|
Return to Teaching, Learning |
|
 |
Software Use in Classes of Different Levels of Teachers receive contradictory messages about how they should treat classes that differ in their levels of prior preparation, or, more colloquially, classes of students with different "abilities." On the one hand,teachers are urged to individualize their instructional approach to fit students and classes with different "learning needs." On the other hand, they are warned not to channel less demanding activities to their lower performing classes and students, limiting the presumably more interesting work to their higher achievers. In the TLC–1998 data, we did not ask teachers for evidence about how they treated different classes that they taught, but we can compare the computer use practices of teachers according to rough distinctions among the student achievement/ability levels of the classes for which they reported their instructional practices On the basis of teachers' attributions about the achievement levels represented in their classes ("check [as many of five 'achievement/ability' levels] as apply to at least 5 students in this class"), we grouped teachers as teaching primarily low-achieving classes, average-achieving or mixed classes, or high-achieving classes. We then calculated how much more or less frequently a teacher of high-achieving classes uses a type of software compared to a teacher of low-achieving classes. These differences or "effect sizes" (differences the between mean software use z-scores for the two groups) are shown in the table above where a strong positive score indicates much more frequent use by teaches of high-achieving students, and a strong negative score indicates much less use when compared to teachers responsible for low-achieving students. We found clear evidence that computer-using teachers of high-achieving classes use a very different mix of software than do computer-using teachers of low-achieving classes. Games for practicing skills are used substantially more by teachers of low-achieving classes than by teachers of high-achieving classes (on average, roughly one-half of a standard deviation more). This pattern of greater game use by low-achieving students is strong in almost every secondary subject, and even among elementary self-contained classes. Across almost all subject-areas, electronic mail was used more by high-achieving classes than by low-achieving classes (on average, one quarter of a standard deviation or more). This tendency is particularly strong among social studies, science, and elementary teachers teaching non-self-contained classes, all with effect sizes greater than .39. Use of spreadsheets was also higher among high-ability students across almost all subject areas, and especially in computer classes (ES = .60).English teachers and specialized elementary teachers each had students use word processing software much more often when teaching high-achieving than when teaching low-achieving classes (ES = .59 and .44 respectively). Presentation software was used more often by computer teachers and by social studies teachers who taught high-achieving classes (ES =.40 and .29, respectively). Interestingly, differences in World Wide Web use were highly mixed, with greater use by high-achieving students in some subjects, and greater use by low-achieving students in others. This may reflect the relatively ease of access to information that the Web provides at the same time the powerful resource it represents when doing theoretically directed information-gathering. In general, it seemed that the more central a type of software was to the teachers of a given subject, the more that differences in frequency of use appeared between teachers of high-achieving and low-achieving classes. The differential opportunity for high-achieving students to use more intellectually complex software is no doubt a function of many factors, among them teacher expectations for how different groups of students can perform with computers and their beliefs about how each group of students can have successful experiences with technology. Their own prior experience of how difficult it is to get some classes of students to use more complex types of software certainly plays a role. Complex software generally involves more frequent decision-points by users and can less easily be scripted in advance. Teachers need time and practice in order to develop methods for using complex software with students who have been less successful in other school experiences. Without that time, they will understandably be more reluctant to use such software with low-achieving classes and will instead choose to have those classes use more narrowly focused computer-assisted drill and practice exercises.
|
