Educational Technology at a Distance

Comparison studies in the field of educational technology and distance education are commonly approached from a perspective of students' satisfaction and achievement in the distance-learning classroom compared to the face-to-face students' satisfaction and achievement. The results have always been “no significant difference” in achievement between the two methods of instructional delivery and feelings of isolation on the part of the “distance” students . A fundamental variable in interactive videoconferencing may be access to technology rather than the distance itself. For that reason, the current research study was carried out to determine whether or not access made a significant difference in two areas. The question the researchers investigated was whether providing unlimited access would result in improved attitudes and/or improved proficiency with technology.The subjects in this research study were two groups of college juniors and seniors enrolled in an educational technology course, “Instructional Technology (Planning) and Curriculum Development.” This is a required course for all education majors. Course assignments included: an electronic portfolio designed with Microsoft PowerPoint; a lesson plan designed using Inspiration 6.0; a shared-reading assignment constructed by scanning a picture book into a PowerPoint presentation and shown with a laptop computer and LCD projector; a personal Web page designed using Microsoft FrontPage. Computer and Internet access were critical to fulfilling course requirements.The two groups were preservice elementary school teachers. Group One had limited access to technology and Group Two had unlimited access to technology. For the purpose of this study, students were considered to have unlimited access to technology if they had the use of computers with Internet access at all times. Also, students were considered to have limited access to technology if they had the use of computers with Internet access only at certain times. Limited access meant that Group One (30 students) was a traditional face-to-face class conducted in an iMac computer lab on campus. Although 28 of the 30 students in Group One had never used an iMac before, this apparent stumbling block was not a significant factor in project completion or computer proficiency. The iMac computers used OS 9 with Microsoft Office 98.Unlimited access meant that Group Two (22 students) was a distance education class conducted face-to-face and via interactive television using laptop computers with wireless connection to the Internet. The laptops were Windows-based with Microsoft Office Premium 2000.Group Two was composed of two sections linked via two-way audio-video connection: one at the University of Texas Pan American (UTPA) campus (17 students), the other at a middle school located in a town 50 miles west of UTPA. Group Two main campus students had face-to-face instruction, as well as unlimited access to computers and Internet access. There were five distance students at the “remote” site who also had laptop computers with wireless cards for Internet connection.The Curriculum & Instruction department wanted to give students at the remote site an opportunity to attend class without driving 100 miles per day. Unfortunately, neither distance education site had computers available for the educational technology course.Fortunately, the director of a grant was able to furnish the solution to the computer problem. Through the grant resources, there were enough laptop computers (22) for Group Two. The laptops contained cards that allowed wireless connection to the Internet from the distance education rooms while class was in session and the students were allowed to keep the laptops for the duration of the Summer Semester course.There were problems with the technology periodically—one late connection to the distance site, and the e-mail server went down twice. The Internet cards at times malfunctioned, causing the students to try four or five times before making a connection. Despite some minor technological glitches in getting set up, this project was able to go forward with no major problems.This article reports on an investigation into the effects of unlimited access to technology. The researchers focused on a number of factors related to student attitudes and abilities. Two groups of students were assessed. One group had unlimited access to technology while the other group only had access in the computer lab on campus. Even though one group had unlimited access, the investigation lasted only six weeks, so the effects of access may have been limited. Students in both groups were predominantly Hispanic women from middle to low socioeconomic backgrounds.Two surveys were administered during the third week of the course: a standard demographic survey given to most college students and a self-rated technology proficiency survey asking for levels of self-efficacy and attitudes towards technology in various areas. The demographic survey was adapted from the official website of Southwest Texas State University, while the basic technology proficiency survey was adapted from Student Uses of Educational Technology in Rural Utah.Carr observed: “Teachers cannot prepare students to be information literate unless they themselves understand how to find and use information.” In her 1998 article, she advocated the integration of information literacy into teacher education programs and concludes that this event has not happened. Here is the implicit assumption that students in higher education institutions will have access to the appropriate technology needed to become information literate. Without faculty development and training and a significant dollar investment in the training, the instructors who prepare pre-service teachers will not have the equipment or the know-how to accomplish this goal. Even at institutions that attempt to prepare teachers to work with technology, problems arise. Project THREAD (Technology Helping Restructure Educational Access and Delivery) is an initiative of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and the Clark County School District. The stated purpose is to prepare teachers to integrate modern technologies to fundamentally enhance teaching and learning in K-12 schools. By preparing pre-service teachers for tomorrow's technology-rich classrooms, Project THREAD seeks to weave together a mixture of learning opportunities. The goal of Project THREAD is to train teachers and pre-service teachers to integrate technology into K-12 classrooms. However, the authors (Strudler, Bendixen, Anderson, and Weiss) point out that, while university faculty (UNLV) give lip service to the importance of technology integration, they do not use it frequently in their own teaching methods. This holds for many other institutions as well. Students may be given access to technology, but unless they have seen technology used effectively, they may have trouble implementing it in their own classes.Wonacott concludes his discussion of the delivery of career and technical education (CTE) via information and communications technology (ICT) by stating that the increased access to learning at any time, in any place for any learner overrides all other issues. Institutions of higher learning are increasing their offering of courses by ICT regardless of lack of access by certain segments of the student population. Students who do not have access to technology are shortchanged in a number of ways. For one thing, there is a greater use of online assessment. Wall notes that while most college students have access to online tests, some students do not have access due to income, race and location.Davis and colleagues, discuss ways the human connection can bridge the digital divide. The authors suggest that minority-serving institutions (MSIs) are helping Hispanic, African-American and Native-American populations closest to them to close the technology gap because the MSIs have large concentrations of minority faculty, staff and students with the most advanced levels of technology training. Clearly, the border colleges and universities in Texas and other states can function as technological bridge builders with their overwhelming Hispanic majority populations and understanding of the local cultures. This was the goal in the current research of providing unlimited access to technology. However, access by itself may not be enough.There were no surprises in this portion of the survey. The student population at the University of Texas Pan American is overwhelmingly Hispanic and the survey indicated that measure: 84.4% Hispanic. The gender split was 85% female. The demographic survey also revealed that 50% of the mothers of students did not finish high school and 42% of their fathers also did not finish high school. This fact would tend to imply that most of the students were not technologically oriented. Also, the vast majority (84%) of combined family income was below $60,000 per year and 67.5% of the families' income was below $40,000 per year. The students themselves indicated on the survey they had not had much exposure to technology until they took the course offered in their junior/senior year of college.As early as 1987, researchers such as Hubbard pointed out that the information age requires all educators and students to develop a combination of technical skills and literacy abilities. These abilities include learning to think, to question, to weigh alternatives, to interpret inferences, to seek further data in order to judge the validity of information received via the Internet and other online sources. However, for students to develop these skills, they need access to technology.Similarly, Zeszotarski stated that “Skills in accessing, manipulating, and evaluating electronic information sources and devices is necessary for student success in higher education and the working world.” Naturally, access to the equipment and training for acquiring computer literacy is assumed. Implicit in this article is the need for students to receive training before they arrive on campus, so that there is no significant time lag in completing coursework using the acquired skills.Even when students are given unlimited access, as in the present study, other factors contribute to maintaining inequalities. For example, Neumann commented that “Technological equity is a complex issue in socioeconomic status, gender, ability level, racial and ethic identification, geographic location, and handicapping condition.” Since most of the students in the current study fit into the lower socioeconomic background and remote geographic region categories, they might not have had equitable access to technology. Thus, the unlimited access that the students had for six weeks during the summer would not have been enough to overcome the years of inequitable access to technology.Several writers have suggested that income level plays a greater role than ethnicity in determining access to technology. For example, Chester (quoted in Nickell, 1998), executive director of the Center for Media Education commented: “It's not a question of race, it's a question of income.” Nickell added that economic status, not ethnic origin, is the creator of the digital divide. Access to technology and information literacy is a question of money, not minority status. Nickell stated that the situation will only worsen if the economically disadvantaged are not given digital access. Similarly, Kirby, quoted Jupiter Communications, which claimed that the digital divide is increasingly defined by income, not by ethnic background. The study released by the e-commerce research firm also predicted the 35-50 year-old age group would be the dominant force on the Net in five years. The reporter, Kirby, also talked to an East Palo Alto community technology center director who said that having an Internet connection doesn't mean that one has the skills to take advantage of the opportunities the Internet offers. So, availability does not necessarily mean access. This may have been the case with students in the current study.Many of the students in this study were women. Brown states that lack of access, below level achievement in math and science, and emotional and social attitudes concerning computer abilities are factors that can cause women and minorities to avoid high-tech careers. This lack of access early on in their educational training could certainly account for underachievement in computer skills, when access is finally granted.Bermudez and Palumbo point to other factors that could mitigate the effects of unlimited access: “Emerging technologies and their inherent need to constantly update information have created a new type of literacy which has widened the gap between the “haves” and the “have nots.” The “haves” in this instance are mainstream students, while the “have nots” are primarily language minority students. These “have not” categories are broadened to include women, ethnic minorities and the handicapped. The authors also state that access to technology for these groups has been substantially inequitable.The researchers in the present study provided one group of teacher education students with unlimited access to technology and then contrasted their skills and attitudes toward technology with a second group of students whose access was limited to the computer lab. As the literature reviewed here suggests, it is important to provide access, and teacher education programs should prepare students to use technology in their classes. However, as a number of researchers have pointed out, simply providing access may not be sufficient, especially in the case of students from minority groups who have not developed good computer literacy skills. Even though the present study reports an attempt to help the “have nots” move into the circle of “haves,” it appears that providing access to technology may be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for ensuring that students will improve their skills and develop more positive attitudes toward technology.The self-rated proficiency study contained 41 variables and the attitudinal study 14 variables ranging in topics from technology skills to perceived importance of technology. There were an additional twenty areas of response concerning computer use and YES/NO questions about technology changes.For the purposes of this study, the researcher will deal with only those variables important to the differences and similarities between students with limited access to computers and those with unlimited access. There were 38 variables relevant to answering the question about the influence of access on proficiency with and attitudes towards technology.The following sections each focus on one aspect of the results of the technology portion of the survey. Students were asked to rate their technology skills. Table 1 summarizes the results for each group.Table 1 gives a clear idea of the lack of expertise in multimedia and Web creation software and the overall lack of computer skills by both groups. Notice items “Skill in using computer,” “Skill in using multimedia,” and “Skill in using Web creation software” in Table 1. Group Two responses show that even with laptop computers available to them 24 hours a day, only 32% the students rated themselves as “advanced” users of computers. The difference is far greater when looking at skill in using multimedia: 45% of Group Two rated themselves as beginners. Also, a large majority (71%) of Group Two students also rated themselves as “beginners” in Web creation software. One possible explanation for so many students in Group Two rating themselves as beginners, because the were not by but by student to their there can be a in computer skills due to certain students to take a distance education course and for a traditional class while other students find the time of the class more following asked students how they used a computer to accomplish a or to time in technology Table with of certain with a use of a computer for various the Internet and using The difference in the use of personal computers. Group Two has a difference in personal computer use while Internet and use and is the This of Internet and use is due to the communications aspect of both use of the computer for a of at may be Group One to be more with technology and more of their skills. access to not an important part in this of other than Access for Group One access at the with the and of student computer and this would to be the place access could be most In Table with various of technology are in a response is clear that the items are the while the two items some Group students with limited access to technology, are far in assignments and multimedia By the items for class assignments and multimedia in Table one can that Group students with unlimited access to technology, has of the computer for research and for multimedia is the fact that Group Two responses show only of the students Group One with This of that access is the to students using technology may be in a of ways. the of students may have been that those the distance education class and getting laptops were not as technologically advanced as Group A second explanation could be that due to the of students in Group Two with the laptop the group as a in their the Group the limited access students, using the computer more for research and multimedia to the of the when attitudes towards technology. The items in Table deal with items are with to to the large differences between the group responses or to point out In Table to use computer,” both groups with or of the time, but the response of for Group One is Students with limited access to technology are in to required to use a while only of students with unlimited access in is the not to use the and to for Group One and 85% for Group the response of Group One is that of Group The in the response to use computer to do only this time the of Group response is times that of Group do more when can use a computer,” to the Group One access to more to the questions in the and the responses in Table the of Group Two with or while Group One has a positive response This is to or One explanation might be that Group One about the of on regardless of the technology might be that Group Two has finally in the that those students with access would have been to to the other survey This is result in a survey that to further the access to technology groups to using technology important for getting a One Group Two of Group Two with the The is that is in so the for students to do is become with technology in order to further their at a good This is not by all of the students who can and are advantage of all available technology.The of technology response is of Group One and of Group Two or with the The are in of the responses to the to use technology more Group One gives a positive while Group response is a for do the students the importance of technology is would to use it more Although these may not be the two items are related to each other because of the importance of technology in would to suggest the greater use of The responses to the two items to be to are but to is an of computers are most frequently is here that should the students with laptops to be from computer lab rooms and the laptops in various of the computer that is used by students is the focus of Table There are a differences between the classes. times as many responses to classroom work by Group Two than Group This response a of because students can each other with laptops that would be with the with computers in computer response is the in the computer lab by Here is of Group One work by themselves in a computer while only of Group Two laptop computers and wireless connection to the work by themselves in a computer lab. A good explanation to when students do not need a lab or connection in order to do they other the is of Group One at while only of Group Two at One possible explanation is that because Group Two can work they they do not to or have to work at of items considered here is Table This at students' about technological have the various of technology have been more available on college and university at the responses of students to by technology to campus. By the items in Table one may the of this There are some to Group One that of the students did more work with the of technology, while only 45% of Group Two with a One explanation that Group Two had more of due to the of the Group One was to the lab technology that is more to work the that are with work in Group Two to have more questions to but not as much research to explanation might be that they had access to the laptop computers for only weeks when the survey was the Group Two students might have had more questions about technology and might not as much time to research as learning about their the explanation may in this it is that Group Two would be lower when to technological The was that more research and would be the response for college students, especially who had wireless laptop computers with the early of the technology many in the field predicted from access to technology. However, these early to be her article on the digital divide and for language by question the researchers investigated was whether providing unlimited access would result in improved attitudes and/or improved proficiency with technology. The to be the of this study with the two groups of students the providing unlimited access to computers and to Internet access has not improved attitudes or proficiency with technology. study does to be with a and with on student The survey was given weeks into the summer and the lack of could have some the results revealed by the it may be the study will help the and out more for the apparent of technology that the more one is to technology, the more will improve toward technology use and proficiency level will are due to for and