Bringing the Internet to Schools Effectively

By Janet Ward Schofield
Professor of Psychology and Senior Scientist
Learning Research & Development Center
University of Pittsburgh

Installation of computers and Internet access in schools must be preceded by careful consideration of how to best use and support the technology.

Internet access is spreading rapidly in primary and secondary schools around the world. Virtually 100 percent of schools are connected to the Internet in countries such as the United States, Australia, Finland, Canada, and Great Britain. The Internet is also fast becoming widely available in schools from Scandinavia to Israel to Korea.

Almost daily, countries are making decisions with major educational and financial consequences about whether to connect schools to the Internet, what kind of connections to use, and to whom to permit access. Unfortunately, education officials do not always give sufficient thought to the adoption of Internet and other computer-based technologies in schools. Sometimes computer technology is acquired as a symbol of modernity rather than for carefully planned educational purposes. ¹ Furthermore, since the Internet is generally seen as a desirable resource, pressures mount on schools to broaden access in classrooms before plans have been formulated for its effective use there.

This article will briefly discuss four issues that should be considered in making decisions about Internet access in primary and secondary schools: its cost relative to alternatives; the need for substantial technical and pedagogical support; the alignment of school, Internet, and community norms; and the alignment of schools' goals and the Internet's educational potential. Much of this discussion is based on a five-year study of Internet use in a large urban school district in the United States. ^{2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7} In addition, the views and experiences of scholars and educators from around the world have also influenced this paper. Some of the issues mentioned, like cost, are obvious. Others are more subtle, but are nonetheless likely to have a strong impact on how Internet access influences educational processes and outcomes.

Cost relative to alternatives

Bringing the Internet to schools is not cheap. Providing Internet access for students in the United States took an initial investment of roughly $110 billion and entails continuing costs of nearly $30 billion a year. ⁸ Indeed, the U.S. government has spent more than $7 billion just on subsidies for Internet connections in schools since 1997. ⁹ India has announced plans to spend the equivalent of roughly $2.5 billion to bring e-learning to 600,000 schools during the next four years. ¹⁰ Costs are especially high when schools must purchase computers with sufficient power to navigate the Internet and when all students are provided with a personal, Internet-ready laptop computer, as is done in some programs in the United States.

Internet service will also increase on-going school operating costs. For example, technical innovations often make perfectly usable computers close to obsolete with regard to Internet use in five to seven years because older computers cannot interact well with evolving network requirements and resources.⁸ Furthermore, maintenance and technical support for Internet use is also a continuing expense.

Given the substantial cost of obtaining Internet access and supporting its effective use, a question arises about whether the expenditures necessary to bring widespread Internet access to all classrooms would be more productively devoted to other things, such as additional teachers, especially in countries where labor is relatively inexpensive in contrast to the cost of computer hardware and connectivity. Also, given rapid technological change, careful consideration of anticipated technological developments and their impact on cost and capabilities is important before spending large amounts on Internet access.

Need for substantial technological and pedagogical support

Frequently, those bringing computers to schools spend too much on hardware and connectivity and too little on activities necessary for effective computer use, such as professional development and support for teachers. ¹¹ Countries in which large investments have been made to bring the Internet to schools have increasingly begun to recognize the importance of setting aside substantial funds for professional development and on-going technical support. ^{12, 13} Nonetheless, finding the right balance between expenditures on hardware, software, and support is a difficult problem that has not been solved. Lack of adequately developed information technology skills among teachers impedes the use of information and communication technology in many countries. ¹⁴

To use the Internet effectively, educators typically must increase their technical skills and their knowledge about the Internet. They also have to develop a vision of how it can contribute productively to their work. These are not simple tasks. Resources increasingly are being developed to aid educators in these regards, though their availability varies from language to language. ¹⁵ Finally, many teachers may not have the time or the inclination to make use of these resources, making it crucial that there be readily available professional development activities and on-going support for them. ^{16, 4}

Alignment of school, Internet, and community norms

The Internet can connect students to information and people around the world. It allows students to take courses not offered in their schools, to interact with experts unavailable in their communities, to find new audiences for their work, and to participate in collaborative projects that they could never undertake locally. For example, in one Internet project students interacted with members of a scientific expedition in Antarctica. In another, students in many communities in the United States worked collaboratively with scientists to collect and analyze data on acid rain, with students in distant schools contributing data from their own region. However, connection to the outside world may also expose students to content that is unacceptable within their communities and to individuals whose ideas or behavior may also be deemed unacceptable by teachers and parents. ¹⁷

Norms, values, and behaviors vary markedly from culture to culture. When Internet content is inconsistent with local mores, educators sometimes curtail Internet use in schools. ¹⁸ Indeed, use can be so circumscribed as to undermine a substantial portion of the Internet's potential educational value. For example, in one school teachers allowed high school students to visit only pre-approved Web sites, due to fears that they might encounter inappropriate material. This practice dramatically reduced the resources these students could access and impeded development of certain kinds of Internet-related skills. ⁴

Strategies have been developed to help deal with incompatibilities between local norms and values and those accessible via the Internet. Acceptable use policies often specify the kinds of materials that students are permitted to seek out. In addition, filters can be used to try to block materials considered inappropriate, although they also inadvertently block some unobjectionable and potentially useful material. ¹⁹ Online and other educational resources may also help students learn how to avoid danger or exploitation by individuals they may encounter on the Internet. For example, numerous organizations have developed Web sites that provide students with Internet safety tips. Two are www.NetSmartz.org and www.CyberSmart.org. However, such resources are more readily available in English and other world languages than in the languages of many countries now connecting schools to the Internet. Where clashes between local norms and those of the Internet are serious and widespread, and where community influence over schooling is strong, Internet use may be curtailed and/or highly controlled, thus limiting its potential value for education.

Alignment of school goals and the Internet's educational potential

Merely placing computers in schools does not guarantee effective use. ^{20, 1, 6} Use depends on factors such as the extent to which teachers believe the technology helps them reach valued goals and the ease with which use fits into everyday classroom practice. ²¹ For example, teachers who place very high priority on their students learning new information and ideas make more use of the World Wide Web than do those who place more emphasis on students' mastery of basic skills. ²²

Whether the Internet fosters skills and experiences that are emphasized by existing tests is also likely to strongly influence the degree to which it is used in schools. Use of many kinds of computer applications can facilitate student achievement. Indeed, a recent comprehensive analysis of studies conducted between 1994 and 2000 on the effectiveness of educational software concluded that its use in schools is associated with gains in reading and mathematics achievement. ²³ But, the Internet is so new that strong evidence about its effectiveness in fostering various academic outcomes is not readily available, ²⁴ although many teachers do highly value its use in their work ^{25, 4}

One of the great advantages of the Internet is that it can help students pursue their own individual interests. ⁴ However, in many countries, national or regional exams play an important role in determining the futures and reputations of individual students and educational institutions. Such exams typically presuppose a common set of knowledge and skills that are tested. If the Internet leads to more diverse and individualized learning for students, such learning seems unlikely to raise scores on standardized examinations. This may well discourage teachers and educational institutions from taking maximum advantage of what the Internet has to offer.

Conclusion

Many potential educational benefits can flow from Internet use in primary and secondary schools. ^{26, 4} The Internet can help teachers obtain and share information easily, develop their skills in many fields, and communicate with other educators as well as with the community their school serves. For students, it can provide a potentially invaluable means of gathering information as well as of communicating and collaborating with those outside of their schools and communities.

Thus, although Internet use in primary and secondary schools holds great potential, important questions remain regarding the financial trade-offs that are necessary to bring about high levels of classroom access, how best to realize its educational potential, and how to measure its effectiveness.

References

^1. Schofield, J. W. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. New York: Cambridge University Press.

^2. Davidson, A. L., & Schofield, J. W. (2002). Female voices in virtual reality: Drawing young girls into an online world. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 34-59). New York: Cambridge University Press.

^3. Davidson, A. L., Schofield, J. W., & Stocks, J. E. (2001). Professional cultures and collaborative efforts: A case study of technologists and educators working for change. The Information Society, 17, 21-32.

^4. Schofield, J. W. & Davidson, A. L. (2002). Bringing the Internet to school: Lessons from an urban district. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

^5. Schofield, J. W., & Davidson, A. L. (2003). The impact of Internet use on the relationships between teachers and students. Mind, Culture and Activity, 10, 62-79

^6. Schofield, J. W. (in press). Realizing the Internet's educational potential. In J. Weiss, J. Nolan, & P. Trifonas (Eds.). International Handbook on virtual learning environments. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

^7. Schofield, J. W., & Davidson, A. L. (in press). Achieving equality of student Internet access within schools. In A. Eagly, R. Baron, & L. Hamilton, (Eds.), The social psychology of group identity and social conflict. Washington, DC: APA Books.

^8. Dede, C. (2000). Rethinking how to invest in technology. In R. D. Pea (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass reader on technology and learning (pp. 184-191). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

^9. Universal Service Administrative Company (2003). Cumulative National Data Funding (years 1998-2002). Retrieved April 2, 2003, from http://www.sl.universalservice.org/funding

^10. Consortium for School Networking Bulletin (February 17, 2003), 2 (4). India to spend $2.5 billion on e-learning and e-government. Retrieved October 1, 2003, from http://www.cosn.org/members/membership_bulletins/021703.html

^11. Ronnkvist, A. M., Dexter, S. L., & Anderson, R. D. (2000). Technology support: Its depth, breadth and impact in America's schools. Teaching, Learning, and Computing: 1998 National Survey, Report #5, Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California, Irvine and University of Minnesota, June 2000.

^12. CEO Forum on Education & Technology (February 22, 1999). School technology and readiness report: Professional development: A link to better learning [On-line]. (http://ceoforum.org/)

^13. National Grid for Learning (2003). Background to the NGfL. Retrieved March 26, 2003, from http://www.ngfl.gov.uk/about_ngfl/background.jsp

^14. Pelgrum, W. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2001). ICT and the emerging paradigm for life-long learning. Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

^15. Hogenbirk, P. (2000). EE-NET. In D. M. Watson & T. Downes (Eds.), Communications and networking in education: Learning in a networked society (pp. 114-117). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

^16. Feldman, A., Konold, C., & Coulter, B. (2000). Network science, a decade later: The Internet and classroom learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

^17. Futoran, G. C., Schofield, J. W., & Eurich-Fulcer, R. (1995). The Internet as a K-12 educational resource: Emerging issues of information access and freedom. Computers and Education, 24, 229-236.

^18. Thornburgh, D. & Lin, H. S. (2002). Youth, pornography, and the Internet. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

^19. Digital chaperones for kids (March 2001), Retrieved April 9, 2003, from http://www.consumerreports.org/main/detailv2.jsp?

^20. Collis, B. A., Knezek, G. A., Lai, K.W., Miyashita, K. T., Pelgrum, W. J., Plomp, T., & Sakamoto, T. (1996). Children and computers in school. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

^21. Cuban, L. (2001). Why are most teachers infrequent and restrained users of computers in their classrooms? In J. Woodward & L. Cuban (Eds.), Technology, curriculum and professional development. (pp. 121-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

^22. Becker, H. J., Ravitz, J. L., & Wong, Y. (1999). Teacher and teacher-directed student use of computers and software. Teaching, Learning, and Computing: 1998 National Survey, Report #3, Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California, Irvine and University of Minnesota, November, 1999.

^23. Murphy, R.F., Penuel, W.R., Means, B., Korbak, C., Whaley, A., and Allen, J.E. (2002). E_DESK: A review of recent evidence on the effectiveness of discrete educational software. (SRI Project 11063). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

^24. Lehtinen, E. (2000). Information and communication technology in education: Desires, promises, and obstacles. In D. M. Watson, & T. Downes (Eds.), Communications and networking in education: Learning in a networked society (pp. 311-328). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

^25. Becker, H. J. (1999, February). Internet use by teachers: Conditions of professional use and teacher-directed student use. (Report No. 1). University of California, Irvine and University of Minnesota [On-line]. Retrieved March 26, 2003, from http://www.crito.uci.edu/TLC/findings/Internet-Use/startpage.htm

^26. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Work on which this essay is based was funded by Contract No. RED-9253452 with the National Science Foundation and Grant No. 199800209 from the Spencer Foundation.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. government.

Back to top | Global Issues, November 2003 | IIP E-Journals | IIP Homepage