LM_NET: Library Media Networking

Previous by DateNext by Date Date Index
Previous by ThreadNext by Thread Thread Index
LM_NET Archive



Here's the original question and responses to my question about
productivity.  Thanks for all the responses.  If any else has something
to add, please pass it along and I will gladly submit an addendum to this
message.

Mike

ORIGINAL QUESTION/CALL FOR ASSISTANCE:  PRODUCTIVITY

Help!  In a local school district, the library, media, and technology
people developed a 5 year plan and presented to the Board of Education.
The number one question from the Board was "productivity" - how will this
improve the productivity of students and faculty.

Yes, I know - we can easily question the wisdom of this type of question,
but the solution is not to argue with the board about the question. The
solution is to address the question head-on.  So, please respond if you
have any SPECIFIC research or examples about how technology (information
technology in particular) affects student (and teacher) productivity.
I'm really looking for documented quantitative or qualitative studies, or
specific examples.  Unfortunately, opinions will not sway them very much.

Related quantitative data on issues of the impact of technology on student
performance or attitude would also be acceptable.

I will compile the answers and repost to LM_NET.


REPLIES::::>>>>>>>>>>>

Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 12:27:06 EDT
From: Liz <EHERRICK%ERIE.BITNET@suvm.acs.syr.edu>
To: Mike Eisenberg <mike@ericir.syr.edu>
Subject: TARGET--> Productivity

Mike, my lower track students find research papers much
easier by using our Electronic Grolier's Ency, the
Proquest Resource One periodical index as well as the
Sirs Index on CD. In previous years, we have had to fight to
keep them on task because they reached their frustration
level so quickly. Now they almost enjoy doing the work.

EHERRICK%ERIE.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
"Be a leader...Be a reader"

********************

Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 16:24:45 -0600 (CST)
From: Doug Johnson <palsdaj@VAX1.Mankato.MSUS.EDU>
To: Mike Eisenberg <mike@ERICIR.syr.edu>
Subject: Re: TARGET--> Productivity

Mike,

This study has assessment information which might be of some help:

CODE 77: an Action Research Report
Doug Johnson, Mankato Public Schools
Ph: (507) 387-3461X370
Internet: palsdaj@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
April 6, 1993

The Problem
Research has shown that giving classroom teachers
access to computers improves learning opportunities
for students. ("New Pathways," Electronic Learning
Special Edition, April 1993)  A program for effective
distribution of equipment to teachers and training of
those teachers needs to be carefully planned and
implemented.

The Procedure
An informal team, which consisted of five teachers and
the district media supervisor,  decided that Mankato
Public Schools  needed a formal plan for getting
computers into the hands of all teachers who wanted them.

The district media supervisor requested and received
funds from the administrative council and school board
for 40 computers,  printers, modems, carrying bags, and
software packages for teacher use. (Enough for about 10%
of the teaching staff.)The program, modeled to a large
degree after Tom Ireland's McKnights project in the Lake
Crystal (MN) school district, was named CODE 77 -
Computers On Desks Everywhere in District 77.


CODE 77 has the following characteristics which make it unlike many
other staff development efforts in technology:
* the project is long term and will eventually give all
teachers in the district computer access;

* computers were awarded on the basis of a competitive
grant proposal;

* computers were assigned to individuals, not
buildings, grade levels or departments, and the
computer will stay with the teacher as long as he/she is
with the district;

* 30 hours of inservice for teachers was required, and all
inservice was done outside of regular school hours with
no pay;

* scheduled inservice/support group meetings were
conducted regularly throughout the year;

* all participants helped give a presentation to the
school board on the project;

* this year's CODE 77 participants helped modify the
program for next year; and

* this year's participants will serve as mentors to next
year's participants.

Funds were appropriated in April 1992 and CODE 77
proposal forms  were sent to all teachers in the district.
A team consisting of the district media supervisor,
computer coordinator, and curriculum director chose
the participants on the the following criteria:

                *uniqueness of proposal,

                *likelihood of goal achievement, and

                *wide representation of grade levels and

                subject areas throughout the district.

Seventy-three completed proposals were received, and
forty proposals were funded in May. Participants
received their "bundles" on the first day of a three-day
training session in August. Monthly meetings, before
and after school, have continued through the rest of the
school year.  Participants have received training in
general computer use, file management, word
processing, spreadsheet use, database use, HyperCard,
on-line communications, desktop publishing, use of
graphics, and portfolio record keeping. The board
report was given March 15 which included sharing
portfolios of computer generated materials, a
videotape presentation, and a formal report by two
teacher participants in the program.

The Findings
The program was evaluated in two ways:

1) Portfolios of materials created by the participants and their
students were kept which showed participants were using their computers to:
- create clear and easily modified instructional materials;
- teach students computer productivity skills;
- review educational software;
- communicate with students, parents, the community, other teachers,
and administrators;
- keep student records, including student portfolios;
- edit classroom newspapers;
- edit professional newsletters;
- access on-line information through a modem; and
- write grants, curricula, and continuing education assignments.

2) A project evaluation was completed by each participant.

With a 90% response rate, the evaluation shows that

        - 100% of the respondents are using their computers on a
        daily (86%), often (28%),or regular(6%)  basis;
        - the highest use was for word processing;
        - all respondents used the computer to communicate with
        students, teachers, parents,  or administrators;

        - computer applications which were taught in "hands-on"
        workshops were used by teachers; applications which

        were demonstrated only, were not; and
        - all respondents strongly agreed (81%) or agreed (19%) with
        the statement - "The availability of a computer has

        made me a more effective teacher."

Anecdotal responses from the evaluation included:

"Having access to a computer on my desk has significantly
improved my ability to communicate more effectively and
on a more timely basis with my professional colleagues.
(The work) looks professional!"

"Activity sheets now have a clean, professional edge to
them; parents feel important because messages have a
dignified, personalized touch to them."

"It is very effective to have training with our own
computer in front of us."

"I hope many more people can participate in CODE 77 -
including all math teachers (just a plug)."

"I can't imagine being without it (the computer) now."

In addition, all teachers who began the project stayed
the course and finished the program. An interest survey
recently conducted of the district teaching staff found
that over 100 teachers are interested in participating
in CODE 77 next year. This spring, the district's
administration directed that CODE 77 should receive a
high funding priority for next year.


Observations
* teachers can use computers to improve their
professional productivity and student learning

* while all teachers can use the computer as a tool, there
are different uses which may be equally effective

* teachers need ready access to a computer and adequate
training before it becomes an effective teaching tool

* CODE 77 was well-received throughout the district because it
contained:
- defined goals for the project which were clearly communicated to
the administrative team, school board, and teaching staff;
- clear criteria for selection for the project and the long-term
nature of the project;

- a competitive, but voluntary selection process;
- local press coverage of the project; and
- a mentoring and building resource role of participants to other
teachers.
* teachers who use the computer serve as models to their students,
demonstrating ways technology can be used as a tool to improve
communications, information access, and organization
*teachers commented that the "hands-on" training sessions served as a
model for "student centered learning" as opposed to "teacher directed
learning," and will modify their own teaching styles as a result
* suggestions for program improvement by participants were legitimate
and will be incorporated into next year's program design


This year we are using a rubric pre & post assessment as well as the
portfolios to evalate the program.


Doug Johnson, District Media Supervisor | There is always an easy
                                          solution
Mankato Public Schools, ISD77,          | to every problem - neat,
                                          plausible,
Box 8741, Mankato MN 56001-8741         | and wrong.
507-387-7698,                           |               H.L. Menken
palsdaj@vax1.mankato.msus.edu

********************

Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 16:36:44 -0600 (CST)
From: Carol Simpson <csimpson@tenet.edu>
To: Mike Eisenberg <mike@ERICIR.syr.edu>
Subject: Re: TARGET--> Productivity

We installed a video retrieval system at Poteet High
School.  This system provided student and teacher
controlled access to centrally housed and cataloged
video and audio resources.  While the system was not fully
operational at the start of the school year, that first
year our video CHECKOUTS/RESERVATIONS increased 600%
over a standard check-out-a-VCR-and-lug-it-to-the-classroom year.


Carol Mann Simpson                   csimpson@tenet.edu
Facilitator - Library Technology          214 882-7450
Mesquite (TX) Independent School District

********************

Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 17:06:51 -0600 (CST)
From: Betty Dawn Hamilton <bhamilt@tenet.edu>
To: Mike Eisenberg <mike@ERICIR.syr.edu>
Subject: Re: TARGET--> Productivity

Mike,

I don't have specific research, but it seems to me that the
SCANS summary is the best argument for technology AND
information accessibility.


Betty

********************

Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 19:22:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles H. Phillips <charlesp@umd5.umd.edu>
To: Mike Eisenberg <mike@ERICIR.syr.edu>
Subject: Re: TARGET--> Productivity


Dear Mike,

One of the most convincing statements of fact that you can
present in  quantitative terms in support of automation
and technology is to compare  the number of hits for, say
the keyword "earthquake*" or wom?n as  compared to
looking up the same information in a traditional card
catalog  or in the reqder's guide.  To deepen this you migh
cite the fact that ,  having arrived at the text of an
electronic article the words being  search are
highlighted.  This is a demonstration I use with many of my

grad students and whenever I'm asked to speak on the use of
technology in  the LIbrary media program.  It is simple
easy to understand and quantitative.


I hope that helps some!

Regards,
Charles Phillips
Library Media Specialist  - Brunswick High School, Brunswick,
Maryland
Media Library Science Instructor - Western Maryland College

********************

Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 21:01:36 -0600 (CST)
From: Elizabeth Anne Polk <epolk@tenet.edu>
To: Mike Eisenberg <mike@ERICIR.syr.edu>
Subject: Re: TARGET--> Productivity

Mike, it has been our experience (not research) that
students who have access to library technology,
especially library automation, are more productive
because they do not spend as much time ON their search but
have more time for synthesizing and analyzing
information.  At-risk kids who have short attention
spans can become discouraged and give up on finding
resources using the typical card catalog search.  An OPAC
gives them access to much more information in a fraction
of the time.


Elizabeth Polk
Administrative Supervisor of Libraries
Austin Independent School District
910 E. St. Johns
Austin, Texas 78752

********************

Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 14:33:22 -0600 (CST)
From: Barry Bishop <bbishop@tenet.edu>
To: Mike Eisenberg <mike@ERICIR.syr.edu>
Subject: Re: TARGET--> Productivity

Mike, I hope some of this helps:

1. Colorado Dept. of Ed. (1992) "Access to the library media
collection is the single best school predictor of student
achievement".
2. 1990 University of Pittsburgh study significantly demonstrated:
(with automation)
        a. higher accuracy rating for automated searches,
        b. searcher used more search words,
        c. retrieved more information sources,
        d. searches were quicker.
3. 1992 UT Austin - Automated systems produce 20% increase in
circulation. i.e. students can find more solutions to their
information needs (utilize our investment, the present collections
better).
4. 1991 North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
- keyword, Civil War produces 0 hits in the card catalog (must look
under United States--History--1860-1865--Civil War, which only a
Librarian would know), produces 88 hits with automation.

5. 1990 Florida State University - found that librarians with
automated systems spend more time:  (than without automation)
        a. developing the educational program,
        b. developing the instructional use of technology.

Good Luck
Barry M. Bishop
Pasadena ISD, Texas
bbishop@tenet.edu

********************

Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 19:59:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Mike Eisenberg <mike@ericir.syr.edu>
To: Tracey Bremer <tracey@ericir.syr.edu>
Subject: forward

Subject: RE: TARGET--> Productivity

Mike,

I suggest you look at an article call "New Pathways: Technology's
Empowering Influence on Teaching" in a special edition (April 1993)
of Electronic Learning.

Good stuff.  It quotes studies which show:
- teachers with computers expect more from their students, spend

  more time with individual students, etc
- teachers save an average of 36  minutes a day in administrative

  tasks alone
- citations to three studies about teachers and computing

If you need a paper copy, let me know and I'll mail you one.

Doug

Doug Johnson, District Media Supervisor | Never teach a pig to sing.
                                          It will
Mankato Public Schools, ISD77,          | frustrate you and annoy the
                                          pig.
Box 8741, Mankato MN 56001-8741         |               -Old Iowa
                                                           saying
507-387-7698

palsdaj@vax1.mankato.msus.edu

********************

Date: Sun, 30 Jan 1994 22:11:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Carolyn Markuson / BiblioTECH Corp. <markuson@world.std.com>
To: mike@ericir.syr.edu
Subject: Productivity


Hi  Mike!  Just signed on after a brief hiatus while I
cleaned my desk --- and found your note.  One of the things
Irecently did dealt with this - and I have a couple of
suggestions that you may be able to use.  One, I worked with
a library that opens 1 week late and closes 2 weeks early -
to do inventory and get ready for circulation!  That's 3
weeks out of a 40 week work year. Significant
productivity gains using automation.


Another thought would be to identify a project and have
students paired - to a) find nfor and b) to actually put
their hands on it...and time them.  Another productivity
piece.  I did this with our technical services pieces a
couple of years ago in Brookline to determine what our
shelf time was on new materials (before they went out to
the schools).  Without automation it was 17 days - with
automation it dropped to 3!  Similar test runs could be
done in a school that orders its ownmaterials and then has
to get them into the hands of students... Will keep
thinking.  These businessmen really want to talk their
terms.


..Carolyn Markuson
  BiblioTECH Corp.
  61 Hickory Road
  Sudbury, MA  01776   USA
  508-443-9167 (Voice/FAX)
  <markuson@world.std.com>


LM_NET Archive Home