Previous by Date | Next by Date | Date Index
Previous by Thread | Next 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>