
was an iterative process and followed the principles of "grounded theory"
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967), "progressive focusing" (Hamilton,
MacDonald, King, Jenkins & Parlett, 1977), and "collapsing outlines"
(Smith, 1978). Over the course of the project, the indexing system was revised
and expanded numerous times. For example, during the second year of the
project, it became clear that the thematic subcategories in the early coding
system were too broad to be useful for detailed analysis, so we decided
to further refine and define major categories and subcategories to ease
data retrieval and analysis. The indexing system currently being used allows
sorting and rapid retrieval of descriptive, qualitative data along a number
of dimensions for the construction of reports.
To assess the reliability of the indexing process, one of the researchers
conducted a detailed analysis of inter-rater reliability (Keirns, 1990).
The inter-rater reliability among nine research indexers was computed on
three sample episodes using a formula suggested by Miles & Huberman
(1984, p. 63):
number of agreements/number of agreements + number of disagreements
Analysis was made of the agreements among the staff in the selection of
each index symbol in the 13 major categories that are indexed in the database.
Agreement was computed on the selection of an index as either present or
not present. Agreements for each category were averaged and a total overall
average of agreements for each episode was computed, yielding results of
89 percent, 91 percent, and 86 percent, respectively. These reliability
figures are within the range suggested as satisfactory by Miles & Huberman
(1984) for groups of field-workers dealing with similar data, and reflect
the effect of considering pooled ratings described by Thorndike & Hagen
(1986).
The data have been divided into two databases, which together contain information
on more than 20,000 episodes. Double Helix, a relational database, is used
to manage and analyze the data. This software program allows data to be
organized in a multitude of ways (e.g., by teacher, by school site, by dates,
by thematic categories). For this study, 1,707 episodes relating to student
engagement were retrieved from the database. These episodes were further
analyzed and indexed in subcategories such as changes in student initiative,
changes in time spent on projects, etc. Data from all project teachers were
included in the analysis.2
Results
The introduction of technology into ACOT classrooms generated an enthusiastic
response from both students and teachers, as this quote from Jean, a high
school teacher, illustrates:
Students are answering questions from the board on their computers. . . The attention that they direct to their work compared to the way they did before we had the computers--there's just no comparison. They are much more attentive and enthusiastic. There is almost total silence once they begin work, versus when they were writing everything out. . . I can really see a difference. (AT, 3250, Jean, 10/31/88)
Independent researchers investigating the impact of technology on teaching
and learning in ACOT classrooms also commented on changes in student engagement
brought about by the use of computers. For example, after observing a second-grade
classroom in this project, Phelan (1989) commented:
It appeared as if children interacted with each other more frequently while working at computers. . . They were curious about what they were doing. They were excited about their own activities and were intently engaged (p. 1).
Similarly, Baker, Gearhart & Herman (1990) stated, "Observations
in some [ACOT] classrooms suggest positive affective impact--e.g., in engagement,
commitment, pride in quality. . . " (p. 34).
Although teachers welcomed increases in student initiative, time spent on
projects, experimentation, and on-task behavior, data suggest that students'
enthusiasm for using the technology sometimes led to difficulties for teachers,
such as disruption of planned activities, students overstepping boundaries
with respect to assignments, and time trade-offs. The remainder of this
paper examines these changes in student engagement, describing both the
positive aspects and the resulting challenges.
Positive Changes in Student Engagement
Changes in Student Attitude
Early in the ACOT project, teachers noted the marked enthusiasm of their
students when working with the computers. Teachers described the students'
excitement, their awe at learning new software programs, and their disappointment
at not having more time on the computers. One elementary teacher compared
a new piece of software to a new Christmas toy--with children nagging until
they got to use it.
This high level of enthusiasm held a number of benefits for both teachers
and students. Students learned more quickly when they were anxious to learn,
and their interest reinforced the teachers' efforts. After commenting on
students who were "ecstatic" and "absolutely beside themselves,"
one teacher reflected: "Their enthusiasm is well worth the effort it
[setting up a file server] has taken."
The teachers naturally made comparisons with the attitudes of their students
before the addition of computers to their classrooms. For example, a high
school teacher commented about how his students' interest and motivation
typically extend into the last week of school--an uncommon occurrence before
the ACOT project began. Over the six years of the project, he remembered
only two or three instances where students turned in their home computers
a few days early. The majority of the students in the ACOT project--including
seniors who had been using computers for their entire high school career--kept
their home computers until the last possible day.
A teacher reported that some elementary students requested a make-up session
for a day when a field trip caused them to miss a computer club session.
Another teacher noticed differences in students' journal entries: one student
described spelling as "fun" and another declared, "A computer
a day keeps the blues away."
A high school teacher, putting together a course in computer applications,
hoped that about 10 students would sign up; he wound up with a class of
34. After writing some music on a synthesizer with three students during
study hall, another high school teacher found that "it became a desirable
thing for students to work on the synthesizers during study hall."
The comment by an elementary teacher probably sums it up best:
The students don't get tired of working on the computer. They actually ask for things to do. In all of my years of teaching, I never had anyone ask for another ditto. (AT, 3770, Steve, 3/17/88)
When given the choice, students began to choose the computer over pencil
and paper for writing assignments, test-taking, and even artwork. Teachers
also found students more willing to edit their written work. Teachers expressed
particular pleasure when students eventually began to edit on their own,
making changes spontaneously.
The enthusiasm of individual students motivated other students in the class.
For instance, a fourth-grade student who had finished his work asked to
use a disk that he had found on a shelf. It turned out to be a mathematics
program on multiplication that the teacher had never previewed. Before long,
the teacher had a large group of students eager to "get their hands
on it." The motivational power of peers exceeds that of teachers. In
the words of another elementary teacher:
It's incredible--you get a few people who seem to pick it [Logowriter] up and think it's great and all of sudden, the whole class does. (AT, 4760, Steve, 9/17/90)
A number of students in the ACOT classrooms turned their enthusiasm into
financial gain. Through their work on the computers, they developed talents
and skills that led to jobs in the community. For example, a sixth-grader
was asked to devise a data system for his town's bank. High school students
were hired to design templates for community businesses because of their
knowledge of spreadsheets, word processing, and desktop publishing. One
corporation offered summer jobs to project students and was interested in
conducting job interviews with any of the students who did not plan to go
to college. In another community, the Center for Science and Industry wanted
to hire students to help build a simulation for a "Mission to Mars"
project.
The fascination with the computers extended to students not involved in
the program. At an elementary school, teachers frequently discovered various
first-grade students "on their knees, peering into the computer classroom."
The site coordinator assumed that the children were intrigued by the male
teacher, one of only two in the entire school. However, after questioning
some of the "peeping toms," she learned that it was the computers
attracting their attention.
Changes in Time Usage
As students became involved in working on the computers, the time they spent
on assignments and projects often increased. Teachers discovered, for example,
that the
30 minutes they had allotted for an activity stretched into an hour or even
an entire afternoon. As a teacher summarized, "Once you get something
that piques everyone's interest, you let them run with it." One teacher
reported even running over into another teacher's class time, explaining,
"I just couldn't cut them off."
Moreover, when given free time, the students chose to work on the computers
rather than on other activities. As one parent of an elementary student
observed, the children never seemed to be able to work on the computer for
as long as they wanted. In fact, in a second-grade classroom, students asked
for more time on the computer following a Halloween party.
In some classrooms, students also came in before and after school, and stayed
through recesses and lunch periods, to work with the technology. Teachers
discovered that, whereas their students had previously been anxious for
school to end, they now voluntarily requested to stay after school.
We are using some cooperative software now that the kids love. When we use it toward the end of the day, the kids don't want to go home. That didn't happen in a traditional classroom. (AT, 12350, Mike, 1/4/88)
At one site, after a number of indoor recesses due to rain, students became
upset when the teacher announced outside recess. When questioned about their
response, the students indicated that they had hoped to stay in and work
on the computers.
Teachers also found it unusual that students would stay after school for
questions and activities related to instruction rather than the more typical
extracurricular activities. For example, one high school teacher indicated
that she had never been at a school where students were interested in coming
in after school or during their study hall periods to do work. "What
I have experienced is students getting out of study hall to play."
Another teacher describes an incident where a high school student engaged
a visiting researcher in conversation about Pascal.
Tim is not one of the designated students for the research, but Tim stayed after class when the researcher was here recently just to talk to him about Pascal. Do you know how unusual it is for a student to stay after class to discuss content? (AT, 2569, Carl, 1/29/88)
Based on their previous years of experience in classrooms, teachers viewed
the students' degree of commitment and engagement as "unusual in a
group of quite ordinary kids." As one teacher commented,
We've had a great time using LegoLogo! The kids are extremely enthusiastic and productive. I needed to go to a lunch meeting today, and they didn't want me to go because they were still working and wanted to know more. How often do you see kids working through lunch? It's fantastic! (AT, 6669, Steve, 1/14/88)
At some sites, before-school sessions eventually became formalized. One
site coordinator pointed out that 24 out of 27 elementary students faithfully
came to school one hour early each morning to provide time "to work
in all of the things we want to do."
A number of parents also commented to teachers about the amount of time
their children spent working on the home computers. Parents expressed pleasure
that the computer could lure their children away from the television. The
comments of the following parent typify their responses:
Since this class has been in existence, John has . . . a phenomenal interest in computers. Instead of wanting to always watch television or go outside and play, John can be found at his computer a large part of the time trying to learn more and more about programming. (SL, 110729, Tim, 1/7/87)
Changes in On-Task Behavior
Teachers reported that students' enthusiasm and interest resulted in more
on-task behavior. They found that, during computer activities, students
were highly involved in their assignments and frequently able to work with
little assistance. Teachers sometimes expressed surprise at the level of
students' interest. As several teachers reflected,
I am absolutely amazed as to what they are doing and getting out of it [health project]. They're on task most of the time. It's a good example of what can happen if the right motivation is offered to kids to work. (AT, 2556, Rita, 4/20/90)
This was probably the first time I've ever seen a whole group of students
with actually every student on task and excited about their learning. (AT,
12271, Frank, 12/18/87)
A high school teacher who taught both "regular" ninth-grade classes
and the technology project ninth-grade classes described the differences
she observed in students' behavior.
The ninth-grade classes I teach are entirely different; they are like night and day. The project students are constantly working. They always have the computers on. They always want to see their work right away. I have never seen students who want to work so much. (AT, 1845, Mary, 9/16/88)
Another high school teacher, amazed at how industrious his students were
right before Christmas break, pointed out that "these aren't extraordinary
kids; they're 'average' high school kids." At the end of the school
year, when most teachers were winding down and gathering materials, teachers
in the project classrooms were still beginning new activities. According
to an ACOT coordinator at one of the elementary schools, "The students
showed no signs of quitting either, so the education process just kept humming
along."
Visitors and substitutes also commented on the students' interest and engagement.
For instance, a visitor to one of the high school classrooms noted that
he saw some students doing five things at once and still paying attention.
Other visitors seemed surprised that the students stayed on task with strangers
roaming through the classroom. One substitute teacher made the following
comparisons between ACOT science classes and regular applied science classes:
All students in the project classroom were aware of what they were supposed to be doing. Their attitude was positive and they showed, in many ways, that they were following the algebra lesson AND had a high interest in what they were doing. They kept their level of effort up for the whole period. . . . The same attention span is not evident in the regular science classes. . . . In the regular class many had trouble just concentrating on what they were doing. The interest level was just not there in doing their assignment. Most were unable to complete the entire assignment. If they didn't get the answer, they just left it blank. In the project class, the questions the students were asking each other had to do with the lesson, while during the regular class, at least half the questions were social or something outside the lesson. (WL, 10259, Paul, 2/16/87)
Teachers also discovered that students who did not do well in a typical
setting frequently blossomed when working with the technology. "Low
achievers" had a chance to experience success and began concentrating
and applying themselves to their projects. In some cases, particular computer
projects sparked these students' interest and tapped a hidden skill. For
example, two high school students "who are noted as low achievers by
everyone, including the students" got turned on by a robotics project
and "worked seriously all the time." Some fourth-grade students
"who do not usually receive as much recognition as others have proven
to be very good at solving multi-stage problems." A first-grade student
"who is low to average on academics is a whiz at word processing and
finished all 21 lessons of that program today." In a fourth-grade classroom,
a student "who doesn't do well in many courses is a whiz at patterns,
and he was the only one to figure it out."
As teachers viewed these students in a new light, they provided more praise
and encouragement, both privately and publicly. Moreover, other students
in the class treated them differently. For instance, the fourth-grade student
referred to discovered that the other students in the class spontaneously
clustered around his computer, cheered him on, and marveled at his accomplishment.
The teacher subsequently provided him with a certificate for being the first
to complete the assignment.
Changes in Student Initiative
Increases in student initiative occurred in two ways. First, many students
went beyond the requirements of their assignments. For example, high school
chemistry students developed a spreadsheet to do the calculations for an
assignment. In a first-grade classroom, students independently decided to
compile their stories into an illustrated book. As part of an election project,
high school students developed a computerized voter registration system--complete
with sound.
Second, individual students or small groups of students independently explored
new applications and developed skills; they then spontaneously attracted
the interest of other students in the class. For instance, students created
spreadsheets on their own for everything from baseball cards to paper-route
billings. Several sixth-grade boys used HyperCard to create a computer adventure
game on their own. In a second-grade classroom, a wave of interest was created
among the students after one of them shared a story he had written on his
home computer. As the ACOT coordinator described,
The boys formed a mystery story writers group, complete with a name--The Gang. They ask to have free time to write their stories. They even went to the Publishing Center to make an appointment to bind their books. (WL, 13073, Vince, 3/30/89)
Some teachers allowed the students to provide formal instruction to other
students in the class.
I was real excited by the interesting things that three students did on their own, not as assignments. . . I asked each of those three students to stand up and give a short demo to the class with the PC viewer. (AT, 7446, Harriet, 11/29/88)
I have two students who are incredibly taken away by Logowriter! They have written many animated and musical programs. They figured out how to create subdirectories and then how to jump from one to the next. They took two days and taught the class how to do it. (WL, 13336, Joshua, 3/8/89)
Increased Student Experimentation and Risk-Taking
The students' enhanced engagement while using technology led them to greater
experimentation, which, in turn, further increased their level of engagement.
Working independently with the computer, the students seemed willing to
take more risks. Through this experimentation, they learned to use new applications
without direct instruction. As students made discoveries, they shared them
with others in spontaneous peer coaching. For example, in one classroom,
the teacher showed only one student how to format the other side of a disk.
Before long, everyone had formatted the reverse sides of the disks. As another
elementary teacher said,
I often wonder when the children discover and where they learn how to figure out the various pieces of software and the computer. I may have taught one, or none, and they have discovered on their own. (AT, 10795, Bill, 3/21/89)
Through experimentation, students could explore new programs and applications
without concern about making mistakes. As one teacher commented, "They
get to practice in private with the computer which doesn't really judge,
and nobody keeps a record or a tally of what's going on." Moreover,
with the computer, when students found out that a particular strategy didn't
succeed, they generally would keep working independently until they figured
it out on their own. In contrast, when they worked with a teacher and could
ask what to do next, they were less inclined to discover solutions on their
own.
One teacher also observed that, unlike many adults, the students seemed
unafraid of "crashing or causing any problems"; this attitude
enhanced their desire to "try everything." At one site, a coordinator
walked into a classroom and was immediately mobbed with students--"not
with inquiries for help, as might be expected with the introduction of software,
but rather with pleas to see what each of them had discovered on their own."
Taking advantage of students' experimentation and engagement, teachers could
introduce an assignment and then focus their efforts on individual students
or small-group activities, such as directed reading. The opportunity to
experiment and explore also enhanced student creativity.
Challenges Associated with Changes
in Student Engagement
Problems with Student Frustration
While increased student enthusiasm provided numerous benefits, it also presented
challenges to the teachers. When software programs were used repeatedly,
they became routine and boring. And when computer projects were too difficult
or too easy, students' enthusiasm turned to frustration. As several teachers
summarized,
We have observed how you can lose them if you don't keep them extremely
motivated. If a piece of software gets old to them, they won't stick with it.
(AT, 9449, Al, 2/28/89)
The kids need something different. We all seem to be tired of what we are using. (AT, 1531, Louise, 1/23/90)
A high school teacher pointed out that students started to tire of a particular
software program because they were using it in all subject areas.
The teachers also began to recognize that some software programs created
a great deal of initial enthusiasm but couldn't sustain student interest
for more than a few days. For example, students lost interest in software
that was directed and didn't allow for sufficient experimentation. The students
preferred to explore rather than be told how to do something--whether by
a computer or a human. When new software was being introduced, students
got bored with the guided tours included in the programs but perked up again
when they were allowed to investigate and discover on their own.
Particular computer programs and projects proved too difficult for some
students, yet too easy for others in the same class. For example, slow readers
quickly became frustrated with certain computer programs such as Carmen
Sandiego, and students who had trouble with vocabulary lost interest in
programs that focused on word games. Students who could quickly sail through
a program also became bored and frustrated if not given additional challenges.
Time Trade-offs
Students' increased interest in and commitment to learning while using technology
also led to problems related to time management. Teachers sometimes questioned
whether they should allow computer activities to extend beyond the allotted
time. One teacher finally instructed a student teacher to stop waiting for
the students to finish working at the computer because "they would
be at the computer all day if given the choice."
Additionally, teachers expressed concern about students' large investments
of time on items such as layout or cover design for a project. They wondered
if the time spent on making the project visually appealing detracted from
the time spent on content.
Finally, some teachers and parents questioned the trade-off of time for
physical and social activities. For example, an elementary teacher felt
that students needed the time at recess to be outside and to learn to socialize
with one another, and, similarly, a parent worried that her son was becoming
a "computer nerd."
Increased Student Distractibility
Despite the positive effect of technology on most students' level of engagement,
teachers continued to be challenged by some students' off-task behavior.
For instance, some students became distracted by the increase in noise level
caused by the printers, the keyboards, and the students moving freely around
the classroom. Although most students adapted to the computerized environment,
others seemed unable to handle the sharing among students and the various
activities going on simultaneously. An elementary teacher believed that
"the child who is off task with pencil and paper is off task on the
computer and maybe more so because of the many distractions going on around
him with technology." Another elementary teacher prohibited game-type
software programs in class because the students became so noisy and excited
when using them. He decided this type of program had become "a problem
instead of an asset."
Teachers also puzzled over some students' unwillingness to complete homework
assignments on their home computers. For example, a team of sixth-grade
teachers reported how the students had been "itching to do something
on their own home computer;" but only 27 out of 71 students completed
the first assignment. A fourth-grade teacher couldn't understand why some
of her students would "work on their computers at school but do very
little at home." A high school teacher became discouraged by a group
of seniors who were "not completing any homework assignments."
Although the time students voluntarily spent on computer projects far exceeded
the typical 20-minute attention span of elementary students, teachers discovered
that the students had a saturation point. After working on the computers
for six hours as part of a videotaping project, one elementary student said,
"I never thought I would get tired of the computer, but I don't care
if I don't see one for a while." The point at which students began
to lose their concentration varied across individuals and depended on the
type of computer assignment. An elementary school project coordinator observed
that minor off-task behavior started after students had been working for
one-and-a-half hours on a computer project.
Problems with Setting Boundaries
While teachers generally appreciated the increase in students' willingness
to go beyond the requirements of their assignments, and encouraged their
independence while exploring new applications, they also had to grapple
with the question of boundaries. As one teacher described, "Sometimes
the kids get ahead of us. The question is, do we let them go or do we hold
them back a little bit?" The response to this query varied across teachers.
Some teachers reported having "to keep the kids from going too far"
while others purposely developed assignments that allowed students with
the interest and ability to go beyond the minimum requirements. In the words
of one teacher,
I was really pleased with the way these kids are taking risks and going beyond what is expected of them and being able to explore. They are more imaginative and creative in their thinking. (AT, 9194, Bill, 3/8/89)
In one fifth-grade classroom where students were "really stretching
the boundaries of Logowriter," the teacher supported students' initiative
by calling the publisher's technical assistance group to determine the feasibility
of the students' ideas.
Disruption of Teacher Plans
Student experimentation with the computers also presented challenges to
the teachers, particularly with respect to classroom plans. Students often
became so engrossed in their work on the computers that they ignored other
assignments or continued to work when they should have been listening. For
example, when working with new equipment, students often wanted to stick
with their experimentation until they solved their "problem."
Certain software programs held such appeal that many teachers eventually
monitored and limited their use. When one teacher tried reorganizing the
schedule so that the introduction of new software followed another assignment,
she noted that some students became "clock-watchers." She went
on to say,
The students are so eager to get into some of the computer programs that they aren't taking classwork seriously. Somehow I have to communicate to them that there is a time for everything and each thing has its place. (AT, 2040, Rita, 10/3/88)
One teacher, after attending a workshop, developed greater empathy toward
the students' difficulty in moving to other classroom activities. As he
described,
I notice it is hard for the kids to break away when I say "Stop!" in class too. Recently I found myself doing the same kind of thing during a PageMaker workshop. I just kept right on showing somebody something when the presenter asked for our attention. (AT, 3996, Carl, 11/7/87)
Teachers varied in their reactions to the disruption of their plans. Some
teachers viewed it as a significant problem, while others saw it as a potent
opportunity for learning.
Summary
The introduction of technology into the classrooms described in this
study brought about numerous changes in student engagement. Students displayed
increased initiative by going beyond the requirements of assignments, and
by independently exploring new applications. The time students spent on
assignments and projects increased when they used the computers, and they
chose to work on the computers during free time and after-school hours.
Students' independent experimentation at the computer led to spontaneous
peer coaching and cooperative learning. Increased student enthusiasm facilitated
their learning and reinforced the teachers' efforts. The enthusiasm of individual
students also motivated other students in the class.
Although teachers primarily viewed the changes in student engagement as
positive, the changes also produced challenges for them. Teachers wondered
to what extent students should be allowed to go beyond assignments and they
questioned the amount of time the students spent on computer activities.
Teachers found it difficult to move students to other classroom activities
and frequently found their plans disrupted. Student enthusiasm turned to
frustration when software programs were used repeatedly and when computer
assignments were too easy or too difficult. In addition, some students had
difficulty adjusting to the computerized environments with the increased
noise, the sharing among students, and the simultaneous activities.
Discussion and Implications
Conditions for Creating Enduring Student Engagement
The initial interest and enthusiasm that technology generates in students
may lead teachers to believe that the simple addition of technology will
increase student engagement. We found that technology had an enduring, positive
impact on student engagement in classrooms only under certain conditions.
First, in classrooms where teachers used technology as one tool among many
in their instructional repertoire, students were less likely to reach a
saturation point on the computers. In such classrooms, computers were used
only when they were the most appropriate tool for completing an assignment,
not simply because they were available.
Second, student engagement remained high in classrooms where technology
use was integrated into the larger curricular framework. Learning how to
use the technology was not viewed by teachers in this project as another
subject to fit into an already full curriculum, as so often happens in schools
with computer labs. Teachers who allowed students to learn computer skills
within the context of a meaningful assignment--rather than setting aside
a block of "computer time" during which students would practice
keyboarding or learn how to do word processing--were generally rewarded
with higher levels of student engagement.
Third, student engagement was more likely to endure in classrooms that emphasized
the use of tool applications such as word processing programs, desktop publishing
software, and HyperCard applications. While drill-and-practice software
had its place in some classrooms, overreliance on materials such as these
generally led quickly to student boredom and frustration. Students were
most engaged when using programs that allowed experimentation and exploration.
Finally, student engagement was fostered in classrooms where teachers adjusted
the use of technology to individual differences in both interest and ability.
Just as students will lose interest in a mathematics assignment that is
too simple or too difficult, so, too, will they become frustrated when using
technology if teachers do not take their individual needs into account.
Teacher Beliefs About Their Role
In addition to benefits such as increased student engagement and enthusiasm,
the introduction of technology into the classroom can also pose challenges
for teachers. However, a close examination of the challenges discussed in
this paper reveals that many of the dilemmas faced by these teachers related
more to their beliefs about the traditional teacher role than to problems
inherent in using technology.
For example, in classrooms where teachers were willing to relinquish their
role as "dispenser of knowledge" and allowed students more control
over their own learning, concerns about issues such as overzealous student
experimentation and disruption of teacher plans became less paramount than
in classrooms that remained more teacher-directed. And, as teachers moved
away from the belief that they had to break learning into discrete subject
areas such as mathematics and language, they started relying more on project-based
instruction, and became less concerned that the computer was "taking
away" time from other subject areas. Thus, we found that the dilemmas
brought about by the introduction of technology challenged teachers to reexamine
beliefs about their role in the classroom, and in many cases, led toward
more child-centered rather than curriculum-centered instruction and toward
more active rather than passive learning (Dwyer, Ringstaff & Sandholtz,
1990). We believe that fundamental instructional changes such as these will
have an impact on student engagement far more lasting than that of any technological
tool in and of itself.
Support for Technology Integration
As technology is provided to teachers for use in their classrooms, in-service
programs can aid them in incorporating this tool productively into their
instruction. However, in-service programs aimed simply at training teachers
to hook up and operate equipment or run certain types of instructional software
are not sufficient.
Our overall experience with the ACOT project suggests that lasting, significant
change--in teachers' beliefs about their role, in instructional practices,
and in student outcomes--will not occur simply by giving teachers the latest
technological tools. Rather, teachers must be provided with ongoing support,
something that is available only if the larger system in which they are
working changes as well. In this project, organizational supports for teachers
included the following:
- Training workshops
- Ongoing technical support
- Release time to attend professional conferences
- Time during the school day for joint planning and team teaching
- A telecommunications network that allowed interaction across sites
and with project staff
- The opportunity for routine peer observations and group discussions
Administrators interested in creating instructional change must be willing
to implement structural or programmatic shifts in the environment for teachers
who are evolving their instructional outlook. Furthermore, teachers must
be given time to reflect upon their experiences so they can evaluate the
consequences of different instructional approaches. Unless teachers are
given the training and support to integrate technology, rather than simply
to use it, the positive effects of technology on student engagement may
not endure.
Student Engagement Revisited
Teachers, administrators, parents, and researchers alike agree on the
importance of student engagement. When students are actively engaged and
involved in a task, learning is a likely result. The disagreement emerges
as researchers attempt to operationalize student engagement. In devising
discrete measures, researchers have disregarded the teachers' judgment,
relying instead on outside observers who decide if a student "is looking
at some appropriate instructional object or person" (Wilson, 1987,
p. 15) for five or ten seconds of each minute during a short segment of
the school day. These types of measures are extremely limited and provide
little useful information for teachers anxious to increase student engagement.
The frequent responses to these time-on-task studies are new policies aimed
at lengthening the school day and specifying time allocations for various
subject areas. Although well-intentioned, these approaches ignore the larger
instructional framework and may lead to greater student disengagement if
teaching practices remain unchanged. By looking at student engagement more
broadly and over longer period of times, we can begin to find the conditions
that support it.
Although various studies indicate that technology has a positive impact
on student engagement, these increases are often attributed to the novelty
effect. By looking at the long-term impact of technology on student engagement,
our research shows that the critical factor is not the novelty of the computer
but rather the way in which the technology is being used in classroom instruction.
Students can be disengaged just as quickly with technology as with traditional
instruction, and drill-and-practice exercises on the computer differ very
little from drill-and-practice exercises on paper.
Reform efforts in education propose moving toward instructional practices
that are interdisciplinary, student-centered, and project-based. For example,
the California Elementary Grades Task Force recommends reducing the amount
of time spent on skills-based activities in favor of authentic learning
tasks based on discovery and active student participation (California Department
of Education, 1992). Although "the traditional skills-based curriculum
lent itself to short blocks of time for each subject area," the thinking
curriculum requires "longer blocks of time--extending not just over
several hours but over days or even weeks of effort" (p.26). The California
High School Task Force points to the need for flexible use of time, driven
by the curriculum and controlled by an interdisciplinary team of teachers
(California Department of Education, 1992). The premise underlying these
recommendations is that students' schoolwork must be "interesting and
engaging" (p.29).
These proposed reforms are inconsistent with a narrow view of student engagement.
When learning activities extend over hours, days, and weeks, it is meaningless
to measure engagement in terms of seconds and minutes. In assessing the
impact of multidimensional learning approaches, researchers must move beyond
the limited measures of student engagement utilized in traditional time-on-task
studies.
References
Anderson, L. & Scott, C., (1978). The relationship among teaching
methods, student characteristics and student involvement in learning. Journal
of Teacher Education, 29,
52 57.
Baker, E., Gearhart, M. & Herman, J. (1990). The Apple Classroom
of Tomorrow: 1989 evaluation study (Report to Apple Computer). Los Angeles:
UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation.
Bright, G. (1988). Time-on-task in computer and non-computer estimation
games. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching,
7(4), 41 46.
California Department of Education (1992). It's Elementary.
Elementary Grades Task Force. Sacramento, California.
California Department of Education (1992). Second to None: A Vision
of the New
California High School. The Report of the California High School Task
Force.
Sacramento, California.
Capie, W. & Tobin, K. (1981). Pupil engagement in learning tasks:
A fertile area for research in science teaching. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 18(5), 409 417.
Cornbleth, C. & Korth, W. (1979). Instructional, context and
individual differences in pupil involvement in learning activity. A
paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, California.
Delquadri, J., Greenwood, C. & Hall, R., (1979). Opportunity
to respond. Paper presented at the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Association
for Behavior Analysis, Dearborn, Michigan.
Dwyer, D., Ringstaff, C. & Sandholtz, J. (1990). Changes in teachers'
beliefs and practices in technology-rich classrooms. Educational Leadership,
48(8), 45 52.
Far West Laboratory (1979). Study surfaces helpful hints for teachers.
Educational Research and Development Report, 2(3).
Fish, M. & Feldman, S. (1988). Teacher and student verbal behavior
in microcomputer classes: An observational study. Journal of Classroom
Interaction, 23(1), 15 21.
Fisher, C., Berliner, D., Filby, N., Marliave R., Cahen, L. & Dishaw,
M. (1980). Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student achievement:
An overview. In C. Denham & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to Learn.
Washington, D.C., National Institute of Education.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded
theory. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.
Hamilton, D., MacDonald, B., King, C., Jenkins, D. & Parlett, M.
(1977). Beyond the numbers game. London: MacMillan Education Ltd.
Hawkins J., Sheingold K., Gearhart, M. & Berger, C. (1982). Microcomputers
in schools: Impact on the social life of elementary classrooms. Journal
of Applied Developmental Psychology, 3, 361 373.
Johnston, J. & Joscelyn, M. (1989). The Computer Revolution
in Teaching. National Center for Research to Improve Secondary Teaching
and Learning, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Keirns, J. (1990). Effects of immediate computer access on teachers'
beliefs and practices: A longitudinal case study of the reflections of three
teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, CA.
Latham, G. & Stoddard, C. (1986). Time on Task Analysis of
the Logan High School Wandah Project. Unpublished report, Wasatch Institute
for Research and Evaluation, Logan, Utah.
MacArthur, C., Haynes, J. & Malouf, D. (1986). Learning disabled
students' engaged time and classroom interaction: The impact of computer
assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
2(2), 189 197.
Magliaro, S. & Borko, H. (1986). A naturalistic investigation
of experienced teachers' and student teachers' instructional practices.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 2(2), 127 137.
McGarity, J. & Butts, D. (1984). The relationship among teacher
classroom management behavior, student engagement, and student achievement
of middle and high school science students of varying aptitude. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 21(1), 55 61.
Mevarech, Z. (1986). Time engagement and achievement in CAI. Educational
Technology, 26(7), 38 40.
Miles, M. & Huberman, A. (1984). Qualitative data analysis.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Newmann, F. (1986). Priorities for the future: Toward a common agenda.
Social
Education, 50(4), 240 250.
Perkins, V. (1988). Effective instruction using microcomputers. Academic
Therapy, 24(2), 129 135.
Phelan, P. (1989). The addition of computers to a first-grade
classroom: A case study of two children. Unpublished report.
Smith, L. (1978). An evolving logic of participant observation, educational
ethnography and other case studies. In L. Shulman (Ed.), Review of research
in education.
Itaska, IL: Peacock.
Thorndike, R. & Hagen, E. (1986). Measurement and evaluation
in psychology and education (4th edition). New York: Macmillan.
Tobin, K. (1984). Student task involvement in activity oriented science.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(5), 469 482.
Vockell, E. (1987). The computer and academic learning time. The
Clearing House, 61(2), 72 75.
Wilson, R. (1987). Direct observation of academic learning time.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 19(2), 13 17.
Zuk, D. & Danner, F. (1986). The effects of microcomputers
on children's attention
to reading tasks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California.
1 The data notation system used throughout this
paper indicates the source of the data (AT = audiotape data; WL = weekly
reports sent via electronic mail; SL = telecommunications sent between sites),
the episode's entry number in the data base, the teacher's pseudonym, and
the date the data were generated.
2 The actual number of episodes related to student engagement
generated by each of the 32 teachers in this study varied tremendously.
For example, a few teachers had only a handful of episodes related to student
engagement, while others had over two hundred. This wide range can be attributed
to a number of factors. First, data for this study were collected over a
six-year period, and some of the teachers represented in the database were
not involved for the entire time. Second, teachers differed in the number
of audiotape journals they completed. Finally, the content of the tapes
was left up to the discretion of each teacher, and some teachers were more
interested in discussing student engagement than others. The quotations
in this paper represent 18 different teachers.