Education Development Center’s Center for Children and ...



[pic]

PBS K-12 Digital

Classroom

Pilot

__________

Evaluation Report

CCT Reports

Winter 2003

Shelley Pasnik

Hannah Nudell

Table of Contents

Introduction ………1

Overview ………1

Methodology ………2

Section I. Participant Profiles ………4

Overview of Pilot Participants ………4

Descriptions of Stations and Partner Schools ………6

Section II. Key Aspects of the Pilot Project ………14

Classroom-Level Issues ………14

School- or District-Level Issues ………23

Station-Level Issues ………25

Section III. Characteristics of Delivery Formats ………28

CD-ROM ………29

Internet ………30

Datacast ………31

Section IV. Conclusion ………33

Conclusion ………33

Recommendations ………33

Considerations for Future Research ………34

Appendices ………36

Appendix A — School-Station Partnerships Visited ………36

Appendix B — Teacher Interview Protocol ………37

Appendix C — Station Liaison Interview Protocol ………41

Appendix D — Student Interview Protocol ………43

Introduction

Overview

PBS designed its K-12 Digital Classroom Project to inform the development of next-generation digital educational services for K-12 education. Seven public television stations worked in partnership with one to three teachers within each of their local education communities, and together, stations and teachers sought to identify the unique issues and opportunities surrounding classroom use of high quality video and interactive content. Using a single curricular theme — westward expansion and the expedition of Lewis and Clark — 17 participating teachers integrated digital materials delivered across three different distribution platforms into their existing classroom practice from October to December 2002. They used materials they received via CD-ROM, the Internet, and digital TV broadcast (datacasting) to a server on their school’s network, exploring the potential benefits and challenges that these three formats offered.

Beginning with the popularity that videos have among K-12 educators, the primary goal of the pilot project was to learn more about how this analog resource could evolve into a viable digital form in the future. Signally PBS’s hope to continue to use new technologies to move in new directions, the national broadcaster described the vision of the project in the following way:

There is tremendous potential in using digital television and broadband technology to serve the needs of educators, through bundling video and related data; smart cataloguing and storage solutions; and advanced personalization and interactivity…To realize the true potential of these technologies, broadcasters and producers need a better understanding of how teachers are using video, how classroom technology is evolving and how this evolution could complement stations’ transition to digital broadcast. Once we can answer these questions and identify which enhancements — in terms of quality and formatting — are most attractive and sustainable, we will be able to make our content most useful to them… Education initiatives are rarely a “one-size fits all” proposition; by completing this analysis, we hope to provide stations with baseline information each station can use to tailor distribution and services to the specific needs of educators in its broadcast area.

With funding from grants from The Arthur Vining Davis Foundations and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the pilot project selected seven public television stations to participate: Educational Communications Board in Madison, WI, IdahoPTV, Kansas City Public Television, KLVX Communications Group in Las Vegas, NV, New Jersey Network, Utah Education Network and Hampton Roads Educational Telecommunications Association, Inc. in conjunction with WHRO in Norfolk, VA.

To understand better the potential of datacasting and the common themes that run throughout the K-12 Digital Classroom pilot project PBS commissioned the Education Development Center’s Center for Children and Technology (CCT) to conduct a formative evaluation. CCT (t) is a non-profit organization that has been studying the roles that technology can play in teaching and learning for the more than 20 years. Our charge was to help identify the relative strengths and challenges of each of the three different formats involved in the pilot project in terms of usability, educational value, and support of teachers’ professional practice.

For this evaluation CCT used a variety of methodologies, such as site visits, interviews and classroom observations, to identify the potential of datacasting relative to CD-ROM and the Internet and the use of digital resources delivered via these three formats at the classroom level.

This report has five sections:

I. Participant Profiles

II. Key Aspects of the Pilot Project

III. Characteristics of the Delivery Formats

IV. Conclusion and Recommendations

V. Appendices

Methodology

Working with the seven participating public television stations and the17 six- through twelfth-grade teachers with whom they were working throughout the pilot project, we collected data that would help us explore the following questions:

• What does early adoption of digital TV and broadband technologies generally look like within the pilot classrooms? What are the potential benefits and challenges both to stations and educators in terms of usability and educational value?

• What are the emerging promising practices among teachers and students and what supports are needed to sustain and further develop teachers’ professional practice?

• What are the implications for public TV stations wishing to help meet the educational needs of local districts using digital TV and broadband technologies?

We conducted formative research in the classrooms of nearly all participating teachers, focusing specifically on how they and their students used, understood, and leveraged the pilot technologies and materials. We examined the three formats (Internet, CD-ROM and datacasting), the perceived benefits, as well as potential improvements, enhancements, or additions that would further benefit the delivery of materials used in the pilot. In addition, we collected a range of contextual data that helped us undertake a preliminary analysis of how different types of classroom practice are supported by different formats.

This research entailed mixed methodologies including the following:

Site visits. We visited all seven school-station partnerships participating in the pilot. (See Appendix A for a complete list of sites visited.) A site visit generally included individual interviews with participating teachers and public television staff, as well as informal meetings with the school principal and technology coordinator. Researchers toured facilities, made classroom visits and observations, and usually ate lunch with the participants. Whenever possible, we observed students, asking them about that day’s lesson and their overall experience using the pilot materials.

Classroom/lab observations. We conducted observations in 14 classrooms and labs. These observations focused on how teachers used the pilot formats and materials, the kinds of curricular lessons the delivery formats and materials supported, how teachers dealt with classroom management issues, the kinds of activities students did and how well the technology functioned.

Teacher interviews. We interviewed all 17 teachers participating in the pilot, collecting a range of background information from them, including years teaching, prior experiences with technologies; related professional development experiences; expectations for their students; reasons for participating in the pilot; and expectations for the use of pilot formats and materials. Additionally, we documented how the participating teachers have used video and other media to support student learning and teacher professional development. The interviews focused on how teachers perceive the value of the pilot formats and materials, what they believe the digital resources are enabling them to do that they would not have previously been able to do, the kinds of supports they feel are necessary (particularly supports they think their colleagues will need), and any issues related to interface design. (See Appendix B for the Teacher Interview Protocol.)

Station liaison interviews. We interviewed representatives at the seven participating stations about their perceptions of the potential benefits of digital TV and broadband technologies in reaching their educational outreach goals. We asked them how they had worked with schools in their communities in the past; the training they provided participating teachers; the technical infrastructure that the pilot required; and their vision for using datacasting in the future. (See Appendix C for the Station Liaison Interview Protocol.)

Administrator interviews. We interviewed 7 district- and building-level administrators, e.g., district technology supervisors, curriculum supervisors and principals, who were involved in the decision to bring the pilot to their schools and districts. These interviews focused on their perceptions of how the pilot formats and materials were used in their schools and the kinds of professional development programs they envision to support technology use. We asked them about their experiences with other technology initiatives and explored what particular educational challenges or opportunities they saw digital and broadband technologies addressing. We asked them to define successful outcomes for teachers and students and what role their public TV station can play in achieving these outcomes. During these interviews we also collected standard demographic information on the school community, including: type of community, student population, size of school, number of teachers and available technology.

Student conversations. In many of the classrooms and labs where we conducted observations we also briefly talked to approximately 65 students. These conversations focused on the lessons they were doing and what perceived understanding they had of pilot delivery formats and related materials. We also asked students about their general use of technology and how the pilot lessons compared to lessons and activities they had done in the past. (See Appendix D for the Student Interview Protocol.)

Section I. Participant Profiles

Reflecting the diversity that characterizes both public education in the United States and the Public Broadcasting Service, which is comprised of 349 member stations, the stations, schools and teachers participating in the pilot offered a wide-range of backgrounds, locales and characteristics. Although all of the participants were joined by a common goal of exploring the potential that digital resources have in education, how they were able to experiment with the pilot materials was dependent on the school and station cultures within which they were operating. Variables such as the number of students in a single class, a school’s approach toward technology integration into existing curriculum, the technical support within a computer lab, and a station’s prior experience with teacher training, for example, all contributed to the environments in which this pilot took place.

While it was important to our research to pay attention to these unique characteristics, where possible, we also looked across the pilot and synthesized variables that individual stations and classroom practitioners shared with one another. This section of the report contains two parts: an overview of pilot participants followed by site-by-site descriptions of seven station-school partnerships. Together both of these parts lay the contextual groundwork for the findings we present in Section II.

Part I. Overview of Pilot Participants

Below are syntheses of the following six areas: station background, stations’ pilot involvement, school background, schools’ pilot involvement, teacher background and teachers’ pilot involvement.

Station Background

• Stations involved in the pilot were configured in a range of ways: four were state educational agencies or networks, one was a public television station with a department of education, one was an educational association owned by schools within the state and one was a publicly funded educational consortium.

• All participating stations had worked closely with schools within their respective communities in the past.

• Nearly all of the stations had experience providing formal professional development to teachers.

• While all of the participating stations had some experience with digital and broadband technologies before the pilot, two stations had participated specifically in datacasting projects.

Stations’ Pilot Involvement

• Stations partnered with a total of 17 teachers; five stations worked with three teachers; two stations worked with a single teacher.

• Most stations selected one or two station representatives to be the liaison and trainer at the partner school; one station chose three staff members. Two stations relied on consultants to be responsible for the pilot’s day-to-day operations and one station hired a trainer to provide supplemental support to the participating teacher.

• All stations produced and/or provided local material for the pilot.

• Six stations worked with teachers within the same school; one station worked with teachers at three different schools.

• Two stations compensated teachers for their participation.

School Background

• Three stations chose to form a partnership with a high school; three stations chose a middle school and one station chose to work with three middle schools in the same district.

• Nine participating schools were racially and economically diverse; two served a predominantly Caucasian population. The percentage of the student population that was eligible for free and reduced-priced lunch raged from 15% to 74% in the participating schools.

• Class size in the participating classrooms ranged from 13 to 32. Most classrooms had approximately 22 students.

• LCD projectors and video monitors were available to participating teachers in six schools though in one of these schools the station provided the equipment; teachers had difficulty obtaining access to ancillary equipment needed to use the materials in one school.

• Participating teachers had from 1 to 10 computers in their individual classrooms.

• Participating schools had 1 to 3 computer labs regularly available to teachers for lessons requiring technology.

Schools’ Pilot Involvement

• How partners schools become involved in the pilot varied: two were approached by the station, three became involved through district invitation and two had a principal who was instrumental.

• Four of the stations’ partner schools used all three delivery formats; two of the stations’ partner schools used datacast only; and one station’s partner school used CD-ROM and Internet only.

• Three of the stations’ partner teachers used the pilot materials in the classroom; four of the stations’ partner teachers used them in both the classroom and a computer lab.

• A technical support person either at the building- or district-level was involved in the pilot to some degree in all but one of the schools.

• A curriculum specialist or instructional support person was involved in the pilot to some degree in two of the schools.

Teacher Background

• All participating teachers taught US History, Social Studies or Language Arts.

• Most participating classrooms were general education though two were honors classes; approximately one-half of the classrooms had special needs students mainstreamed into them.

• Most participant teachers had minimal (if any) experience integrating technology into their classroom prior to the pilot.

• Teachers at all but one of the partner schools had used PBS videos in their classroom practice previously.

• Most participant teachers reported using a combination of measure to asses their students, including group or individual projects, homework, class participation, quizzes and written and multiple-choice exams.

Teachers’ Pilot Involvement

• After participating schools were identified, most teachers were asked by the school principal to participate in the pilot project because they taught an appropriate subject area.

• Teachers had one to 30 years of teaching experience. The average number of years was 15.

• Participating teachers used the pilot materials from one day to one month of instruction. The average length of use was 10 days.

• Nearly all teachers used materials from Lewis & Clark; two teachers used materials from The West instead.

• Most participant teachers had to disrupt the flow and chronology of their regular curriculum to accommodate the timing of the pilot.

• All stations provided an initial training for participating teachers, introducing them to different platforms either before the materials arrived or as the technologies were being installed and tested. Three stations provided additional instructional training or hired consultants to do so. All trainers were available to address technical problems; two were in the classroom during implementation.

• Participant teachers collaborated with one another in determining how they used the materials in four of the schools. In three of these cases, two of the three teachers worked with one another while the third teacher participant worked independently of the others.

• Participant teachers working with three stations used culminating student projects to assess work completed as part of the pilot; two used worksheets and mini-assignments for assessment and two intended to include related content covered on tests.

• The students in the participating teachers’ classes had a wide-range of experience with and access to technology.

Part II. Site-by-Site Descriptions of Stations and Partner Schools[1]

Below are brief factual descriptions of each of the stations and the schools with which they chose to partner. There are five components of each partnership description: station background; station pilot involvement; school background; school technology infrastructure; and school pilot involvement.

ECB

Station Background

The Wisconsin Educational Communications Board (ECB) is a state agency that provides telecommunication services and advanced technologies to support education in the state. This includes public broadcasting, classroom resources, professional development and technology services. The Education Division of ECB works closely with schools to develop and broadcast materials and has been involved with digital services for the past two years.

Station Pilot Involvement

ECB provided three staff members from their Education Division; each staff person worked with a different teacher involved in the pilot. In addition, engineering personnel provided technical support at the station and school. The instructional leaders from ECB provided group training for the three participating teachers, and then followed up with one-on-one training. In addition to meeting after school every day for a week, ECB paid for substitute teachers to come in so that the teachers participating in the pilot were available for a full day of training. ECB staff created an exercise sheet for teachers to use with their students to familiarize them with the interface and provided additional copies of the CD-ROMS so that there would be enough sets for students to use them while working in pairs in the computer lab.

School Background

ECB’s partner school is located in an upper middle class suburb of Madison, WI, and has 598 students in grades 6-8. At the time of our visit, there were 51 teaches in the school and average class size was 21 students. The teachers we observed had 13-18 students in their classes. The school had the highest mobility rate in the district and a diverse and growing student body: 53% White, 24% African American, 10% Latino, 13% Asian (including a growing Hmong population) and1% American Indian. The student population was from the poorest two neighborhoods in Madison; 29% of students received free or reduced-price lunch. The school supported the only Bilingual Education program in the district and 20% of students were enrolled in Special Education programs and were mainstreamed into some general education classes including Social Studies.

School Technology Infrastructure

The teachers involved in the pilot had access to one PC lab and an LCD projector, and each participating teacher had 4-5 PC computers in his/her classroom. Due to high demand, teachers had to sign up in advance to use the computer lab or LCD projector. The district shared its server with other districts and was moving toward equipping schools with PCs only. The district also offered technology-related professional development opportunities for university credit. The school had a computer technology teacher who taught computer courses as well as supported teachers in the instructional use of technology. For the duration of the pilot this teacher provided technical support to help set up the technologies and was on hand in the computer lab during lessons. All students took a computer course at least once during middle school. The principal said she was supportive of technology initiatives and was instrumental in getting involved in the pilot.

School Pilot Involvement

In preparation for the pilot the district upgraded 26 computers in the PC lab. All three participant teachers used Lewis & Clark materials with their eighth-grade US History classes. They had an average of 15 years of teaching experience and two of the teachers were team teachers and had taught a variety of subject and grade levels, as well as had some experience using technology in their teaching. The third teacher had been a full-time school counselor until recently and had minimal experience using technology. All of the teachers had used PBS materials or other video resources before the pilot. Throughout the pilot, the teachers received technical support from both ECB and the computer teacher in the school. Each teacher used one or more delivery methods with their students for two days. While all three of them used the materials in the computer lab and in the classroom, we observed one class in the computer lab using the CD-ROMS, one teacher in the classroom using the Internet during a teacher-led lesson, and the third teacher in the lab while students gave PowerPoint presentations, which was their culminating assignment.

KCPT

Station Background

KCPT is the public television provider for Kansas City and the surrounding areas of Kansas and Missouri. Services provided by the KCPT educational services include ChalkWaves, children’s TV programming, online interactive programs, higher education distance learning, as well as teacher professional development including the National Teacher Training Institute (NTTI) and TeacherLine. ChalkWaves is a partnership that provides instructional media, online services and networking and teacher professional development services to 226 school districts that subscribe to the service in Kansas, Missouri, and Illinois. KCPT has been providing broadband programming and services since 1998.

Station Pilot Involvement

KCPT identified its participating school with the help of a district contact. The station provided two staff members to work on the pilot: one to manage the project and one to set up the appropriate technologies in the school. The station worked with one teacher for whom they held a one-day training to introduce the interface. KCPT contracted a master teacher from NTTI to provide additional on-going technical and instructional support to help the participating teacher integrate technology into lessons. The trainer worked with the teacher after school and during planning periods for a total of 10 hours. KCPT set up additional network connections at the school, equipped computers with appropriate drivers and provided a video monitor for the teacher’s classroom in preparation for the pilot. KCPT staff responded to technical problems relayed by the participating teacher throughout the pilot.

School Background

KCPT’s partner school is a five-year college preparatory magnet school located in Kansas City, KS. At the time of our visit, the school had 965 students in grades 8-12 and average class size was 30 students. The teacher we observed had 32 students in his class. Sumner had an ethnically diverse student population: 42% African American, 41% White, 12% Hispanic, 4% Asian and1% American Indian. Thirty-five percent of the student body was eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch.

School Technology Infrastructure

The participating teacher had access to three computer labs in the school with about 25 computers in each lab though he reported that he infrequently used them. There was also an LCD projector available in the school that was in high demand. Additionally, there were two computers and a video monitor in the participating teacher’s classroom. The school had one network connection and the administration expected teachers to communicate via email and use technology for administrative purposes. There were three technical support teachers in the school with varying levels of experience and skill; these teachers had minimal to no involvement in the pilot.

School Pilot Involvement

The teacher involved in the pilot had 20 years teaching experience and taught both a general education and an AP US History class. The teacher’s classroom was located in an annex to the main building. The teacher had used technology for some lesson planning as well as PBS materials in the past but had minimal experience using technology in classroom instruction. He said he did not collaborate with other teachers. For the pilot the participating teacher used the Lewis and Clark materials in a general education US History class with a mixed group of sophomores and juniors. He used the datacast delivery platform during teacher-led instruction in the classroom two-three times a week for a month. The teacher received a stipend from the school district for his participation in the pilot.

KLVX

Station Background

The KLVX Communications Group operates Public Television Channel 10, 20 closed circuit broadcast TV channels and satellite downlink and uplink services for educational institutions in the state of Nevada. KLVX education media services include instructional television, an educational media center that distributes a library of classroom resources, school dubbing services, staff development workshops, distance learning opportunities and the KLVX website. The station has a wide area network for streaming digital video and runs district technology-training sessions at training centers located on the campus of the participating high school. The station approached the principal from this school about becoming involved in the pilot.

Station Pilot Involvement

One person from KLVX worked with the three participating teachers. Two of the teachers received one-on-one training to familiarize themselves with the delivery methods. One of these participants team teaches with the third participant and relayed her training experience to her team teacher. The trainer from KLVX upgraded software programs on computers in the teachers’ classrooms and provided technical support as needed.

School Background

KLVX’s partner school is located in an urban area bordering Las Vegas, NV. At the time of our visit, the school had 2,728 students in grades 9-12. There were 112 teachers and a student-teacher ratio of 24:1. The teachers we spoke with had 18-25 students in their classes. The school had a transient population and a diverse student body: 60% white, 25% Hispanic, 10% African American, 5% Asian/Pacific Islander and 1% American Indian/Alaskan Native. Most students came from a middle- to upper-middle class background.

School Technology Infrastructure

The school had a new mini mobile PC lab that teachers could check out but, according to teachers and administrators, was underutilized by teachers. The number of classroom computers available to teachers depended on individual teacher’s interest in technology use. The participant teachers had one to ten PCs (mostly dated) in their classrooms, and access to video monitors and LCD projectors. There was an Education Technology Coordinator (ETC) in the school that provided technical support for district computer labs located on the campus and had been minimally involved in some of the technical aspects of the pilot. The school had a wide area network and one of the participating teachers had a T1 connection in his classroom.

School Pilot Involvement

Two of the participant teachers were team teachers of eleventh grade honors US History and Language Arts. The third participant taught both general and AP US History. They had been teaching an average of 17 years. The team teachers had been working together for 5 years and collaborated together on their pilot lessons. They had minimal experience using technology in their teaching and used the Lewis and Clark materials with both Internet and CD-ROMS in their classrooms as a part of teacher-led instruction. One of team teachers also had students work in groups on computers. The third teacher used PowerPoint presentations during teacher-led instruction on a regular basis and used the Lewis and Clark materials with delivered via Internet for the pilot. All of the teachers used the materials for two days and reported that they intended to use them again later in the school year.

WHRO

Station Background

The Hampton Roads Educational Telecommunications Association is owned by 14 school divisions in Southeastern Virginia and Northeastern North Carolina. WHRO provides K-12 Learning Services to 19 public school divisions, 14 independent schools and home schools, totaling 286,000 students and 25,000 educators in the Hampton Roads community. WHRO education services include TeacherLine, TeacerLink, online curriculum, training opportunities/staff development, alternative educational programming, and WHRO educational productions. Since 1996, WHRO has been developing digital broadcasting capabilities to expand telecomputing and online services for education, community service agencies and cultural institutions.

Station Pilot Involvement

WHRO identified the school district in which it wanted to conduct the pilot, selecting a district farthest from the station’s geographic location. WHRO provided two staff members to work with three participating teachers who were each at a different school within the Williamsburg-James City County Public School district. These staff met with teachers over the summer to introduce the pilot and materials to the teachers at which point they created a lesson plan together. Once the delivery methods became available WHRO trained the teachers on the three platforms and remained in contact every 2-3 weeks and then daily during implementation to provide ongoing support. In addition, technical support staff at the station worked out any technical difficulties that arose.

School Background

WHRO’s participating schools are located in a rural area of Virginia. At the time of our visit, the schools accommodated an average of 633 students in grades 6-8 (675, 504, 719). These schools had an average of 52 teachers (50, 50, 60) and typical class size for the teachers participating in the pilot was 17-26 students with an overall average of 22 students. The schools had similar student populations with a mixture of students from either an upper-middle class or a lower-class background; district-wide, 30% of students were eligible to receive free or reduced lunch. All of the schools had a student body that is predominately white (70%, 63%, 44%) and the larger minority group in these schools was African American (20%, 30%, 23%). Students with special education needs were mainstreamed into some general education classes including history.

School Technology Infrastructure

Each school had at least one computer lab that was in high demand among teachers, requiring them to sign up prior to using the lab with their students. Every teacher in these schools had a computer in his/her classroom. Teachers also had video monitors and access to LCD projectors. Each school had at least one technical support person and in some cases a computer teacher who provided some technical support during the pilot. Students were required to take a computer course at some point during middle school.

School Pilot Involvement

The teachers who participated in the pilot had an average of 24 years teaching experience and were sixth-grade history teachers. Although they taught in different schools in the district, they all knew at least one of the other teachers before the pilot and were accustomed to collaborating with other teachers. Two of the teachers had minimal experience using technology and the third teacher had some experience using technology. They were familiar with PBS and other video resources and had used them for planning purposes and/or in the classroom. Over the summer station representatives introduced teachers to the pilot materials and, building from state standards, they collaboratively created one lesson plan using the Lewis and Clark resources. The three teachers met a few times during the summer and school year in preparation for implementation. They used the materials over a two-week period both in the classroom as a part of teacher-led instruction and in the computer lab. In the lab students conducted research and worked on assignments related to their culminating project, which was a journal. One teacher used datacast, another teacher used the CD-ROMS, and the third teacher used both the Internet and datacast. All of the teachers reported that they planned to use the westward expansion materials later in the school year. WHRO compensated teachers for their participation in the pilot.

UEN

Station Background

The Utah Education Network (UEN) is a publicly funded consortium that provides educational technologies, such as electronic library resources, distance learning classes and telecourses, instructional television, professional development opportunities and other teachers resources including lessons plans and online tools, to increase the integration of technology into classrooms. School districts pay a subscription fee for licenses to instructional TV and other library resources. UEN is the Internet service provider for Utah's public and higher education institutions, public libraries, and state agencies. The station began digital broadcasting in August 2002 and plans to switch to an entirely digital broadcaster through KUED, the station’s main PBS broadcaster. The pilot was the station’s first experimentation with datacasting.

Station Pilot Involvement

UEN identified its participating school with help from the district. In addition to a project engineer, UEN provided one instructional staff member who trained and worked with the three teachers involved in the pilot. This person held separate training sessions for the teachers to introduce the different platforms. Two of the teachers who collaborated with one another on a regular basis were trained together over a period of three days. The third teacher was trained separately in a 45-minute mini in-service and received additional instructional support from the trainer in the following weeks. UEN created a website with resources and links for the pilot to get around district technology obstacles, such as a firewall.

School Background

UEN’s partner school is located in a suburb of Salt Lake City. At the time of our visit, the school had 1,081 students in grades 7-9. There were 50 teachers and the student- teacher ratio was 22:1. The teachers we visited had 24-31 students in their classes. A majority of students were white (85%), and there were smaller percentages of Hispanic (8%), Asian (6%) and African American (1%) students. Most students came from a middle- to upper-middle-class background; 15% was eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

School Technology Infrastructure

The school had three computer labs with 30 computers each, which were in high demand among teachers. Additionally, each teacher had at least one computer in his/her classroom as well as a video monitor. The school had a T1 connection and teachers were expected to perform online administrative tasks, such as posting grades and student work, which students could access from home. There was a technology support person in the school who helped set up the pilot and worked with the station and district to work around district technology obstacles.

School Pilot Involvement

The three participating teachers were eighth-grade US History teachers and had an average of nine years teaching experience. All of the teaches had little experience using technology in the classroom. Two of the teachers used The West materials using both the Internet and CD-ROMs with their students once to twice a week for a month. During our visit, one of them used the materials in the classroom in teacher-led instruction, the other in the computer lab. The third teacher used the Lewis & Clark materials via the Internet with her students in the computer lab for a month. The datacast was not set up during the time of our visit. The teachers reported that they intended to try the this delivery method once it was set up as well as use the materials later in the school year. UEN compensated teachers for their involvement in the pilot.

IDPTV

Station Background

Idaho Public Television (IDPTV) is a state department of education agency that provides educational and cultural television to Idaho homes and schools. This includes Idaho-based programs and resources, television and other media. The Learning Services division of IDPTV is housed in KUID headquarters and collects and distributes resources and information for teachers that include online services TeacherSource, and WNET/Thirteen Ed Online, Ready to Learn, K-12, and Adult Education resources. IDPTV began exploring datacast possibilities in 1999, supports a digital TV site and is in the process of converting completely to digital resources.

Station Pilot Involvement

IDPTV hired one consultant, who previously had been a staff member, to oversee all aspects of the pilot. The consultant trained the one participating teacher after school over the period of a week in addition to a full day of training for which a substitute teachers was provided. The trainer was also available for ongoing support throughout the pilot. She provided basic technical support; adding plug-ins to computers in the classroom while an IT support person from the station worked on larger technical needs.

School Background

IDPTV’s partner school is located in a rural area outside of Boise, ID, and serves 454 students in grades 7-8. At the time of our visit, there were 22 teachers in the school and the student: teacher ratio was 20:1. The participating teacher had an average class size of 22 students. The student body was predominately white (95%) and 29% of the total population was eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Special needs students were mainstreamed into social studies classes and teaching aides were present in the participating teacher’s classroom.

School Technology Infrastructure

There was one computer lab in the school that was in demand among teachers. There were five computers in the participating teacher's classroom. There was a technical support person in the school who sat in on the pilot training, was in contact with the station and provided follow-up technical support. In preparation for the pilot, she installed CD-ROM drives and software on the computers in the participating teacher’s classroom. Students acquired basic technology skills at the elementary school level and were not required to take a computer class at the school. The principal was the former technology coordinator for the district, was supportive of technology integration in the school and was instrumental in becoming involved in the pilot.

School Pilot Involvement

The teacher involved in the pilot was an eighth grade US History teacher with 27 years of teaching experience in various disciplines. She was accustomed to collaborating with other teachers in the school and had virtually no experience using technology in her classroom. This pilot was the first time she incorporated technology in her teaching. She had used IDPTV to obtain teacher resources in the past. The teacher used all three of the delivery methods, choosing a different platform for each of her five classes (two classes used the Internet, two classes used CD-ROM and one class used datacasting). Students worked in groups of four, chose their own culminating project and used the Lewis and Clark materials in the classroom to conduct research for their projects. The teacher reported that she planned on using these resources later in the school year.

NJN

Station Background

New Jersey Network (NJN), the state's educational telecommunications network provides access to educational programming and services. Educational services include Ready to Learn programming, a Teen Media website, K-12 multi-media resources as well as Adult Learning resources such as GED and a Workforce Development programming. NJN currently uses digital capabilities to datacast workforce training program content and their first digital series, JOBCAST, to community-based sites. NJN is in the process of statewide digital conversion. The station has been involved in digital projects at the grade school level and this pilot is their first time NJN has worked with a high school. The station worked with the head of the district’s Social Studies Department to select a participating school.

Station Pilot Involvement

NJN hired two consultants to work on the pilot, a project manager and someone to train the participating teachers. The project manager had an existing relationship with NJN working on digital projects. He worked with a contact at the Department of Education to overcome district technology obstacles. The other consultant also had an existing relationship with NJN, having produced local programming. She held an individual one-on-one training for each of the three teachers who participated in the pilot to introduce the different platforms to them.

School Background

NJN’s partner school is located in a large urban school district in Newark, NJ. At the time of our visit, there were 609 students in grades 9-12 and 62 teachers in the school. The class we observed had 26 students. About half of the student population was Hispanic (53%), 37% was African American, and there were smaller percentages of white (8%) and Asian (2%) students. A majority of students (74%) was eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch. There was a 10% ESL population, and a 15% special education population, half of which were mainstreamed. The school used to be a vocational high school and was becoming a gateway for technical careers.

School Technology Infrastructure

Teachers had access to two computer labs with Internet access and one computer lab without Internet access in the school. There were about 30 computers in each lab, and a library media center that had about six computers. There also was an LCD projector that teaches could sign out that was in high demand. Every social studies teacher had at least three computers in his/her classroom and the school had a T1 connection.

School Pilot Involvement

The three participating teachers were US History teachers with classes that had a mixture of sophomores, juniors and seniors. The teachers had an average of six years teaching experience; this was one of the teacher’s first years teaching. One teacher used the datacast in his classroom with the Lewis and Clark materials in teacher-led discussion. The other two teachers attempted to use the Lewis and Clark materials with their students in a computer lab but district policy prevented students from having access to the Internet and CD-ROM drives. By the time of our visit, students were unable to obtain passwords from the district to log on to the website or access CD-ROM drives. The two teachers who were unable to access the materials reported that they intended to use them when they become available in the future.

Section II. Key Aspects of the Pilot Project

This section describes key aspects of the teaching and learning environment and describes how they influenced participating teachers’ and students’ use of the pilot materials delivered via the three formats.

One of the questions of the first phase of PBS’s K-12 Digital Education Project pertained to the barriers to broadband use among K-12 schools: “If broadband access into schools is widespread, why aren’t more bandwidth-intensive applications like streaming media used by teachers and students?”[2] PBS defined the answer to this query largely in terms of technology: server penetration in schools, capacity of local area networks and infrastructure necessary to support streaming video. But Phase One also began to give consideration to variables beyond hardware and bandwidth, such as teacher training and whether and how stations serve schools’ needs. These variables are the focus of Phase Two and explored in this section. Rather than asking “What is keeping schools from using broadband technologies?” Phase Two has asked, “What are the constraining and enabling factors shaping what is possible when stations give schools CD-ROM, broadband and datacasting technologies to use?”

This section organizes these constraining and enabling factors into three groups: classroom-level, school- or district-level and station-level issues. All of these elements interact with one another and are influenced by the overriding issue of time limitations. As with many experimental projects with circumscribed timeframes, the scope of work of this pilot project was tightly confined, giving stations and partner schools roughly five months to complete their test of the materials. PBS notified stations that they had been selected to participate in the project in mid- to late Summer 2002. In turn, stations selected schools and identified participating teachers in the weeks that followed. They then set out to make datacasting a reality and to train teachers to use the materials. Every person involved in the pilot with whom we spoke in some substantial way — from classroom teachers to station liaisons to IT engineers to building-level technical support people — remarked how quickly the time went and how little of it they had. As one station representative remarked, “In the perfect world we could easily have justified the first semester getting the delivery established and trouble shooting glitches and get to the ‘how to use it’ in the second semester to get them [teachers] to use it.” Universally, participants reported they did not intend their comments about the limits of time to be interpreted as criticism; instead, they said their request for additional time grew out of a desire to realize more of the potential they thought the pilot project offered.

Part I. Classroom-Level Issues

We have grouped the classroom-level issues into the following categories: technology experience, content of pilot materials, lesson planning with pilot materials and teachers’ classroom practice.

Technology Experience

Neither PBS nor participating stations stipulated a minimum level of technology experience teachers or students had to have in order to participate in the pilot. While a few stations sought a partner school with an established track record in technology integration, others reported that they purposely selected teachers who had relative little experience using digital resources in the classroom. Station representatives explained how they made this choice because they wanted the pilot to reflect what it would be like for “real teachers” to use the delivery formats.[3] Similarly, students were involved in the pilot solely because they were enrolled in history classes at the middle and high school levels, not because they had advanced technology skills. Participating teachers and students’ technology experience, in particular their previous use of computers and the Internet, shaped how they used the pilot materials and their delivery formats.

• Teachers’ technology experience. Most of the participating teachers were on the lower end of the technology comfort and integration spectrum, having minimal (if any) experience integrating technology into their classroom prior to the pilot. One teacher reported that she never used technology in her teaching before, 12 had little experience using technology in their teaching and the remaining four teachers had some experience using technology in their teaching. These four teachers’ technology use typically consisted of assembling PowerPoint presentations to deliver content to their students and/or having students conduct Internet searches to find specific information to complete a worksheet the teacher had developed.

Due in part to their lack of experience, participating teachers reported they encountered a number of difficulties in using the delivery formats. Many teachers reported that, although they had received training from station representatives, they were not confident how to use the materials in their classroom with students. For example, one teacher with little technology experience said that after she was trained she felt left stranded without any real clear direction about how to use the technologies in her teaching. This teacher, unsure of what she was doing had difficulty searching the CD-ROM for lessons and her inexperience with technology made it difficult to communicate with and understand the school technology coordinator.

Although many teachers reported they had limited experience using technology in their classroom practice they said they were hopeful that computers and digital materials would be beneficial to their students. Some teachers who worked with students from diverse backgrounds and abilities reported that technology can often “even the playing field” and could motivate and engage students who were not normally engaged.

• Students’ technology experience. The students in the participating teachers’ classes had a wide-range of experience with and access to technology. Unrelated to the pilot, schools working with four of the stations required students to take a technology class, which often consisted of basic keyboarding skills and an introduction to word-processing and software programs such as PowerPoint. Teachers in the remaining schools, especially at the high school level, said they expected students to have some experience using technology from previous class assignments involving computers.

Reflecting the wide range of student technology skills, instruction during the pilot lessons varied from teachers who gave students explicit directions on how to turn on computers and navigate to a specific website to teachers who informally told students to begin their work on the computers in the lab where students previously had spent significant amounts of time. Approximately two-thirds of the teachers created lesson plans that required students to have a basic technology background including keyboarding skills and familiarity with searching on Internet.

Related to the issue of student technology experience was student access to computers at home and other locations outside of formal class instruction. Participating middle school teachers reported that they typically did not expect students to finish computer-related assignments at home. Teachers who used the Internet delivery format and a few who used datacasting said they anticipated that a small percentage of students, however, would use the Web to try to find materials related to pilot lessons. Participating high school teachers reported that they generally expected students to use computers to complete assignments outside of class time, using a school lab after school, a local library or a home PC. They said that it was important for students to have access to resources beyond the classroom. The type of access to technology students had was connected to socio-economic factors. For example, one school with a high percentage of the student population receiving free or reduce-priced lunch kept its computer labs open after school because many students did not have a home computer. Other schools in more affluent areas said that students commonly came from homes that owned one or more computers.

Content of Pilot Materials

Relying on The West and Lewis & Clark from Florentine Films, the content of the pilot project focused on the period of westward expansion in U.S. history. PBS made the decision to use this material based on its analysis of available programming as it related to rights issues, existing ancillary educational content and curricular relevance. The hope was that this content, because of its breadth and relevance to middle and high school curriculum, would appeal to social studies and history teachers in grades six through twelve and attract schools willing to partner with local stations.

PBS input the content into a comprehensive database/media library and encouraged participating stations to add local programming and resources related to the pilot’s themes such as state or regional history. Participating teachers had the option to use materials from any combination of the following categories: lesson plans, audio clips, video clips, images, articles and games. The content was indexed by type of resource and subject for which teaches and/or students could search using key words or phrases.

Participating teachers and students identified the following issues related to the content of the pilot materials:

• Relevance. As history, social studies and language arts teachers, all of the participating teachers reported that the themes of exploration and westward expansion were relevant to their existing curricula. However, the degree of relevance varied from teacher to teacher. Some participating teachers reported that, had they not been participating in the pilot, they would have devoted no more than a few minutes to Lewis and Clark’s expedition. On the other hand, some teachers reported that instead of making do with a few brief paragraphs of information on the topic of the Louisiana Purchase provided in their textbooks the pilot materials allowed them to develop an entire unit on Lewis and Clark. As one station trainer said about the feedback she received from participating teachers: “They liked the encyclopedic nature [of the materials]. There was no limit to what they could do and they wanted to keep it and that’s what they valued the most.” A third group of teachers reported that they spent an equal amount of time on themes covered by the materials during the pilot as they had in previous years when these materials were not available to them. Nearly all of the teachers requested additional time and materials; they said both would allow them to more fully integrate rich media into multiple lessons and units rather than being limited to the database created for the pilot project.

Regarding the relevance of the local content, most of the participating teachers reported that localized content and resources comprised a small percentage of the materials they used. While a few teachers reported that they were less interested in making local connections because their priority was to cover broad historical themes, other teachers said they were interested in viewing the local materials when they had additional time.

Several participating teachers also reported that, prior to their involvement in the pilot, they were unaware their public television station provided educational resources. They said they were both surprised and impressed that so many high quality resources were available for their use in the classroom.

• Breadth. While participating teachers reported they understood that the pilot project had to involve a finite set of topics they expressed an interest in materials covering a much wider range of time periods and historical themes. Not only did specific teachers have specific requests, such as Ken Burn’s Civil War series, social histories of women, African-American, Asian-American and other non-white men, nearly all of the participating teachers said they would like to have access to a broad library of dependable resources that is well-indexed and easy to search

• Scheduling. Because of the scheduling of the pilot — it took place in the fall semester — many participating teachers had to disrupt the flow and chronology of their regular curriculum to accommodate the use of the materials. For example, several teachers had to make a 200-year leap forward in order to reach the1800s and discuss Lewis and Clark’s journey. Though teachers acknowledged this was not ideal they said they and their students were flexible. Despite the awkwardness of the timing, participating teachers reported that they tried to make the content “jumps” as smooth as possible, tying the materials into a lesson or unit chronologically or thematically. Many teachers said that the challenge of scheduling would not continue were they to have year-round access to station-provided resources in the future.

• Format. Nearly all participating teachers reported they had experience using full-length videos in their teaching but this was the first time many of them had access to brief, finite audio and video segments. Two-thirds of participating teachers reported that they took advantage of this aspect of the materials, weaving specific segments into their lessons. Both teachers who experimented with this aspect of the format and those who had not said they look forward to learning how to take advantage of this new, refined format should more video and audio become available to them. They said that it would take time to know how to integrate clips into their practice from both a technological standpoint as well as substantive one. They said they were accustomed to longer video segments that seemed more self-contained than the short clips, which they had to place in a context in order for their students to understand them.

• Accessibility. In addition to commenting on the size of the files, many of the participating teachers reported how much they valued the multi-modal aspect of the pilot materials. For example, one teacher reported that she thought that some of her resource students benefited from the audio component. Because they were not able to read at a middle-school level, she said the option to listen to information made the materials more accessible than they would had been had they been text only. Another teacher made a similar comment: “The reading level in junior high is horrible and I’ve seen that retention is getting better because they’re reading it, seeing it and hearing it in three different ways.” Several teachers said they thought that multiple ways into the same topic helped keep students engaged in their work.

Similarly, when teachers gave students the opportunity to research topics they had selected, they accessed different types or resources: video, audio, images, articles and journal entries. They, too, reported that they like the variety of options available. For example, one student said she liked having the ability “to see either a document, picture, or clip, to have a choice … to look for major points to summarize the information.”

Several teachers reported that they thought more could be done to enhance the accessibility of the pilot materials. Though many participating teachers reported that the interface was easy to navigate and well organized, some said the interface could be made more accessible for students with special needs, such as learning disabled, deaf or hard of hearing, and non-native English speaking students. One teacher suggested adding closed-captioning to the video clips.

• Organizational structure. A few teachers identified ways that the pilot materials could be organized differently. For example, some noted when they searched the Internet or datacasting formats the indexed content results included items with identical titles, making it difficult for teachers to anticipate what each item would contain. One teacher said a one-line description attached to each item would be helpful in assessing search results. Similarly, some students reported that they encountered difficulties when trying to conduct research. They described the how the textual information was too dense. They also said that unlike Web search engines with which they were familiar, the pilot materials often did not make it clear if they had found the information they were seeking.

Other teachers reported they wanted greater control when using specific video and audio clips. For example, one teacher said he wanted the ability to queue a series of clips in preparation for his lesson instead of having to break the continuity of his teaching to find and open a clip while his students waited. Likewise, a station trainer suggested adding a teacher management tool to the interface and functionality, which would allow teachers to create individualized mini-libraries of clips and other resources.

Lesson Planning with Pilot Materials

Access to digital resources was new to many participating teachers. To learn how to use the pilot materials with their students, teachers explained how they had to prepare their lessons differently than they were used to doing, which led them to identify the following issues:

• Technical and instructional support. Because integrating digital resources into a classroom practice was new to many participating teachers, they reported that they had a greater need for support from technology coordinators, curriculum specialists and/or technology-savvy teachers within their schools. They said they often sought the help of others as they prepared to use the materials rather than working independently.

• Additional prep time. Teachers reported how they needed additional time to select content and practice implementing lessons involving pilot materials. Though each video and audio segment available to them was brief, they were not familiar with the database of clips. Consequently, several teachers explained how they watched multiple hours of video in order to choose which clips to insert into their lessons. Likewise, because many of the participating teachers had not used technology in their classroom they said they were concerned that they delivery format would not work — either because they were uncertain how to operate a computer and ancillary equipment or they were not confident that the technology was reliable. To minimize these risks, several teachers reported they devoted time to practicing “dry-runs” before their actual lessons with students. For example, one teacher described how she practiced with the datacast the night before she intended to implement the materials to make sure the technology was working and to practice making a smoother transition from video clips to her lecture. Another teacher who used one of the web-based games reported how she played the game beforehand in preparation for the lesson.

• Back-up lessons. Recognizing that access to the pilot materials relied on technologies that were not foolproof many participating teachers reported they created back-up lessons in the event that a delivery format failed. For example, some teachers reported they intended to use the CD-ROM if other formats did not work; others said they developed back-up plans in anticipation of none of the formats working; and another teacher brought in a game not related to the content for the same reason.

• Access to computers and ancillary equipment. In order to use the digital resources many participating teachers reported their planning included finding access to equipment previously not available in their individual classrooms. For example, some teachers reported how they had to plan in advance if their lessons required access to a computer lab and/or an LCD projector. Some teachers said they had limited access to their school’s computer lab, needing to sign up with a technology coordinator or lab monitor well in advance or vying for space usually given to other teachers and/or disciplines. Additionally, a few teachers reported they needed headphones to allow multiple students to watch different video clips simultaneously, while others said speakers were necessary to take advantage of the audio materials. Other teachers described how their computers were too outdated or unreliable to use in the pilot. Whenever teachers encountered these additional equipment needs they often turned to colleagues in their schools, district staff or station representatives to help secure the equipment, or in two cases, they did without, which limited use of the pilot materials.

• Student skill assessment. Although many participating teachers reported their students had a general level of familiarity with technology — often exceeding the comfort that teachers felt they had themselves — several teachers said they had to consider their students’ skills as they conducted their lesson planning. Depending on the nature of the lesson and the activities involved they said they had to build in time to help their students develop a new skill, such as conducting electronic research. As one teacher said in beginning a lesson with her students, “We’re going to practice doing searches on the database as a whole class.” Because conducting research often was new to many of the students in participating classes, especially on the middle school level, several teachers explained how they needed to help their students develop computer research strategies.

• Classroom management. Participating teachers reported that use of pilot materials required them to plan to manage their students differently than they were accustomed. Because several teachers had their students work in pairs or in groups, they said they had to determine who would be working with whom according to technology and other skill levels. Other teachers reported that, when they had students working on a small number of computers in the classroom, as opposed to a lab equipped with dozens of machines, they had to establish a rotation schedule, smoothly moving groups of students onto and off of a computer so all students would have access at some point during the lesson. Another classroom management issue that arose for many teachers was keeping students’ attention. Some teachers reported how the ability to pause or stop a video clip to regain student attention, or replay a clip to emphasize a point gave them control.

• Assessment. Most participating teachers reported that they generally used a combination of assessment measures including group or individual projects, homework, class participation, quizzes and written and multiple-choice exams. Teachers at three of the station-school partnerships used culminating student projects to assess work completed as part of the pilot; teachers from two of the schools used worksheets and mini-assignments for assessment; teachers from two schools reported they intended to include related content covered on tests; and other teachers reported that they had not identified how, or if, they would assess student performance on pilot-related lessons.

• Non-technical support in the classroom. In schools where students with special needs were mainstreamed there often were adults assigned to support these students and classroom teachers. Several participating teachers reported that they spent time familiarizing special education teachers and other para-professionals with the pilot resources. The role that resources specialists who had some exposure to and involvement in the pilot included the following: signing video clips for hearing impaired students, helping autistic or learning disabled students use the content by reading text and/or primary source materials aloud and providing general help to students working on computer-related assignments.

Teachers’ Classroom Practice

Teachers’ pedagogy influenced how they perceived pilot materials and the types of student activities they developed to integrate digital resources into their teaching. Because most teachers had well established classroom practices, having been teaching on average for 15 years prior to the pilot, they used the materials in a variety of ways: for lesson planning, classroom instruction and/or student research. For example, a handful of teachers used materials to plan student activities by mining PBS-provided lesson plans for ideas, and, in some cases, adapting worksheets to use with students. Other teachers spent time searching, viewing and identifying video clips and images and then incorporated specific materials into lessons they designed. About half of the teachers used the delivery methods in their classroom as an introduction to a lesson and then had their students use the resources in the computer lab to complete an assignment. The other half used the materials in their classroom, either part of teacher-led instruction and as prompts for discussion or, less commonly, having students work in pairs or groups on classroom computers.

In order to describe the issues participating teachers identified, we have grouped their classroom practice into three types: teacher-led; some project-based; and project-based/collaborative.

• Teacher-led: We defined two participating teachers’ classroom practice as “teacher-led.” They reported they primarily used text-based learning, had their students doing little to no project work in groups and/or pairs and had low expectations of students using technology. These teachers integrated the pilot materials into classroom lectures, using video clips and/or photographs as visual aids, occasionally stopping to ask students to respond to a question the teacher posed. While teachers presented information they expected students to take notes in preparation for a quiz or exam, or to complete multiple choice, true/false or fill in the blank worksheets.

• Some project-based: We defined twelve participating teachers’ classroom practice as “some project-based.” These teachers described how they occasionally relied on textbooks, had their students doing some project work in groups and/or pairs and had moderate expectations of students using technology. Teachers who we considered to be project-based were more likely to adapt their teaching practice in an effort to take advantage of the different delivery methods involved in the pilot than those in the teacher-led category. Some of these teachers had their students work in groups or pairs to work around limited technology resources and infrastructure. For example, one teacher had groups of students working in the computer lab, each using a different delivery method to avoid shutting down the school’s network due to too many students accessing the server at the same time. Another teacher changed her teaching practice in order to use the materials as an open-ended exploration for her students. She explained how she was more accustomed to lecturing students but the pilot gave her the opportunity to experiment with middle schooling concepts she had been studying. She said she was striving to use the combination of technology and student inquiry to drive student learning rather than her lectures. Other teachers in this category were less experimental. While some teachers displayed a flexibility and willingness to change their teaching methods, others adapted the materials to an already existing practice by inserting video clips and photographs into whole-class discussions or individual student research on the computer.

[pic]

• Project-based/collaborative: We placed three participating teachers’ classroom practice into the “project-based/collaborative” category. These teachers reported that they used some text-based learning, frequently had their students engage in project-based work in pairs and/or groups and had high expectations of students using technology. These teachers also reported they frequently collaborated with other teachers, either in a formal team-teaching arrangement or informally seeking input from multiple teachers in their building and/or district. Like some of the teachers in the “some project-based” category, teachers in this category had a willingness to experiment with the pilot materials, often giving their students direct access to the digital resources rather than maintaining their control over the materials. For example, one teacher who had perhaps even less experience with technology but a much more progressive approach to teaching that included collaboration and project-based work, had students use the materials as an open-ended exploratory research tool. She assigned students the task of searching the database of Lewis and Clark materials, asking them to identify video clips and other “evidence” they thought would be appropriate to build a class presentation.

Based on the classroom observations of participating teachers’ lessons with pilot materials and interviews about their experiences integrating the resources into student learning we identified the following issues:

• Students’ hands-on use of materials. Eleven teachers created lessons that placed pilot materials directly in the hands of students; the remaining teachers had students view resources on a TV monitor or on a large screen projected from an LCD that the teacher usually controlled. Teachers who had their students engage in project-based work were much more likely to give students direct access to the pilot materials. Their willingness to engage in a process of continual learning mirrored their willingness to put technology in the hands of their students. Student use of resources ranged from small groups playing the “Into the Unknown” game on the Lewis and Clark website on to spending multiple days (2-14) in the computer lab completing forced-choice answer worksheets to conducting open-ended research on a topic of their choice to assembling clips and information to create a PowerPoint presentation. Both teachers who perceived the materials as teacher tools and teachers who viewed the materials as student tools reported that they valued the quality of the pilot materials and were able to incorporate them into their existing teaching practice.

• Student research. Teachers with more progressive teaching beliefs about what their students were capable of accomplishing — teachers in the “project-based/collaborative” category and to some extent in the “”some project-based” category — were able to promote student autonomy and implement inquiry-based lessons. For example, a few teachers used inquiry-based lessons that allowed students to choose their own topic to research using the pilot materials. In these lessons, students conducted open-ended searches to access video and audio clips, primary source text and images. Other teachers, who were either less confident about students being able to navigate digital resources or who said they wanted to cover specific factual information, defined student research more narrowly. They often had their students use computers to visit a specific website or area within the resources to complete a worksheet. For this type of assignment, students accessed primary source text, summative text and images. Teachers whose classroom practice was teacher-led did not expect students to conduct research using the pilot materials.

Overall, teachers reported that the pilot materials were useful in supporting student research. As one teacher commented, the interface provided “scaffolding for her students, to get them to find things.” Other teachers said they realized that some of their students did not have strong research skills, which could be improved if they had additional opportunities to experiment with materials like those contained in the pilot. Some students had difficulty selecting search words or phrases that would achieve desired results or the information they were looking for was on the periphery or outside of the scope of the content.

• Primary source materials. Although many participating teachers reported that they did not have a great deal of experience using primary source materials, most teachers said they recognized the benefits of using them in their teaching. Project-based/collaborative teachers were better able to identify the benefits of using primary source materials and were more likely to have used primary source materials in their teaching prior to the pilot. Several teachers in the “some project-based” category also discussed the value or students having exposure to primary sources. As one teacher said about the Lewis and Clark journals, “Any time I can put an image or a voice to the textbook it’s easier for the students to remember. My emphasis is on primary sources. I would say, ‘There is the real journal’ every time it would come up in a video clip.”

• Use of students’ technology experience. While many of the participating teachers reported they were aware their students had various levels of experience with computers several teachers in the “some-project-based” category adopted strategies to take advantage of these differences. For example, a few teachers arranged student groupings and pairs to allow tech-savvy students to help their peers. Another teacher formally acknowledged students’ computer knowledge by establishing a system of “computer experts.” These students volunteered to provide technical guidance, sitting alongside other students as they worked on classroom computers. Other teachers informally deferred to students who had computer knowledge when a technical problem arose during a lesson or selected one student to help run the computer at the front of the room while showing video clips the class watched together. Teachers in the “teacher-led” category did not ask students to contribute their technology skills to lessons.

• Teacher collaboration. Collaboration with colleagues often led teachers to create project-based lessons that incorporated pilot materials. Participating teachers who did not consult with others — other teachers in the pilot, history or social studies teachers in their school or curriculum specialists — and instead worked in isolation were more likely to present the materials themselves rather than create assignments that supported student exploration of the resources.

Part II. School- and District-Level Issues

We have grouped the school- and district-level issues into the following categories: technical infrastructure, technical and curricular support and administration’s technology vision.

Technical Infrastructure

By design, the pilot allowed participating teachers to make use of the participating schools’ infrastructures in order to identify the common scenarios for schools to receive, store and deliver digital content. In some cases this meant lessons would occur in a computer lab, in other cases in individual classrooms, and still others, in a combination of both. In order to fully participate in the pilot project, teachers required access to specific technology resources and software programs as well as the ability to adapt to unpredictable circumstances. The following issues arose related to infrastructure:

• Connectivity. All schools had at least a T1 Internet connection and a datacast server was installed in the school in preparation for the pilot. Two station-school partnerships experienced difficulties accessing the pilot materials due to district obstacles. These school districts had firewalls and/or filtering software in place that prevented students from accessing the materials through the Internet. One school also did not permit students to use CD-ROM drives on school computers. These obstacles resulted in delayed use of the pilot materials and/or the need to create a separate website for students to access. Additionally, multiple student users in a lab setting led to the greatest number of technical difficulties in schools with poor technology infrastructure. For one school in particular more than five students on the Internet at the same time would shut down the school server (which was shared by other schools in the district) so that teachers had their students use different platforms using low resolution.

• Hardware and software in labs and classrooms. Participating schools had one to three computers labs regularly available to teachers for lessons requiring technology and participating teachers had from one to 10 computers in their individual classrooms. Three of the stations’ partner teachers used the pilot materials in the classroom; four of the stations’ partner teachers used them in both the classroom and a computer lab. While all schools had at least one computer lab accessible to them, teachers at two schools did not consider using the computer lab because the lab was perceived as inaccessible to them. Most schools had a high enough demand for lab use that they had to sign up for labs well in advance. In some cases the tech support in the school made sure that they would have access during their intended implementation.

In addition to the appropriate school infrastructure teachers had to have PC computers that had Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, and Real Player to access the materials via the different delivery methods. Though the majority of schools had computers ready to support the pilot materials, a few required hardware and software upgrades in order to participate.

• Ancillary equipment. In addition to basic technologies, some teachers requested and/or were given accessories, such as speakers and headsets, which allowed students to use video and audio clips on multiple computers at the same time. As we described above in the “Lesson Planning with Pilot Materials” area, LCD projectors and video monitors were available to participating teachers in most of the schools though some teachers had difficulty obtaining access to ancillary equipment needed to use the materials. Four of the station-school partnerships either expressed a desire for or had headphones and speakers hooked-up specifically for participation in the pilot.

Technical and Curricular Support

Just as a robust technical infrastructure was important to a school’s efforts to integrate technology, so too was the human infrastructure. For the duration of the pilot, most teachers received technology support from both station representatives and a school or district technology support person and the types of curricular support they received varied. The participating teachers’ ability to use the pilot materials had less to do with their previous familiarity and comfort with computers and more to do with the degree to which they felt trained and supported. Support took many forms: collaboration with other teachers (both participating and non-participating), guidance from technical support and curriculum specialists at their school, and initial and ongoing interaction with station representatives. Participants identified the following issues related to technical and curricular support:

• Initial support. All but one station-school partnership had a technical support person who helped with the initial set up of the datacast server in the participating schools. Several of them also helped set up additional technologies including installing CD-ROM drives and software programs and upgrading computers with plug-ins and display systems. At two schools, once the initial technologies were in place their involvement in the pilot ended.

• Ongoing technical support. In addition to setting up initial technologies, technical support people at four of the station-school partnerships also provided ongoing support for teachers as challenges arose. They reported that they attended the station training for participant teachers to understand the technologies and what types of support would be required of them. According to both teachers and technology coordinators, they often checked in with teachers to inquire how the technologies were running and in some cases were available for in-class trouble-shooting and computer lab assistance. Additionally, two stations provided in-school technical support while teachers used the materials with their students. Although this reduced the need for school-provided support, technical support staff typically continued to work with station representatives to provide additional help. Ongoing support also took the form of obtaining access to an LCD projector or other equipment and helping field student questions in a lab environment.

A few of the technical support staff shared time with other schools in the district, limiting their presence and ability to provide immediate support to teachers. One teacher with little comfort using technology in her teaching reported that she did not use the school lab unless she knew the technical support would be available to help.

• Curricular support. While several of the technical technology coordinators typically provided basic technical support in computer labs and for classroom computers, a few also reported that they generally addressed technology integration and curriculum development as well. However, they said they did not provide curricular support for the pilot. The type of school and district curricular support was often inversely related to the type of technical and instructional support the station provided. For example, one computer teacher who also typically provided instructional technology support for teachers had limited involvement in how teachers integrated the pilot materials into their curriculum because the station provided instructional technology staff members to work with teachers on their curriculum.

Administration’s Technology Vision

How the participating schools’ administration viewed technology contributed to how teachers, technology support and others experienced the pilot. Participants identified the following goals related issues:

• Administrator’s technology experience. Administrators with background and experience with technology integration were more likely to consider the pilot as a starting point to grow, develop, and support similar experiences and materials for teachers. One principal commented, “I believe we’ll be able to build on this. We don’t have time for this [otherwise].” Another principal explained, “I got involved because I love technology and technology use in the classroom. Any tool that will get kids’ attention and keep them engaged is great.”

• Expectations for technology use. School and district emphasis on and support of technology use differed across school-station partnerships. Most school-station partnerships encouraged teachers to use technology for administrative purposes and/or technology integration. For example, a few teachers explained how their schools or districts required them to complete administrative tasks, including online grading, role call and communication with the district via email. Teachers reported that they were less clear what expectations their administrations had for how they were to use technology to support student learning.

• Professional development. For five school-station partnerships, professional development opportunities were available to teachers in their school, occasionally through the district. While districts typically focus technology planning on hardware allocation, a few teachers mentioned related professional development opportunities they took advantage of in their district (in some cases for University credit). These experiences included learning basic Web design and software programs such as PowerPoint, as well as the opportunity to attend relevant conferences. Schools offered in-house technology trainings that covered basic administrative technical skills and the provision of Internet resources for teachers. Concerning the pilot, both participating teachers and stations representatives reported a need for additional support. As one trainer commented, “All three of the teachers came short of using the fullness of the content not because of their abilities but with the lack of time to sit down and prepare for classes.”

• Broader strategies. While nearly all of the schools involved in the pilot were interested in participating in technology-based projects and extending the presence of digital resources on their campuses, few administrators had concrete goals they wanted to achieve through their participation in the pilot. Once the initial selection of teachers occurred, the involvement of many administrators ended. One principal explained how her job was primarily reactionary in nature; she said she responds to difficulties that arise. If a project is running smoothly then she is not likely to hear about it from her teachers. Also, many administrators viewed the pilot as a finite experience; it was a way for teachers to receive additional content and technology resources and said they had not considered how they could leverage the technologies and resources beyond the pilot.

Part III. Station-Level Issues

Although the pilot did not explicitly set out to explore the relationship that a local public television could form, or in some cases continue, with local schools, the experiences of the seven station-school partnerships have a lot to offer about what may be possible. Though all participating stations had worked closely with schools within their respective communities prior to the pilot, some of the partner schools were outgrowths of existing relationships while others were newly forged. None of the stations had worked with the specific participant schools prior to the pilot. Stations chose to work with schools for a variety of reasons; to form or foster a relationship with a specific district for strategic/political reasons; geographic location because of distance limits of datacast system; recommendation of the district based on a school or administrator’s proven track record of technology integration; or existence of technology resources and past relationship. We have grouped the station-level issues into the following categories: training and support and resources.

Training and Support

How teachers were introduced to the materials and the time they had to experiment strongly influenced how well they were able to integrate the materials into their curriculum. Nearly all of the stations had experience providing formal professional development to teachers but how they approached training teachers participating in this pilot project varied considerably. The number of people involved, the amount of time spent, the content covered and instructional support given differed from training to training.

• Identifying staff responsibilities. Station staff took on three kinds of responsibilities in the course of the pilot: managerial, training and content, and technical. With one exception, station pilot project managers designated one primary contact person, who often worked with one or two other station staff, to provide training and ongoing support. Two stations relied on consultants to tend to the pilot’s day-to-day operations including the training; one station hired a Master Teacher from another educational program to provide supplemental support to the participating teacher.

Stations had varying numbers of instructional and technical staff members available to work on the pilot. While a larger station was able to provide three instructional staff members each to work with a teacher individually, a station with limited staff had one person work with three teachers.

• Training. All stations provided participating teachers face-to-face training, introducing them to the different platforms either before the materials arrived or as the technologies were installed and tested. A number of stations explained how they had worked primarily with institutes of higher education and had little experience working directly with K-12 teachers. Three stations provided training led by someone who had little experience working with teachers; two stations provided trainers with extensive experience working with teachers, one station hired a consultant with teacher technology training experience and one trainer had extensive experience with teacher technology professional development.

The timing, type (individual or group) and duration of the trainings varied as well. One station trained three participating teachers collaboratively over the summer before the digital platforms were available, other stations waited until the digital platforms were available before they trained teachers. Five stations provided individual trainings for different participant teachers, while two stations provided initial group training(s) and followed up with individual support/training. Two stations provided training with little or no follow-up. The amount of time spent on training participant teachers often reflected the quality of the training and the amount of materials covered to help teachers feel prepared to implement the delivery methods. Stations spent as little as 45-minutes to as much as a week of after-school meetings plus a full school day.

• Ongoing technical support. After teachers were introduced to the interface, all trainers were available to address technical problems, and two station trainers were on site during teachers’ implementation. Stations often relied on IT staff, in addition to trainers, to troubleshoot major technical difficulties and ensure that the delivery formats were working.

• Instructional support. During the initial training, participating teachers reported that trainers were mostly concerned with setting up the technologies and spent little if any time on instructional support. After the training, trainers from three stations provided limited instructional support and guidance, suggesting lesson plans from the PBS website or other online resources. This instructional support sometimes came in response to a teacher request. For example, one teacher reported that she felt the initial training did not adequately prepare her to use the materials. She said she “needed some handholding” and suggestions for how to use the materials instructionally. In response, the trainer spent more time with the teacher, suggesting online resources and lesson plans that she could use. Representatives at two other stations helped teachers plan lessons, created worksheets and other related resources, which helped teachers introduce the interface to their students. These trainers were accessible in labs and classrooms while teachers implemented their lessons. The extent of the collaboration and support helped prepare teachers for potential technical problems. One teacher who received ongoing instructional support shared “I couldn’t have done this on my own. We already know what we’re doing ... It’s enhanced what I’ve already been doing.”

• Compensation. To show appreciation for their participation in the pilot, PBS planned to allow each school to keep the pre-configured server, complete with the software and hardware that was required to receive datacasts. Additionally, two stations offered participating teachers a stipend for their time commitment, provided additional hardware and compensated others involved in the pilot, such as a Master Teacher who provided training or a building-level technology coordinator who provided technical assistance. Participating teachers were allowed to keep the videocassette copies of the documentaries they had received as part of the pilot materials.

• Relationship with outside content providers. Stations representatives reported how their interest in testing digital deliveries of resources led to their involvement in the pilot. In particular, they thought the opportunity to datacast educational resources, which many considered a faster, more effective way to deliver resources to teachers, will be an extension of what they were already doing: serving the needs of schools. Representatives from two of the participating stations said they also viewed the pilot as an opportunity to explore additional ways to create revenue. In discussing how datacasting might fit into their future educational services, station representatives expressed a number of opinions about the relationship they had — and should continue to have — with outside content providers. Several stations that had an existing relationship with an outside content provider, such as United Learning or AIMS, reported that they thought of this content as one tool among many that teachers can access. They said they thought stations should pursue licensing content from a variety of sources, which would allow them to offer educators a large selection or resources. Another station representative said he questioned PBS’s wiliness to cede content responsibility to others outside of the public broadcasting system. In so doing, he said PBS forfeits the right to influence content and could potentially render itself obsolete as the content provider has greater value in the partnership, not the deliverer. This station expressed a desire to maintain and build control of localized content and materials and to be the sole provider of digital content to schools. The station viewed datacasting abilities as an opportunity to expand subscription services to schools for which they could charge an additional fee.

Section III. Characteristics of Delivery Formats

This section presents the qualities that participating teachers attributed to the three delivery formats: CD-ROM. Internet and datacast. While some of the strengths and challenges listed below may not exist beyond the pilot phase, when participating teachers were becoming familiar with the delivery systems and technical glitches had yet to be resolved, other characteristics are likely to persist regardless of how much time teachers, stations and technology coordinators have.

Although we have listed the strengths and challenges of the formats as identified by pilot participants, teachers often described these characteristics based on their individual experience of a single format, not the relative experiences of their colleagues (if there were any) who used different formats. Only one-third of the teachers used more than one of the delivery methods so few were able to make side-by-side comparisons. In fact, many teachers not only did not make a distinction between the formats, they occasionally confused them. Six teachers used more than one delivery method; two intentionally, four in response to technical difficulties of the format they originally planned to use. Although there were many technical obstacles to work around, most teachers (14) were able to use at least one of the delivery methods with at least one of the classes without any technical problems as they intended to use them in their lesson. Three teachers used their intended delivery method(s) with their students without any glitches or delays and therefore were able to use the materials as they saw fit. When one or more of delivery method was not functional when a teacher planned to use it, s/he had to be flexible and resourceful enough to work around this. Many teachers prepared back-up plans; they either went to what they (and in some cases their station trainer or technical support coordinator) considered the next most reliable or functional delivery platform, resorted to using the videocassette tapes they received for their participation in the pilot, used familiar websites and search engines or proceeded with a lesson without visual and audio components. Also, because different teachers had different experience using the pilot materials

UAlso, unlike Section II, which contains descriptions of issues related to classroom practice and the lessons that teachers developed, this section does not contain a discussion of the content of the pilot materials. While many teachers claimed that they did not have an in-depth understanding of the relative merits and challenges unique to each delivery format they reported that they did have a sense of the substance of the pilot materials and how they could use them to support teaching and learning in their classrooms. Across all three formats teachers reported that the digital resources involved in the pilot:

• Were teacher-trusted and PBS is a “household name;”

• Give practitioners the flexibility to locate specific segments of video and audio that they could weave into individual lessons they could create;

• Could reach students who have different learning styles, allowing them to read, see, hear;

• Could help develop students’ research skills and support open-ended inquiry;

• Comprised a library of dependable resources, including primary source material, which is important to the study of history; and

• Featured an interface that was easy to use and navigate.

Teachers in the “teacher-led” category, which we define in Section II, reported they planned to use the CD-ROM platform and/or preferred it to the other two delivery formats because they perceived it as the most reliable technology. However, both of the teachers in this category did not use the CD-ROMs because of technical problems and a delay in receiving the discs. In contrast, many of the teachers in the “some project-based” and “project-based/collaborative” categories said they preferred the Internet or datacasting delivery formats because of the strengths described below.

Part I. CD-ROM

All seven stations delivered video and other digital media assets on a 15-disc set of CD-ROMs. At the time of our visits, five station-school partners were able to access content from the CD-ROM format, one of which had received the discs the day before they used them. Three partner schools received multiples sets of the discs. Technical difficulties prevented the other two from using the CD-ROM format. Seven teachers used the CD-ROM format for at least one classroom lesson. Half of these teachers intended to use CD-ROM as a delivery method; the other half used the CD-ROM as a back-up when other deliveries did not work. Depending on the number of CD-ROM sets they had received, teachers used this delivery format in different ways. Because PBS did not own the rights to the materials contained on the CD-ROMs, stations asked teachers to return the discs at the end of the pilot project. Based on their experiences, teachers identified the following strengths and challenges of the CD-ROM delivery format.

Strengths

• Reliable. Several teachers who had minimal familiarity and comfort with technology reported that the CD-ROM format was reliable. Unlike the Internet and datacasting delivery methods, CD-ROMs did not require a functioning network. The technology infrastructure at some of the pilot schools was not robust enough to support many users on the network at the same time, making CD-ROMs a “safer” choice. Before pilot implementation, four teachers planned to or actually resorted to using CD-ROM when network problems with a different format arose. As one practicing teacher explained, “The Internet went down and I used the CD-ROM yesterday.” Teachers said they wanted to know that when they planned a lesson requiring technology that the technologies were going to work.

• Easy to use. For teachers who had limited experience using technology the CD-ROM was perceived as easier to use and understand and as a less intimidating technology. In one school, the teacher with the least experience with technology was given the CD-ROM format because it would be the least difficult for a beginner.

Challenges

• Cumbersome. Because all of the pilot content could not be contained on a single disc many teachers and students who used the CD-ROM format found it to be clunky and cumbersome. Teachers who used this format reported that having to change the discs interrupted the flow of their lesson and that they risked losing their students’ attention when they had to change discs. Teachers also noted that when their students were using the discs, they sometimes did not have the patience to figure out which one to insert. In one classroom, for example, a student repeatedly put in the wrong disc before finding the one he was asked to use.

• Limited use. Limited copies of the CD-ROM set often did not allow teachers to use the pilot materials as a student research tool. In the four cases where teachers received additional sets from the station, teachers reported that their students were able to work in pairs in the computer lab or in groups, rotating onto computers in the classroom. Teachers who received only one set often developed lessons that did not require the students to conduct research.

• Difficult classroom management. Teachers who had multiple CD-ROM sets reported that it was a challenge to keep track of 15 discs; students often left them in drives and they were not sure where to store them.

• Installation unclear. In some cases, stations or districts had to install or update computer drives to use the CD-ROMs, requiring additional time and knowledgeable technical support, which the school did not have in some instances. Teachers reported that they wanted to be assured that the technical support available in their school could handle their needs.

• District obstacles. In one district, students initially were not allowed access to CD-ROM drives, making it necessary to obtain approval to grant students access from both the district and participating school.

• Printing difficulties. Teachers at multiple schools reported that they had difficulty printing from the CD-ROM.

• Unfamiliar interface. Teachers reported that students who were more familiar with the Internet and popular Web search engines had difficulty using the CD-ROM. As one teacher explained, “They [the students] were confused about the titles [of search results]; they kept forgetting to press view [because they are used to clicking on titles that are direct links]".

Part II. Internet

Stations delivered rich-media audio and video, which was segmented and streamed on-demand, via a broadband Internet connection. At the time of our visits, four station-school partners were able to stream video from the Internet successfully; two were not able to because of technical difficulties; and one was able to access the Internet but was not able to steam video. Ten teachers used materials delivered via the Internet for at least one classroom lesson (although three were unable to stream video). Some teachers used other delivery platforms when they encountered technical difficulties. The Internet format enabled users to choose between hi-resolution and or low-resolution quality visuals and schools with varying types of Internet access manipulated this feature accordingly. All schools had an existing network in place (LAN or WAN) and all teacher classrooms and labs had access to the Internet through their network. Based on their experiences, teachers identified the following strengths and challenges of the Internet delivery format.

Strengths

• Familiar. Most participating teachers reported that they were familiar with the Internet and had experience using it for personal tasks, lesson planning and/or in their classroom with students. Teachers who used the Internet explained that the familiarity of this format made it easy to identify other websites as a back up in the event that the pilot materials were inaccessible. Teachers and administrators also reported that students were also familiar with the Internet. Most participating schools had a significant percentage of students who had some experience with the Internet both in school and at home, which led them to be able to use this format more quickly without having to learn a new interface.

• Expandable. Some participating teachers reported that, because they were familiar with the Internet prior to the pilot, their comfort with the format increased, allowing them to develop advanced skills. For example, both teachers and students said that streaming video and inserting video clips into PowerPoint presentations were new skills they acquired as a result of working with the pilot materials.

• Ready-to-go. All schools had Internet access prior to the pilot so the infrastructure to support this format was already in place. Participating teachers, technology coordinators and stations reported that this reduced the need to equip and train technical support and practitioners on this delivery method.

• Easy-to-use. Participating teachers with some experience using technology reported that the Internet is something that is easy to understand and navigate. They said that most students also found the Internet easy to use and had some experience doing so.

• Sophisticated. Participating teachers reported that they considered the Internet to be a more advanced technology than CD-ROM, having greater capacity to view video and audio clips.

• Flexible accessibility. Participating teachers reported that they had the flexibility to use the Internet in multiple locations. Teachers used this delivery method either in a computer lab (2), in their classroom (3), or in both locations (5), and some said their students would access the materials from home.

Challenges

• Unreliable. Several participating teachers reported that the Internet was unreliable because the school network had technical difficulties, the quality of the video and audio was unpredictable and/or the connection was too slow.

Difficulties with school network. Some teachers who had their students access the Internet for research purposes said they faced problems when the school did not have adequate network capabilities to handle a high volume of use. When multiple users simultaneously tried to stream information from the Internet the school network either ran slowly or shut down completely. In one school, a teacher reported that she had groups of students working with a different delivery method to avoid overloading the network. Because of network limitations, another teacher said he was only able to play video clips streamed from the Internet using the low-resolution option.

Unpredictable quality of access. Some teachers reported that they found access to the Internet to be unpredictable and were never sure when it was going to work or how well it would work. Even when the Internet was functioning, streaming video often was accompanied by synchronization and buffering problems. The lag time and inconsistency of audio and visual features associated with buffering made it difficult for teachers to keep their students engaged in the content. Teachers who had students with learning disabilities mainstreamed in their general education classes said this was especially true.

Too slow. Some teachers said that the Internet format was not fast enough, taking too long to access and stream information from the Internet.

• District obstacles. Some schools had district policies, which took the form of filtering software or firewalls, preventing students from being able to access the pilot materials. Participants reported that these obstacles required additional time and communication with the district, which occasionally resulted in delays or in one case prevented students and teachers from accessing the materials altogether. At one site, the station and school technical support worked together to create an independent website to support the project materials and content.

Part III. Datacasting

Participating stations used a datacasting server at their station to receive content materials from PBS. In turn, stations datacasting this non-linear, asynchronous stream of programming to schools. In preparation for the pilot, stations installed a datacasting server at each participating school so that the digital content could be data-streamed and subsequently housed on and accessed from the school server. . Schools were allowed to keep the datacast server after the pilot project concluded.

All stations were able to datacast materials to school servers and, by the time of our visits, six station-school partners were able to successfully datacast from the school server during classroom lessons. Eight teachers used materials delivered via datacast for at least one classroom lesson. Datacast was thought to be able to handle a higher volume of users than the Internet and most datacast users had their students simultaneously access the pilot materials. Although many teachers experienced technical difficulties while using datacast, their experience and comments about the delivery method move beyond immediate problems to how they envisioned it can be used in the future. Based on their experiences, teachers identified the following strengths and challenges of the datacasting delivery format.

Strengths

• Sophisticated. Some participating teachers reported that they thought datacasting was the most sophisticated technology of the three and therefore more desirable to use. It allowed for higher quality graphics through high-resolution and low-resolution options and teachers said it gave them fast, immediate access to resources. Unlike the Internet, teachers did not have to worry about buffering problems; when they prepared video clips to show their students they downloaded a clip onto their hard drive and knew that it would be there. Also, teachers said they liked how they did not have to use storage on their computer hard drive or stream from the Internet while using this format.

• New and exciting. For the few participating teachers who had some understanding of digital technologies they reported that using datacasting was an opportunity to expand their knowledge, experience, and choice of different technologies available to them and their students. They said that being on the “cutting edge” was motivating and exciting.

• TV-quality. Some participating teachers reported that students were growing up in a technology age and were surrounded by television. They said that this format was the closest to that experience and therefore was familiar and engaging to students.

Challenges

• Limited capacity. Participating teachers and technology coordinators reported that only a finite number of students (fewer than in a single class) were able to use the pilot resources at any one time.

• Unreliable. As a new technology in schools, participating teachers, technology coordinators and station representatives reported that datacasting required a more reliable server that could handle large volumes of simultaneous users. Without an improved datacast server, they said they thought that teachers and students would continue to experience buffering and synchronization problems similar to those experienced with the Internet platform.

• Complicated. Some participating teachers said they experienced datacasting as a seemingly complicated and confusing delivery method. Teachers who were less familiar with technology said they had a hard time understanding how the materials were delivered and how datacast differed from the Internet. Some of the participating schools had a technical support person who was not familiar with newer technologies and who did not know how to support datacasting.

• Technical difficulties. Some participating teachers reported that the slider function did not work; instead of locating and being able to play a particular section of the clip they had to play it in its entirety.

Section III. Conclusion and Recommendations

Conclusion

Digital audio and visual technologies generally, and datacast delivery specifically, have significant potential in supporting teaching and learning. Unanimously, participating teachers remarked on the high quality of the content of the pilot resources and the desire to have access to an entire library of similar materials. Though pilot participants both at participating stations and within participating schools reported that additional time would have allowed them to experiment more fully with digital resources, moving beyond technical barriers that they saw as temporary and surmountable, they remained enthusiastic about the promise of new delivery formats. Moreover, aside from the particulars of any technical system that public television stations pursue in the near or more distant future, participants said they are committed to continued partnerships between schools and stations, and are hopeful that they can use technology as a tool to help these partnerships grow stronger.

Recommendations

As PBS considers the development of a datacasting service and the distribution and use of digital resources more broadly, it will be important to consider a wide range of issues. We recommend the following:

• Continue to deliver rich content using a variety of formats.

Although datacasting presents public broadcasters with new possibilities, CD-ROMs and the Internet are staple technologies in many schools. A one-size-fits-all approach will not meet the needs of K-12 schools, especially an approach that requires high-end technology that many schools’ infrastructures cannot support in their present form.

• Recognize the importance of teacher training and the value of offering professional development opportunities throughout the year.

Although training is often the responsibility of the school and/or district rather than the local public television station, providing additional support is fundamental to the success of meaningful technology integration into curricula and classroom practice. Not only do teachers require ample time to experiment and become familiar with digital resources before knowing how to use them with their students, they benefit from hands-on training, exposure to promising practices and ongoing support. NTTI, TeacherSource, and other existing teacher communities and resources can help practitioners use technology reflectively, develop classroom management strategies and create lessons that meet district and state learning goals.

• Work with schools that have strong, flexible leadership with a broad vision for technology integration.

Administrative leaders who create supportive relationships with a wide range of people from both their own school and district’s networks and the broader community are in a position to leverage the potential of digital technologies. Schools that have well-defined learning and teaching goals they want technology to support will be important partners as stations continue to sort through datacasting issues and possibilities.

• Leverage the innovative educational design that is possible with advanced use of digital audio and video.

Though use of digital materials may begin at the classroom level, capturing the attention of technology pioneers within a school, professional development and curriculum specialists may lead to connections to an overall educational reform strategy that includes inquiry-based learning, teacher collaboration across subjects and student research with primary source material. Access to digitized primary source materials and a searchable database of rich media files are valuable tools, especially for teachers whose students engage in project-based work.

Help teachers find ways to take advantage of students’ knowledge of and comfort with technology.

Regardless of the form technology takes — CD-ROM, Internet or datacast — stations can help teachers, especially those with limited experience with integrating technology into student learning, rely on students’ familiarity of and facility with technology. Stations can introduce teachers to strategies and classroom practice that: feature students teaching other students and possibly teachers to use computers and other equipment; place digital resources in the hands of students rather than asking them to view these resources at a distance; and give students a sense of mastery given that they often have greater knowledge of technology than their parents and administrators.

• Continue to emphasize the quality of the materials that public television stations are able to deliver, drawing from national and local content sources.

Given the reputation of PBS and local public television stations as providers of well-produced, thoughtful programming stations can continue to serve educators by offering resources relevant to multiple disciplines and grade levels.

• Create training opportunities for technology support personnel on the school and district level.

Though the use of digital resources within individual classrooms may seem to fall most directly in the hands of practitioners, the impact that technology coordinators and curriculum specialists can have cannot be undervalued. The active involvement of these support people will contribute to how well teachers are able to use materials stations offer.

• Offer resources that are accessible from multiple locations within schools and informal learning spaces, like homes and libraries.

Teachers and students place a premium on flexibility and being able to use digital resources in a variety of settings. Though some schools will continue to experiment with the notion of ubiquitous computing, handheld and laptop computers, wireless networks and mobile labs, many schools are rooted to more traditional technology arrangements. And while schools scramble to develop technology implementation plans, seeking to make lasting investments with scarce resources, families continue to acquire computers for the home. Stations can help enhance the home-school connection by offering resources that students can use from a variety of locations.

Considerations for Further Research

In having the foresight to build an evaluation component into the pilot phase, PBS has established a research foundation on which it can continue to build. Not only did the pilot identify issues relevant to stations and schools as they continue to experiment with datacasting and other digital delivery formats, it uncovered several directions that PBS, perhaps in a continued partnership with CPB, can explore that will be useful to educational researchers, policymakers and practitioners.

• Use formative research to identify the supports classroom teachers will need to make use of primary source documents and digital resources.

As PBS and member stations continue to expand their K-12 offerings, making greater amounts of finite segments of video and audio available to teachers and students, there will be a parallel need for materials and experiences that support the use of these new resources. Unlike the old video model where teachers make use of a video program or a portion of a video program that is produced to have a structure and organization, brief clips and primary sources often lack a context. They are not pre-digested, pre-assembled stories that students receive but raw material that students must interpret. Additional research can identify how teachers make sense of newly available resources, which can lead to the development of online, print, and training supports. These supports may include deliberate curricular contexts that pertain to specific disciplines, like history or science, as well as pedagogical contexts, such a research starters to help students sift through and interpret information.

• Conduct a formal evaluation of professional development around the use of PBS digital resources.

Though it may be premature to study the effectiveness of datacasting as a means of delivering resources that improve teaching and learning, it is not too soon to study teacher-training models that support the use of those resources. Given the new emphasis the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences is placing on scientifically-based research, PBS’s national training institute is well positioned to provide research for inclusion in the What Works Clearinghouse ().

Appendix A: School-Station Partnerships Visited[4]

ECB

Educational Communications Board

3319 W. Beltline Highway

Madison, WI 53713-4296

608.264.9600



KCPT

Kansas City Public Television

125 East 31st St.

Kansas City, MO 64108

816.756.3580



KLVX

KLVX Communications Group

4210 Channel 10 Dr.

Las Vegas, NV 89119

702.799.1010



WHRO

Hampton Roads Educational Telecommunications Association, Inc.

5200 Hampton Blvd.

Norfolk, VA 23508

757.889.9400



UEN

Utah Education Network

101 Wasatch Dr., Suite 215

Salt Lake City, UT 84112

801.581.2999



IDPTV

IdahoPTV

1455 North Orchard St.

Boise, ID 83706

800.543.6868



NJN

New Jersey Network

25 S. Stockton St.

Trenton, NJ 08611

609.777.5000



Appendix B. Teacher Interview Protocol

Location:

Date:

School:

Method(s) of curriculum implementation: (CD-ROM, Internet and Datacast)

I. Background

Name:

Grade/Subject area:

Years Teaching:

What kinds of activities do you usually do with your students? (group projects, independent work?)

What resources do you typically use in your classroom? (textbooks, project-based work?)

II. Technology Background

Can you briefly describe your general use of technology? (for how many years have you been using technology, how comfortable do you feel using technology?)

How often do you use technology for work-related and personal tasks? For what types of things (record keeping, internet research, lesson planning, email to communicate with colleagues)

How often do you typically do technology-related activities with your students? What types of things do you do with your students? (word processing, Internet research, production or multimedia tools)

What technologies have you used in your classroom that are similar to the ones used in this pilot? (have you used other PBS resources i.e. TeacherSource, TeacherLine or other video, digital TV or interactive resources?) How often?

How do you use technology in your teaching? (in place of another lesson, as an add on, a reward, to enhance or improve an existing lesson?)

Have you ever attended any technology-related professional development workshops? If so, can you briefly describe them? (what did they focus on - basic technology skills, technology integration into your lessons)

Would you consider yourself a technology expert or pioneer in your school? (do you help other teachers use technology in their lessons, are you open to trying new technologies, do you use different/multiple applications on regular basis?)

Can you briefly describe the technology resources available at your school? (approximate number of computers, video monitors and projectors, where you have access to them, do they have Internet access?)

Where do you use computers with your class? (lab, classroom, library)

Is there a technical support person in your school? If so, is that person an accessible and used resource by you and other teachers in the school? Was this person involved with the pilot or did you confer with this person during your involvement with this pilot? For what sorts of things? (technical difficulties, scheduling lab use, to navigate the materials, technology integration).

What is your school administration’s attitude toward using technology in classroom instruction? (do they provide or require related professional development opportunities, are technology skills and technology integration considered a priority?)

Were they supportive of your involvement in this pilot? In what way? (were they responsive to your technical and curricular needs for the lesson?)

What is the district’s attitude toward using technology in classroom instruction? (do they offer or require professional development opportunities, are technology skills and technology integration considered a priority?)

Why do you use technology with your students? How do you think your students benefit from lessons that use technology? (do you think using technology motivates, increases engagement, teaches basic skills, teaches analytic skills?)

III. Working with PBS

Does your school have an established relationship with your local PBS station? (are they in regular contact, have they collaborated in the past?)

Have you ever worked with someone from the station before? If so, briefly describe the project and experience.

How familiar are you with PBS programming and their teacher resources?

Can you briefly describe the training? (time commitment, location, people involved in the training/that you worked with and got support from)

Did you feel prepared for the training? (did you feel like you had adequate technology skills?)

What has your experience with the PBS contact been like for this project? (were they responsive to your needs and questions during the training? did you have contact with them after the training? were they accessible? did they address both technical and curricular questions and concerns to your satisfaction?)

How did he/she help you address your educational goals? (did they facilitate or impede your lesson planning process? did they tailor materials - to better match your needs?)

If you did not have regular contact with someone from the station do you think that would have been helpful? Why? (what kinds of support would you have liked them to have provided?)

What did you think about the training manual? (was it useful, did you refer to it after the training? What would you have added to it?)

Did you use the listserv? For what types of things (to share personal experience/information, to get support from other teachers or station or PBS contacts, to make suggestions to improve the process or product)

How can the training be improved upon – especially when thinking about training other teacher that may not be as tech savvy? (more time/exposure to the platform, more in depth information about the technologies and/or technical terms, follow-up, better training materials, more support)

IV. Digital Classroom Implementation

What were your expectations for the use of these materials with your students? (did you think they would address specific teaching and learning goals, would motivate your students?)

Can you briefly describe how you planned your lesson? (did you use suggestions made in the manual, or provided by other teaches on the listserv?)

What things did you do differently to prepare for the lesson? (did you access the link to state standards or search for lesson plans? did you spend time practicing/ doing a run-through with the platform? While preparing the lesson, did you have difficultly navigating the materials or through the amount of materials available?)

How did you use the platform in your lesson (to prepare for the lesson, as a research tool during the lesson, as an introduction to the lesson or as the primary or secondary source for the lesson? did you have students use the platform or did you present the materials to the class?)

What features and types of files did you or your students use? (key word search, browse category headings, games, articles, audio, video, image, the “Lewis and Clark” and “The West” episodes, local features - video or interactive content related to your state)

If you used the local content features, how did they compare to the rest of the materials? (quality, ease of use, relevance)

What features would you add or change? (were the category headings adequate? were there too many/too confusing, not enough?)

How did using the application make this lesson different than if you did not use the application? (did it add anything to or enhance the lesson, were you better able to convey the lesson to certain students that would not have been possible otherwise)

Did you have students work differently than usual? (collaboratively, in groups, independently?)

How did your students respond to the lesson? (were they more motivated, engaged, conveyed a deeper understanding of the subject area?)

How did student response compare to other lessons in general and other types of technology-integrated lessons?

Were there any surprises or differences between your expectations and what happened? What were they? (materials covered, student response, ease of use of the materials)

What were some of the challenges you faced when using the application with your students? (technology, classroom management, inadequate support, time, materials didn’t fit smoothly into the lesson)

V. Suggestions

What did you like/dislike about the interface design?

Are there features that you would like to see expanded or further developed?

What would you change if anything about the delivery of these materials?

What things do you think need to change to make the use of these materials easier for other teachers who may not be as technically savvy? (clearer instructions, cosmetic changes for easier navigation/use)

What types of support do you think other teachers in your school will need to use these materials? (more support from your local PBS station? more support from the school administration? more resources, professional development)

Would you use these materials in the future? Why? Would you like to see these materials expanded to address other subject areas/themes?

Do you have additional comments about being involved with this pilot? (the experience of working with PBS, using the digital application)

Appendix C. Station Liaison Interview Protocol

Date:

Name:

Station:

I. Station Background

We would like to get some background information about the station.

Tell us how you have worked with schools in the past? (does the station have a specific focus on teacher resources and collaboration? does the station work closely with PBS TeacherSource or does it have separate education programs that it supports on the local level?)

How does participation in this pilot project fit with the station’s broader education goals? (Has the station been looking for ways to expand its educational offerings using digital technologies?)

What station resources were needed to implement this pilot? (did the station have all of the necessary resources i.e. datacast and other relevant technologies, did the infrastructure match what was required of the pilot?)

What role have you played in the pilot?

Who else from the station has been involved in this project and what roles have they played?

How familiar are you with the technologies used in this pilot? (have you trained other people to use them or similar technologies before, were they easy to learn?)

How familiar are you with the content that the digital classroom platforms deliver? (had you seen the documentaries- Lewis & Clark and The West, navigated through the materials extensively – before training the teaches?)

What goals does the station have for participating in the pilot? (How can these materials support teaching/teacher’s classroom instruction Will this offer a new/different kind of support than the station has previously supplied?)

II. Training

We’d like to hear about the training provided for teachers involved in the pilot.

What kind of training did you provide and who was involved?

How did the station prepare to train participating teachers and how did this compare to training the station has offered in the past? (technical and logistical issues – needed to wait to get materials from PBS, work around teacher’s schedule, fix technical problems/ manipulate materials to work within the technical infrastructure at the station and school?)

Did the teachers in this pilot bring unique skills or issues that you had to address either before, during or after the training? (did you know the teacher’s technology skills, their teaching goals for the materials, had you met or collaborated with these teachers before, did collaborate with/depend on educators or administrators in the district/school i.e. a master teacher to make the training more relevant – or to provide parts of the training?)

Can you describe any additional local programming or resources you introduced during the training? (station-produced state or regional history programming, Web quests, digital content contributed by station partners like historical societies and museums)

Can you tell us about the actual training and how you introduced the materials to the teachers? (where was the training held and how many days it took, did you use the manual as your main guide, focused on things that the teacher had interest or difficulties in?)

Were there any surprises between your expectations for the training and what happened? (teacher response to the technologies/content, need for help to train teachers, unexpected ease or difficulty?)

III. Collaborating with and supporting teachers and moving forward

We’d like to hear about your experience working with teachers after they were trained and suggestions for the future.

What was your role once the training was over? (worked with PBS to edit training manual and fix technical glitches, provided additional support to teachers?)

How did you provide support throughout the duration of the pilot? (did you check in with the teachers or contact person on a regular basis, or as needed/requested?)

What issues or concerns arose during the implementation of the pilot? (effective communication - the process for responding to needs and questions during training, regularity of contact, were you able to address technical and/or curricular concerns?)

What is needed to improve the delivery of these materials (more training, better training manual, more ongoing contact with teachers or contact person, better understanding of teacher’s learning goals/curriculum, better understanding of PBS goals?)

Did you feel well-prepared for your involvement in the pilot? (did you have adequate support from PBS, knew what was expected of you, were prepared to run a training and work with teachers?)

Were there any surprises or differences between your expectations of the pilot and what happened? (challenges working with schools and districts, need to provide continues support?)

What could PBS have provided that would have made the pilot go more smoothly? (more comprehensive training manual, timelier delivery of the materials, more conversation about the goals of the project and expectations, technical and financial support for the platforms)

Do you have any additional comments or suggestions about how this project can be improved? (clarify station involvement/role, how to work with other schools and districts, how it can be made more accessible to a greater number of teachers?)

Appendix D. Student Interview Protocol

Date:

Name:

Grade level:

During our classroom observations, if the lesson allows, we will ask 2-4 questions of a few students. If the teacher determines that it is non-intrusive or distracting to students, we will quietly approach a few students, who are working along or in small groups, and ask several questions. Among the questions we might ask are the following:

What kind of project are you doing with the materials? (group or individual work? Open-ended exploring, answering a set of fact-based questions? Multi-media or writing assignment)

How, if at all, are the materials different from others you have used in the past?

What do you like about the materials?

What suggestions do you have for improving the materials? (interface design, depth of content, usability)

-----------------------

[1] We have listed the station-school partnerships in the order we visited them. We have based each station and school description on information we received during our site visit interviews and from individual station and school websites.

[2] PowerPoint presentation delivered by Dan Knepper, January 2002.

[3] National demographics of teacher comfort with using technology in instruction indicate that only one-third of teachers felt "well prepared" or "very well prepared" to use computers or the Internet for instruction in 1999. In 1999, only 10 percent of public school teachers reported feeling "very well prepared," and an additional 23 percent reported feeling "well prepared" to use computers or the Internet for instruction. The majority (53 percent) reported feeling "somewhat prepared," and 13 percent reported feeling "not at all prepared.” National Center for Education Statistics, “Teachers’ Readiness to Use Computers and the Internet.”

[4] We have listed the station-school partnerships in the order that we visited them.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download