Findings

Types of Software Used

As noted earlier, word processing is the primary application of computers in secondary schools today. Across grades 4-12, among academic subject-matter teachers who used computers frequently, word processing was used nearly twice as much as the next-most common types of software—CD-ROM reference materials and games for practicing skills. [7] (See Exhibit 10.) However, it is quite clear that not all computer-using classes in a given subject follows this same pattern or any other.

In fact, there are some substantial differences between high-ability classes and low-ability classes in the same subject in the software that students use. Exhibit 11 shows differences in software use by ability, although the unit of analysis in this case is the teacher rather than the class, so the attribution of "class ability" is in terms of the average attributed ability levels across all of the classes that the teacher instructs. Teachers are included only if they use computers with their students.[8] The measure whose values appear in the table in Exhibit 11 is the "effect size," the difference in software use between teachers of higher- and lower-ability students, measured in standard deviation units among teachers of that subject.[9]

For English In one respect, Exhibit 11 shows a common pattern between teachers of different subjects: games for practicing skills are used much more by teachers of low-ability classes in all subjects than they are used by those who teach high-ability classes. The differences are strongest for social studies and English teachers, but they are significant in the other academic subjects, as well as among 4th through 6th grade elementary classroom teachers.

In other respects, the kinds of software used by teachers of high-ability students does reflect different emphases in each subject. For example, electronic mail use by students, although not a common practice as of 1998 in any subject, is used much more by science and social studies teachers of high-ability classes than by those who teach low-ability classes, but this differential use by ability is much less true in English. In contrast, English teachers differentially use word processing according to their judgments of the ability level of their students: English teachers of students felt to be higher-than-average in ability and achievement have students do word processing during class time much more than do English teachers of lower-ability students.

Presumably these differences have much to do with the objectives that teachers of students of different ability have. That is, English teachers of more advanced classes focus on helping students improve their ability to articulate ideas in writing while English teachers of less advanced classes work on improving students' knowledge of language arts mechanics. Similarly, perhaps the objectives of science and social studies teachers of higher-ability classes are more in the direction of having students articulate and communicate ideas than when science and social studies teachers teach classes they perceive as relatively low in ability. This seems particularly likely in social studies, where the effect sizes are at least modest (above .15) also for multimedia authoring and presentation software—two other types of software used for having students articulate and communicate ideas.

Math teachers of higher ability classes are more apt than those teaching low-level math classes to have their students use spreadsheet software and exploratory math software. Spreadsheet work is also more disproportionately used by teachers of high-ability classes in science and social studies, while using the World Wide Web is a differential practice favoring high-ability classes in both social studies and English. Interestingly, Web use is more associated with low-ability classes in science, suggesting the difference between analytic work in high-ability science classes and mere information-gathering in low-ability classes.

Many of the differences apparent in Exhibit 11 contrasting high- and low-ability student clientele also seem likely a consequence of teaching students of different ages. In fact, the attribution of "ability" seems perhaps less appropriate than thinking in terms of "more advanced" and "less advanced" students, taking both perceived ability and age into account.

[7] The measure of software use comes from a simple four-value response to a question about the number of lessons the respondent had had students use each type of software during the school year: none; once or twice; 3-9 times; or 10 or more. These responses were recoded into values of 0, 1, 3, and 8, respectively.

[8] Only for math teachers are there any differences by attributed student ability level in the proportion of teachers who use computers with their students. Somewhat fewer teachers of high ability math classes use computers with their students at all than for math teachers of average and low ability classes (47% vs. 54-56%).

[9] On average, about 30% of teachers are part of the low-ability teaching group and 30% are in the high-ability teaching group, although the pattern of attribution of student ability does differ by subject. For example, science and social studies teachers generally regard their students as being of higher ability than math teachers do.