Technology in education: Transitions

Choices made now will determine whether education successfully makes these transitions.

Until recently the incorporation of technologies into schooling has been marked by relatively slow acquisition of hardware and software and inadequate budgeting strategies; emphasis in the majority of schools on basic drill and computer skills rather than as tools for discipline-based learning for high standards; and little effort to help educators integrate the tools into teaching, learning, assessment, and management.

Educators have primarily focused on the question: "Should schools have computers?" -- rather than on the more productive one: "How are technologies best used in education to realize high achievement standards now being developed by states and to prepare students for the world they will enter when they leave school?" Education is the only "knowledge industry" still asking the question of whether modern technologies should be part of the enterprise of learning and work. It now is estimated that 60 percent of jobs by the year 2000 will require skills with information technologies. These jobs are expected to pay a 10-15 percent premium over jobs that do not require them. This is a dramatic rise from the 1984 estimate of 25 percent of jobs requiring such skills, and the 1993 figure of 47 percent. It has been argued persuasively that the match earlier in this century between the country's educational system and the needs of the manufacturing industry was the basis for much of our national success in those years. (See endnote 1 for data sources.) Now that industry has changed, due in part to technologies, new skills are needed, requiring new approaches to education.

Technologies will need to play a substantial role in creating the conditions of effective learning for all students. Simply put, to realize high standards, education needs to move beyond its traditional primary strategy of whole group instruction and passive absorption of facts by students. New, more effective methods are based on engaging students in complex and meaningful problem-solving tasks. Students learn most effectively through combined discussion, debate, analysis and interpretation, and judgment, in addition to traditional whole group instruction. To make this possible throughout schools, we will need to take advantage of the rapid evolution of telecommunications and multimedia technologies. They are capable of helping to individualize education and of bringing vast new resources to schools from libraries and cultural and scientific institutions that are necessary to engaged and effective education. They also promise to connect schools with homes and communities in more vibrant ways that allow students to continue educational activities after school and provide home-school links. Students need to learn with the tools they will be using throughout their work lives, including the tools of science, mathematics, and inquiry. Likewise, technologies can support new kinds of professional development for teachers that now clearly are needed for better schooling.

New software and solutions are being developed continually to improve student achievement. In addition, a number of projects, schools, and districts have been exploring the question of how to take best advantage of the promise of advanced technologies in comprehensive approaches. While there are many excellent educational software offerings, this paper highlights experiences from models developed by schools, universities, and not-for-profit organizations that can offer guidance to others for integrating technologies more effectively into education.

Making the transition from stand-along hardware to connectivity

To take full advantage of technologies, schools must rapidly move from their current use of largely isolated, aging computers to a core of upgraded machines that are linked to each other and to the world (endnote 2).

What is the present situation?

Almost all schools now have computers. In 1995, the average computer to student ratio in public K-12 education was estimated to be one instructional computer for every nine students. This represents a great advance from the 1984 average ratio of one computer to 125 students. These averages, however, mask a very uneven distribution of equipment: some schools have as many as one computer for every seven children, whereas others have only one computer for every 35 students. There is considerable variation by state, with Kentucky having the highest ratio (1:8), and New Hampshire the lowest (1:22).

While federal programs and corporate philanthropy have done much to "level the playing field," schools with high proportions of poor and minority students tend to have less equipment. For example, those schools with the lowest proportion of minority students (less than four percent) had an average of one computer for every 14 students, whereas those with the highest percentage (greater than 24 percent) had an average of one for 18. Likewise for poor students: by 1994, those schools with more than 80 percent Chapter 1 students had an average of 7.2 computers per 100 students, whereas those with relatively few poor students (less than 20 percent Chapter 1) had an average of 8.6 computers per 100 students.

Also sobering is the age and poor capacity of the current equipment throughout K-12 education. Five percent of computers in today's schools are old 8-bit machines. As of 1994, 85 percent of the installed base could not support multimedia applications or connectivity to outside resources. Few schools have programs to upgrade systematically their technologies; unlike businesses, most schools must treat computers as one-time hardware purchases because of their funding mechanisms.

Schools are just beginning to take advantage of telecommunications. As of 1995, it was estimated that while 85 percent of schools currently had local or wide area networking capability, most of this was for administrative purposes. Forty-five percent of classrooms had access to a local area network, but only one-third (35 percent) had access to a wide area network. Only 20 percent of schools allowed teachers access to local area networks in their workrooms, and only 14 percent of schools provided similar access to wide area networks. A mere seven percent of schools were connected to the high speed, high quality lines that are needed to take full advantage of two-way video and audio of modern telecommunications. Forty percent of schools reported that lack of or poor equipment was a major barrier to either the acquisition or the use of advanced telecommunications. Aging facilities in many districts offer a particular challenge in this respect.

However, a national survey of 917 schools recently released by the Department of Education suggests that there has been some rapid progress. The study found that about half of the schools are now connected to the Internet (as compared with 35 percent a year ago), and the number of classroom connections has risen to nine percent. Connectivity varies by wealth; 31 percent of low-income schools in the survey (more than 71 percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) were connected, compared with 62 percent of schools with fewer than 11 percent of students thus eligible. It also varies by school type; 65 percent of high schools were connected to the Internet (49 percent the previous year) compared with 46 percent of elementary schools (30 percent the previous year).

According to a 1995 report by McKinsey & Co., state and local governments supply 84 percent of K-12 public education monies overall. But state and local governments supply only about 60 percent of the spending for educational technologies. Federal monies, which comprise six percent of public school funds, provide 25 percent of schools' technology budgets. Business donations and other fundraising efforts, which make up ten percent of education monies, cover the remaining 15 percent of technology funds -- with business picking up ten percent of this tab.

This form of budgeting for technology leads to considerable unpredictability and the consequent aging stock and untrained personnel schools now experience. Technology planning thus tends to be guided by a one-time purchase mentality rather than long-term planning for basic recurrent costs (technical support, training, and upgrading/replacement), as is common in business. The present situation will become only more problematic as schools seek to take advantage of connectivity.

Technology is beginning to change in American homes as well. A national survey conducted in June, 1995 (Times-Mirror) found that 36 percent of all American households have a personal computer, up from the 31 percent reported in their May, 1994 study. It found that this growth is largely for personal use rather than for work tasks. Those who acquired home computers in the past two years are more likely to be middle-income, less highly educated, and younger than those who bought home machines earlier. A 1995 report by Grunwold Associates finds that 50 percent of consumers purchasing computers say that "education of children" is a reason for their purchase.

When parsed by education and income, the 1995 analysis reveals that 57 percent of households of college graduates whose combined income is higher than $50,000 per year now have a personal computer. By contrast, only about 12 percent of low-income homes (under $20,000) have a personal computer. This difference also is seen for telecommunications. Fifteen percent of households of college graduates subscribe to an on-line service, and 16 percent use e-mail. For households earning more than $50,000, the corresponding figures are 14 percent and 13 percent. For households earning less than $20,000 and for those with less than a high school education, only one percent subscribe, and two percent use e-mail.

In 1994, 11 million homes (12 percent) had modern-equipped computers. By June 1995, 18 million did. Use of on-line services also increased dramatically from 5 million in 1994 to 12 million in 1995. An additional two million connect directly to the Internet. These numbers are expected to continue to rise smartly. At this point, however, only 20 percent of this sample connect daily. E-mail is the most frequent activity (53 percent at least once a week compared with on-line news at 30 percent, discussion groups at 23 percent, entertainment at 19 percent, and financial information at 14 percent of users).

When examined by race, the 1995 survey finds that 33 percent of white households have a computer with seven percent subscribing to on-line services; 20 percent of black households have a computer with three percent subscribing; 29 percent of Hispanic households have a computer, with eight percent subscribing.

When examined by gender, the 1995 survey indicates that 38 percent of computer users are male, and 28 percent female. There is likewise a difference in telecommunications use. Nine percent of males subscribe to an on-line service, and nine percent use e-mail; four percent of females subscribe, and six percent use e-mail.

A recent study by the Rand Corporation confirms differences in access based primarily on income and education, but also on race, ethnicity, location, and age. These differences have increased significantly since 1989, and the trend continues. Controlling for income and education, Hispanic, African American, and Native American households have the lowest percentage of computers. Telephone access, necessary for telecommunications, also is limited by race/ethnicity and location,especially for Native Americans, rural Hispanics, and African Americans.

The Rand study found benefits for those who have access to telecommunications-based networks, including gaining more accurate information about "matters of political, professional, and organizational concern," as well as increased social and civic alliances. People with access also experience a decrease in status-linked barriers to participation in public life, including links to civic networks that facilitate "interpersonal relationships and the social integration of otherwise marginalized group" (see endnote 3). The study, in addition, identified outcomes related to possibly higher wages. One way to address the problem of access is to focus on the school as a possible point of community access.

The differences between homes and schools with respect to technology are likely to become increasingly problematic as more computational and communications power becomes available to children at home. This is particularly sobering with respect to equitable access and use for urban and rural children.

What is needed for transition?

Given recent initiatives from industry, activity underway in many states, and the President's recent proposal for an Educational Technology Initiative to connect all schools to the "information superhighway," the numbers cited may begin to change rapidly for schools. Many states now are involved in a variety of programs and activities to address the challenges of connectivity for education. But "having a line" is only one component of stable access to modern resources for learning.

First, considerable upgrading of computational hardware is needed in most schools to take advantage of connectivity and multimedia technology. In many cases, this means changing educational designs so that computational and communications resources are located in classrooms and libraries where they are most needed rather than corralled in computer "laboratories."

Second, a different budgeting process is needed. Technology purchases require a long-range, planned program of replacement and upgrading rather than a one-time purchase. Budgeting must also include costs of regular telecommunications access. Eighteen states thus far have some form of preferential rates for schools. The recent Telecommunications Act will be important in this regard.

Third, resource planning must take into account the other costs necessary to effective use of technologies. It is now estimated that hardware costs are only 55 percent of needed expenditures; software and technical support are another 30 percent, and training requires a minimum of 15 percent. Far too little has been invested in these latter categories thus far.

The recent McKinsey study cited above created cost models of the infrastructure that is needed to provide modern computational equipment and connectivity for all public schools. Currently about 1.3 percent of the national school budget is spent on instructional technology. The study estimates that an investment of between 1.5 percent and 3.9 percent of the public education budget would be required (in the peak year of expenditure) over a five-to-ten year period to purchase new equipment, to wire schools, and to provide access and support. The range depends on the model of connectivity that is adopted. A single central room in a school with standard phone lines is the minimal configuration (estimated total of $11 billion up-front costs). Distributed equipment to all classrooms for ubiquitous student use with high speed connections is the ideal and most costly model (estimated total of $47 billion upfront costs). The models include basic technical support and ongoing training, much as industry invests in technical maintenance of computers and networks, and in continual personnel training (see endnote 4).

Fourth, alliances are needed within the public school system to create purchasing consortia that can reduce the hardware costs and that have the potential to reduce costs by investing in software development and professional training. Regional consortia have been organized in some places for purchasing technology at discount rates. In addition, the state of Florida, for example, has created a program which pools money from participating districts to contract with publishers for the development of customized software. This arrangement is attractive to publishers because it provides development funds, reducing their investment and risk. Likewise, planning so that the public sector can benefit from investments for industry is attractive. The states of North Carolina and Iowa, for example, have been involved in creating statewide fiber optic backbones attractive to and supported by industrial and commercial investment and use. The broadband connectivity is then also available for educational and health care purposes. Regional state consortia are purchasing software common to members at volume discounts.

A variety of models and projects are underway that focus on aspects of these problems, adapted to local circumstance. The projects can provide some guidance as the education sector moves toward connectivity. A few such projects are mentioned below. Some of these project will be demonstrated at the 1996 National Education Summit, and information about others will be made available there.

Hawaii, with its educational community disbursed over several islands, has created a statewide educational telecommunications network that offers a diverse system of educational programs to schools and communities. It supports a range of services, from online courses to access to distributed resources for classrooms to professional development.

Models also exist at a community level. Pittsburgh, PA for example, assisted by grant funds from the National Science Foundation, has created a citywide network for use by schools and community organizations. The project provides the technical infrastructure and expertise for different organizations to adapt the resources to their own purposes and needs. Union City, NJ,with support from Bell Atlantic, has been involved in a field trial of broadband telecommunications linking a middle school with students' homes and with a variety of multimedia resources for learning. Combined with a major effort to change the quality of education in this poor community, the technologies have played a key role in enhancing student achievement on traditional measures of success.

With support from IBM's Reinventing Education initiative, Charlotte-Mecklenberg, NC is another model for linking schools with homes and other institutions throughout the community. Network-based software enables parents to communicate with schools and to better understand and participate in their children's progress.

AT&T also is engaged in developing a comprehensive approach to and support for a national learning network plan.

As the standard for educational technology transforms from isolated computers to connected systems, more schools will be wired and linked to a growing array of resources, experts and community supports. Beyond mere wiring, it is critical to learn from ongoing models such as these on how best to take advantage of connectivity for enhancing learning.

The evidence about what computers are currently used for in K-12 schools is sobering. A 1994 national survey by Henry Jay Becker indicates that an individual student uses a computer in school on average for two hours per week, as reported by computer coordinators. (In the same survey, students themselves report markedly less use.) The 1995 Grunwold Associates study also finds that students with computers in their homes spent more time on homework each week than students without computers.

In elementary schools, the technologies are overwhelmingly used for basic skill exercise, isolated from the ongoing curriculum. In middle and high schools, the technologies still primarily are used for word processing and for learning computer skills. It is quite rare for these tools to be integrated into work in the disciplines; only 19 percent of high school English classes, six-seven percent of high school mathematics classes, and three percent of social studies classes integrate technologies into learning (see endnote 5).

In a 1994 survey of new teachers (recent graduates of education schools) for the Office of Technology Assessment, less than ten percent felt prepared to use multimedia and communications technologies in their teaching. Only about half believed they had sufficient experience with even the older applications, such as drill and practice and word processing, to use them in their teaching (endnote 6).

A great deal of research has been done on the effectiveness of these older technology applications for learning. Metanalysis of 254 studies conducted during the 1980's indicates that students in technology-enhanced circumstances had on average a ten percentile point advantage over students with traditional materials alone. As Henry Jay Becker points out, this research approach has methodological flaws (very diverse materials, short time periods, bias toward publishable studies), but there is considerable evidence that technologies can -- in reasonable circumstances -- deliver one of the key components for certain aspects of good education: self-paced individualized learning (endnote 7).

There is less evidence available on how technologies best support the other key features of good education, including the more complex problem-based and collaborative methods that are thought necessary to higher standards of student achievement. Many involved in research and development believe that the true advantages of the technologies only will be realized in concert with substantial changes in teaching practice. These models of learning in classrooms are newer and more difficult

and expensive to study. A few robust models (see below) however, provide evidence about the effectiveness of these new technology-enhanced teaching approaches.

To make the transition from the isolated and limited use of technologies that characterizes most schools today to productive integration throughout the curriculum, several steps must be taken.

First, better alignment is needed between the changing goals for teaching and learning that are represented in the standards and assessments and the integration of technologies. This would mean bringing together in much closer collaboration those who are engaged in the ongoing efforts to reform education and those who are designing and integrating technologies for learning. The roles for technologies need to be defined more precisely in relation to the difficult problems of achieving higher standards.

Second, while a collection of good software now exists, it is far from sufficient. The most innovative materials today tend to be found in mathematics and science. The content of technology-based materials needs to be broadened considerably and to reach much more deeply into the other disciplines. The content has been limited because the paying market for materials has been relatively small when compared with the home market (approximately $290 million spent by schools on software in 1993-94 compared with an anticipated 1995 home educational software expenditure of $1.4 billion). Also, because schools have sought free or low-cost solutions, they often do not have the hardware to take advantage of the latest software. There needs to be considerably more investment in innovative design of technology-based materials for learning, especially to support the reform of education for higher standards. Cycles of research and development are needed that take more rapid advantage of technical advances so that they reach schools sooner than has been the norm.

In addition, the software industry for schools now operates in a very uncertain business environment. Though there are some efforts underway for change, twenty-two states have an adoption process that was developed for text materials and is inappropriate in many respects for the software industry (e.g., five-year purchase cycles). Many other states have antiquated procurement processes which create a poor business climate for the sort of innovation now needed in the educational software/content industry (endnote 8).

Third, as Nora Sabelli of the National Science Foundation points out, technology in education requires a "testbed" infrastructure to support continuing innovation. Complementing research and development for specific products, large-scale and ongoing "experimental" sites allow these new approaches continually to be tested and refined in districts or schools to understand and seed large-scale implementation. Education has chronically had great difficulty absorbing powerful innovations nationally, and this has proved true for the electronic technologies over the last decade. The National Science Foundation, the Department of Education, and the Department of Commerce, often in partnership with industry, have supported testbeds for telecommunications infrastructures (states, communities, districts) over the last several years that can provide guidance (endnote 9).

Fourth, and most critical, the professional preparation and development of teachers and other educators must change if we are to create schools that take advantage of technologies for higher standards. Teachers in preparation must themselves experience powerful uses of technologies for learning. They must be taught to use them well in their own teaching. The technologies are also likely to be key to the solution of chronic problems of providing effective professional development at scale. This is further discussed in the subsequent section.

A number of models exist in schools around that country that demonstrate how technologies can be incorporated throughout the curriculum to enhance thinking and problem-solving. Many software titles and solutions currently on the market focus on these approaches. Schools and universities also have served as laboratories for new developments.

The Jasper project of Vanderbilt University combines video, computational and telecommunications technologies to create a vibrant elementary mathematics curriculum that involves students in the kind of mathematics problem-solving required by the standards. Jasper transforms the way mathematics is taught in the classrooms, taking advantage of the technologies to engage students in meaningful real-world mathematics. Students throughout seven southern states have worked with this curriculum -- and with each other -- to share their solutions and ideas about mathematics. These students have performed significantly better both on standard mathematics assessments and on new tests of problem-solving abilities.

The CoVis (Collaborative Visualization) project of Northwestern University has developed a technology-enhanced science curriculum for high schools. The curriculum combines computer-based inquiry tools, advanced scientific visualization software now used by scientists, project-based pedagogy, and national broadband links to scientists and to the Exploratorium in San Francisco. The curriculum transforms classrooms into laboratories of inquiry that are much closer to the ideas and methods of current scientific work than is typical of high schools. The curriculum is being used in about fifty schools around the country with impressive achievement results.

The New American Schools Development Corporation (NASDC) has created a school design that seamlessly integrates technologies into teaching and learning -- the Co-nect School developed by Bolt Beranek & Newman. From the outset, this school model was conceived to use networking and multimedia technologies in its overall functioning. The model is now being used in a number of states and districts around the country.

The Library of Congress in Washington, DC has been exploring how to make digitized versions of its historical collections available to schools and to the general public through networking technologies. Which materials are most appealing and useful? How should they be "packaged" for education? What kinds of curricula and activities should surround the availability of such rich and deep primary source materials? As more and more resources from the nation's cultural and scientific institutions come "online," such pioneer projects are key guides to the best ways to take advantage of access to our vast information collections to transform education.

Most teachers do not have the necessary preparation to use technologies effectively in their teaching -- either in traditional methods or to realize the more complex methods now advocated to achieve the new standards. As of 1994, only 18 states required preparation in technology for teachers seeking certification. The requirements ranged from a one-credit course to "working knowledge of modern technology and use of computers." Ability to substantially integrate technology into disciplinary- based teaching is not the norm for certification. As noted above, very few new teachers (less than ten percent) feel adequately prepared in this regard. As a 1994 report noted, it is hard to imagine those newly prepared for health professions or businesses to be similarly inadequately trained. Fortune magazine reported that in 1994 $2 billion was spent by businesses training their employees to use new technologies; 90 percent of teachers report that they are self-taught (endnote 10).

In a recent national survey, 50 percent of teachers reported that they had very little experience with technologies, let alone confidence. Eighty-one percent of districts spend less than ten percent of their technology budgets on professional development. Even model districts spend less than 15 percent of their budgets on this critical element. Overall, there is slender training for a complex task. One survey found that only 21 percent of professional development was oriented to technology integration with very little follow-up after an initial workshop (26 percent of courses). More than half of the training was delivered as a half-day workshop with little or no follow-up in classrooms. The training tends to take the form of introduction to the mechanics of the equipment, rather than how to incorporate it to do teaching jobs more effectively. It tends to be exposure, rather than skill-building, and there is seldom incentive to devote the energy needed to use technologies innovatively.

Few schools currently have staff members (called computer coordinators) who are assigned to both teach and maintain the equipment. Only six percent of elementary schools and three percent of high schools have full-time computer coordinators. An analysis of how these individuals spend their time indicates that most is devoted to teaching students about computers, followed by hardware and software maintenance. Only an average of 3.6 hours per week is spent working with other teachers.

There has been little attempt to link reform in colleges of education with what is needed in K-12 schools. Technology has never been central to teacher education, and what exists generally focuses on teaching about the technology rather than teaching with it. A 1994 survey found very low use of technology in college courses around the country. Consequently, teachers are not experiencing effective uses in their own learning, nor do they commonly have the opportunity to learn from other skilled teachers in their field experiences.

Teachers not only need intensive training to use technologies well, but they need training to create classrooms that allow students to achieve the new standards. Ideally, training in new practices and in use of tools to achieve them should be merged. Ideas about effective professional development are changing. The traditional one-shot, short workshop has generally proved ineffective for real change in practice. Effective approaches appear to have four components:

1. Intensive sessions where teachers are able to explore new ideas and materials over several sessions;

2. Follow-up consultation over an extended time period with mentors when teachers return to classrooms and try to implement new practices;

3. Ongoing reflective conversations with colleagues doing the same job and trying to make similar changes; and,

4. Observation of other teachers in their own classrooms, both for exemplary practice and for observing the process of change.

Most likely, it is not possible to solve the logistical problems required by such substantial training without clever uses of technologies for professional preparation and development.

First, professional development in the integration of technologies needs to be closely aligned with the overall goals for educational change. Training should focus on the basics of using technologies for learning -- especially the telecommunications technologies -- but also on how to use them as part of an ensemble of resources for thinking and learning activities. It has been found that in classrooms designed for this kind of engaged learning, the job of the teacher shifts to emphasize more time in individualized instruction than in traditional classrooms, more skill in assessing knowledge levels of different students, and more ability to facilitate and provide just-in-time resources than whole group, one-way instruction.

Second, the technologies need to be enlisted to solve some of the key problems of professional development itself. For example, well-designed network-based training can address some issues that make adequate training costly. Bringing teachers together repeatedly or mentors to schools for repeated follow-up are expensive yet necessary to successful training. Online seminars for teachers and "telementoring" have proved promising alternatives. Videotape can be used to help teachers "observe" and discuss the work of teachers in other classrooms. Teachers are now among the most isolated of all professionals in our society. The communications technologies can be used to create new professional alliances among educators which are vital to a renewed profession.

Third, budgets need to be restructured to take account of the ongoing training costs associated with productive use of these tools. Repetition of the mistakes of the 1980's with respect to inadequate teacher preparation and development would greatly limit the success of the telecommunications advances for education. The McKinsey analysis reports that professional development needs to be the largest ongoing cost during deployment of this generation of technologies, after initial purchases and retrofitting. Experience suggests that at least 15 percent of the overall annual technology budget is an absolute minimum. The state of Florida recently required that 30 percent of technology budgets be spent for training.

Fourth, schools of education need to themselves substantially integrate these tools into the preparation of teachers. Schools of education generally lag behind even the minimal level of technology use found in K-12 schools. Faculty in these institutions have few incentives to change their instruction, either with respect to challenges of reform or technologies. The 1994 OTA report finds that colleges of education who do integrate technologies well have been characterized by three features: (1) institutional leadership which provides permission to explore new strategies and funding opportunities; (2) overall college support for change; and (3) close interaction with the K-12 community.

A number of projects now underway illustrate effective approaches to professional development. The Teacher Development Centers of Apple Computer's ACOT program demonstrate the merger of intensive seminars on integrating technologies into curriculum with apprenticeship to expert K-12 teachers in technology-enhanced classrooms. The Centers also train leadership teams to create local programs in participants' home towns. These TDC's are now located in three sites around the country and are being developed in several other countries.

The Labnet project of the Technical Education Research Center (TERC) has used networking technologies as the central media for long-term online training and support for science teachers around the country. The project demonstrates an effective design that combines professional development for science education with a continuing and active professional community for ongoing discussion and support.

IBM's Reinventing Education initiative is engaged in designing new ways of using the Internet, developing electronic mentors, and designing new pre- and in-service models of professional training.

The Private Universe project of Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory illustrates how videotape can be used as the centerpiece for improved teaching. This project has developed a comprehensive series of videotapes that illustrate the process -- over several months -- of a number of teachers moving from traditional science instruction to hands-on problem-solving methods in their classrooms. Teachers are enthusiastic about these materials because they offer guidance and information about what change looks like in real classrooms of other professionals doing the same job.

The ArtsEdge project of the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. presents innovative design in providing a network-accessible database of information on arts education to teachers around the country. This project has been experimenting with the most effective and appealing ways to provide information and guidance to teachers to enhance instruction in the arts.

The Image Processing project of the University of Arizona provides intensive training for teachers to learn how to use advanced visualization tools in scientific and interdisciplinary projects. The design of this project is based on intensive summer experiences for teachers where they participate in the kinds of learning projects they will be asking of their students, with guided follow-up when they return to their own schools.

Key to making the transitions to full and successful use of technologies for learning are particular actions:

• Establishing connectivity for all schools through making funding available or redeploying existing funding streams, changing budgeting practices, and forming new kinds of alliances throughout the public system and with industry to realize economies of scale;

• Aligning the integration of technologies with the goals for educational innovation and methods for higher standards of achievement;

• Stimulating the development of new content materials and the associated research and development activities that are needed for continuing innovations as the technologies advance (both new content materials and implementation testbeds); and,

• Investing systematically and long-term in professional development, and using technologies themselves as vehicles to accomplish continual professional development.

[ Summit '96 | Participants | Copyright/Disclaimer ]