Technology-integrated science teaching:

Exploiting opportunities and adapting to constraints

Sara Hennessy, Rosemary Deaney & Kenneth Ruthven
Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge
184 Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 2PQ
email sch30@cam.ac.uk tel. 01223 767657
Introduction
Teachers’ expertise is finely tuned to the teaching and learning setting. This expertise is flexing and
responding to the introduction of digital technologies. By examining practice in different classrooms
we have been able to understand how teachers adapt their actions and goals as they use ICT.
Our research is directly relevant to current practice. In school inspections for example, science
teachers’ use of ICT to promote learning is good or better in over four fifths of schools (Ofsted 2004,
p.4). While there is some excellent practice, it is not shared widely. Our work offers a strongly
analytic contribution to this sharing. It chimes with calls to look at strategies underlying successful
practice (Becta 2003b; DfES 2003) and the need for well-informed approaches to effective
applications in the curriculum (Ofsted 1999).
The study
1
As part of a wider project we examined what educational technologies offer, and how secondary
science teachers adapt to using them. The work builds on the established literature which highlights
the importance of:
• activities which make implicit reasoning explicit
• teacher guidance which builds upon pupils’ ideas
• teachers interpreting shared experience to bridge the gap between scientific conventions and
informal ideas

Our study focussed on how teachers support learning using data loggers, software simulations and
interactive whiteboards (IWBs).
• Simulations support learning by allowing a pupil to explore phenomena and handle experiments
which would not be feasible in school.
• Data loggers automate the production of graphs in experiments. A live graph display offers
immediate feedback such that changes can be monitored and technique adjusted.
• IWBs have recently become widespread in schools. They offer a whole class spontaneous
access to a wide range of multimedia resources that can be manipulated and annotated. The
literature indicates that projection helps students to visualise abstract knowledge (Becta
2003a; Smith 2003). Manipulation of objects on screen offers opportunities for knowledge
building, although use often reinforces a teacher-centred didactic pedagogy lacking in
response to individuals.

1 TheSET-IT project (‘Eliciting situated expertise in ICT-integrated mathematics and science teaching’) ran from
2002-04 and was funded by ESRC grant R000239823.
1
We examined these tools at work in order to understand the teachers’ tuning process, the strategies in
use, and the rationale behind their interventions. Ultimately we would generalise across various
technologies typically in use (see Barton 2004; Osborne and Hennessy 2003).
Methods
In Phase One of the research, we used multiple recommendations (from academic colleagues, subject
advisors, practitioners and Ofsted reports) to identify 10 science departments regarded as relatively
successful at integrating ICT into their practice. All were state-funded with specialist status and three
were Technology colleges. Interviews were conducted with teachers to select those that articulated a
well-developed pedagogy for using technology. This also led to the choice of multimedia simulation,
data logging and interactive whiteboards for the study. In Phase Two, practices incorporating these
three tools were investigated through 10 detailed case studies carried out with different schools,
groups, teachers and topics. Lessons typically involved different classes from the same year.
Afterwards, we interviewed teachers about strategies they had used to make the use of ICT
successful. In addition, we sought the views of six students after each lesson.
Data analyses drew on lesson plans, schemes of work, lesson observations and transcribed
interviews. Below we highlight overarching themes emerging from the analysis.
(How each of the three technologies was used is described in separate forthcoming papers: (Deaney
et al. in preparation; Hennessy et al. in preparation; Hennessy et al. submitted).
Findings

Some lessons incorporated introduction, exposition and discussion around a teacher demonstration,
as in the data logging sessions. There was some ‘hands-on’ use of simulation by pairs, guided by
printed worksheets and teacher intervention. With projected aids, the usual mode was whole class
‘question-and-answer’.
1. Exploiting interactivity and dynamic visual presentation

Teachers perceived that IWB technology offered powerful interactivity, feedback, and an ability to
modify material. They asserted that dynamic presentations render concepts more accessible.
Animation and simulations portray abstract concepts efficiently. Learners can decode them more
easily than static diagrams and descriptions.
Harnessing feedback
The instant impact of a large display stimulated interest. It facilitated all kinds of observation such as
the effect of changing a variable. When a graph showed temperature changes in real time (dynamic
graphing) pupils could appreciate cooling rates more readily than with static graphs. When pupils
used a motion sensor to emulate a distance-time graph, feedback from a live graph created a tacit
sense of distance.
Interaction with live data, compared to reading it after the event, was considered motivating and
beneficial to learning. Real-time graphs allowed teachers to ask for predictions and this encouraged
scrutiny of results. Immediate feedback assisted pupils’ cognitive engagement with the activity.
2
When pupils were asked to speculate about opening a parachute during freefall the outcome was
portrayed graphically by the simulation tool.
2. Focusing attention on underlying concepts and relationships
A key strategy to support learning with technology was ‘focusing’ or drawing attention to what needs
to be understood. Teachers achieved this in various ways.
Framing and structuring tasks to increase salience of subject content
Teachers designed lessons around carefully structured and controlled situations, intended to
accentuate the phenomena of interest – whilst guiding pupils in exploring the consequences of
manipulating variables or interpreting results. Some teachers deliberately opted for teacher-led
approaches using a central projected display in order to channel pupils’ attention more directly – both
physically and mentally – towards target entities. This pre-empted distraction by ‘limiting the playing
factor’, ‘keeping them on track’ and overcoming the ‘temptation to be flicking on all the buttons and
things’.
When pupils used simulations, some teachers used highly structured worksheets, adapted for
different abilities, to guide them. However, as discussed later on, such over-direction will restrict any
exploratory use of the software.
Data logging was usually a demonstration activity that took place around other work. The teacher
would lead a discussion of the results, pointing out salient features. Teachers remarked that a
rehearsal was a critical part of using data logging effectively.
Simulations offer idealised representations that limit the range of operating variables to good effect.
A teacher could focus on just one aspect of a concept, and be sure of always getting a ‘good clean
graph’. Careful customisation of resources might be needed to channel attention in a particular
direction.
Interactive whiteboards facilitated the use of a variety of multimedia. Teachers built resource banks
for each topic, painstakingly selecting presentations, animations and video clips. The IWB software
facilitates organisation and instant transitions between them. Teachers emphasised the need to
become familiar with navigation and content in order to become ‘adept’ users. This involved
previewing software to identify difficulties and prioritise points they might overlook.
Exploiting the ‘time bonus’
Teachers used ICT to ease and speed cumbersome tasks. This enabled them to focus on the key ideas
as well as making time available for discussing results. Data loggers displayed temperature readings
so rapidly that pupils could analyse a pattern in a cooling curve graph. Normally they might only
draw the graph. Teachers reported how hands-on (simulation) activities gave them time to interact
with pupils. They could observe ‘what was going on’ (G1) as they circulated, engaging learners in
discussion and addressing their questions.
Gathering information on pupils’ understanding is an important feature of teaching. The computer
display enabled them to gauge progress readily. With a simulation, diagram or animation to hand,
3
content was covered more quickly. Again, not having to draw repeatedly on the board, or handle
physical apparatus, released time to concentrate upon learning, its consolidation and assessment.
Amplifying and interpreting representational display
Explaining concepts and interpreting visuals for pupils was another example of ‘focusing’. One
teacher projected a data logged graph onto an ordinary whiteboard. To aid its interpretation he
annotated and extrapolated it. (D). Another used the IWB highlighter to emphasise key words in a
statement of Newton’s third law, and another pointed out operational features of a simulation of
diffusion – to assist pupils in deriving their own interpretation.
Guiding pupils through activities with prompts or questions was regarded as important to help them
make sense of experiences. Talk typically focused on what was on the screen as teachers capitalised
on ways to move the students’ thinking forward. For example, prompting pupils to describe what was
happening on screen reportedly helped them to ‘look’. The value of simultaneous explanation and
illustration was corroborated by pupil comments:
And when he explains it he shows what he's talking about. Normally when we just talk about
pictures or about diagrams we don't really know what it's about. R2/P
When pupils worked at their own machines, the teacher would explain concepts or ‘move them on’
periodically, so that they ‘found out what they should’. (C1). One teacher explained how he deployed
data loggers according to the level of support needed to interpret the display:
If they were all using motion sensors in pairs it would be very different to talk them through each
of their graphs, so it's good as a whole class exercise. The cooling curve experiment reliably gives
a smooth line and they should be able to interpret it themselves. If it's real data, they sometimes
need assistance to talk it through. K1
The replay of animations or simulations was a further means to focus aspects that were hard to grasp.
3. Building knowledge by integrating technologies with other activities
Using technology to support practical work and link it with theory
Teachers felt that technology could be used beside conventional practical experiments to enable
pupils to see ‘what’s happening in the real world and what’s happening on the microscopic scale as
well’ (FG). Teachers would employ a visual aid or a practical demonstration in conjunction with a
simulation. For example, R illustrated osmosis with an egg immersed in strong saline solution. Later
they would discuss an osmosis simulation. Follow-up practical work again reinforced understanding.
C used simulations so that pupils might ‘get an idea’ about practical work before they did it.
Otherwise they would use it afterwards to gain insight into whatever they had observed. Similarly,
teachers developed efficient routines that used data loggers beside other work. It offered pupils
another perspective and reinforced their understanding. Sometimes a data logged graph (of cooling)
was employed to develop concepts presented by a simulation (of particles).
Teachers used the IWB to build up a process step by step, using pictures and words to build up an
explanation. For example they might pause an animation at various points. They might project a large
‘flexible camera’ image of a complex experiment, so enhancing visibility and engaging a
4
wider range of learners. Placing instructions on the IWB, prepared ahead of time, meant that pupils
began and completed the set work much more quickly.
Using technology to support and consolidate sequential knowledge building
In some lessons teachers used technology to relate lesson content to prior learning and to reinforce
that prior learning. This enabled pupils to engage with new activities. For example, pupils were
expected to draw on graphical skills that had been developed in previous years. This ‘skills training’
also helped to guard against misinterpretation of data logged graphs display and allowed pupils to
make faster conceptual progress.
Teachers used the annotation, revisit and reveal features of IWB software to build up concepts. One
teacher said ‘It's the construction of the understanding, bit by bit on screen, that really makes a
difference’ (B2). Hyperlinks enabled teachers to move between IWB resources – such that they could
adapt to pupils’ responses by jumping back a page.
Interactive whiteboard pages could be ‘saved’ and this offered a permanent record to revisit and
follow up learning. A facility to replay data logging graphs enabled the teacher to review the pupils’
understanding. Questions, quizzes and written work were commonly used to achieve this.
Extrapolating from graphs produced by data loggers was seen as a key strategy ‘to pull things
together’.
It was particularly important to prompt students to make links between new knowledge gained
through using ICT and prior learning. For instance, one teacher linked the three types of heat transfer
introduced in his lesson to the familiar design of a thermos flask:
You could hear people say "Oh, that's why... your mum tells you not to break them because they're
made of glass." ...it gives them something tangible that they can see and sort of analyse, and see
the actual science behind it. Which is …a good way of teaching science… to get them to think
about practical applications of it, rather than just the concept itself in isolation. J2
Adaptation and differentiation
As might be expected, experienced teachers tailor their approaches to learners. They orchestrate
activities to provide different levels of pace and challenge.
Those using interactive whiteboards mentioned how it enabled them to adapt lesson materials or
‘pick and mix’ from a range of activities. Teachers had built up libraries of electronic resources, and
technology facilitated drawing on them expediently in response to student needs:
I come into lessons with a lot of different activities ready to pull in and then you've just got to talk
to the kids, work out where they are, and then build the lesson around them... K2
4. Creating opportunities for learning through pupil exploration and manipulation
Rhetoric in the literature asserts the potential of ICT to increase opportunities for pupil manipulation
of screen objects, for experimentation and for guided discovery learning. However, we observed that
the use of data logging was predominantly teacher-led. Pupil interpreted cooling curves during
teacher demonstration or they interpreted and emulated distance-time graphs as a whole class.
5
Limited opportunity for physical participation by learners was also observed in most lessons with the
IWB. As one teacher recognised: ‘we probably don't make as much use of the interactivity as we
could’ (O2). One teacher using an IWB (U) was the exception. She devised all her own resources and
her lessons reportedly had ‘interactivity built in’. While her questions to pupils were ‘closed’, she
ensured for example, that all pupils expressed their ideas as the class constructed a food web. She
was contemptuous of using the IWB as a ‘big telly’ or OHP:
The word ‘interactive’ means it's not just me playing with the board, it's about interacting with the
whole class.
There was a case where a teacher used a simulation to stimulate questioning and reasoning in a whole
class setting (‘dialogic’ communication - Mortimer and Scott 2003). This teacher (K2) mediated by
testing pupils’ hypotheses publicly, reconciling them with outcomes they could observe and
explaining the underlying science.
More usually, pairs of pupils manipulated software at individual machines but they were confined by
tightly structured tasks. Typically they were required to use specified settings, record results and
sometimes also to explain them. The ‘authoritative’ discourse in these lessons emphasised the basic
scientific relationships rather than building on or testing pupils’ ideas (Mortimer and Scott 2003).
The pupils reported that they would like to have had more time to explore the software themselves.
There was some variation between lessons but overall, the opportunities for pupil participation
appeared at first sight to be quite limited.
Constraints upon increasing pupil participation and experimentation

The teachers’ rationale for demonstrating data logging and simulations included difficulties in
supervising pupils or in helping them to interpret outcomes. It gave teachers full control over the
procedure and the information to which pupils were exposed. One teacher described his role as
‘being there to modify the experience and not just to let them have free rein’ (A 1-2). For this teacher
a ‘too open-ended’ approach had led to unproductive ‘playing’ while C asserted that pupils needed
boundaries as well as ‘room to test some of their own ideas’ – because ‘they can't resist pressing the
buttons’. The preferred mode was thus to strike a balance between allowing experimentation and
providing structured activity.
Limited availability of resources – sensors, computers and software – was a constraint operating
upon ‘the hands-on, get-involved science’ which teachers wanted to offer. Moreover, teachers’
desired opportunities for pupils to explore and reason were reportedly hindered by lack of time and
the ubiquitous ‘frustrating’ constraints of league tables, exam results, ‘having to get through the
syllabus’.
Valuing and supporting active pupil participation
Despite various constraints, there was unanimous agreement between teachers and pupils that active
participation was beneficial for learning. For example, teachers discussed the pupils’ manipulation of
objects on the IWB in terms of ownership, involvement and increase in understanding. Likewise,
excessive demonstration and unimaginative use could lead to the equivalent of ‘death by OHP’ (U).
Pupils described participation as ‘getting involved with what's going on in the lesson’. Teachers
described how simulations supported pupil experimentation and permitted them to work at their own
pace.
6
Encouraging the physical and verbal <Figure 1 about here>
involvement of pupils was described as a key
factor for success with the motion sensor
(FG). One teacher (K) provided the initial
graphs to emulate and he harnessed group
 support for pupils acting them out in front of
the class. Immediate feedback helped pupils
to conceptualise the process, beginning with a
hypothesis about what kind of movement
would match the graph (Figure 1): P: She’s
got to go back... then stop for a few seconds
then go forward.
T: And what can you tell me about her speed?
P: She’s going forwards slower than she would
go backwards. She’s got to be steady.
K1 Obs
1
Introduction
The past decade has witnessed spectacular improvements in the computational
capabilities of calculators and computers, and more recently, stunning advances in their
communication capabilities. The marriage of these two functional modes has produced
powerful information technology tools that have important implications for undergraduate
education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SME&T).
•
First, these tools can enable students to simulate, visualize, model, and experiment
with complex, real-world scientific problems, thus promoting exploratory and
inquiry-based modes of learning.
•
Second, information technology

and within this broader designation, educational,
instructional, or learning technologies, as applicable

can enable collaboration,
interactive learning, and new pedagogical approaches that can lead to changes in
the way students and faculty interact.
•
Third, the rapid pace of change in information technology is increasingly impacting
the creation, publication, and dissemination of educational materials.
•
Fourth, there is a need to establish the true costs and implications of the
widespread use of educational technology, as a distinct-yet-related component of
the larger, national infrastructure of information technology.
1

•
Fifth, the use of information technology can, if it is made a high priority, increase
access to high quality SME&T education.
•
Sixth, information technology can facilitate connections across disciplinary,
institutional, geographical, and cultural boundaries.
Taken together, the computational and communication capabilities of information
technology offer great promise for supporting continual improvements in all aspects of
undergraduate education. They also underscore the need for credible research into the
practical benefits and limitations of teaching and learning in settings enhanced by
information technology
Definition of Terms
A concise definition of information technology was sought by many participants.
Recognizing the breadth of materials and concepts suggested by such an “umbrella”
term, information technology was taken to represent the confluence of
telecommunication, video, and computing technology

or rather technologies

which
support a diversity of applications (e.g., microcomputer-based specialty software
applications, video, multimedia, the Internet, World Wide Web, etc.). Alternately, the term
educational
technology was proposed, and offered to mean “the systematic application
of human and technological resources in teaching and learning.” Within educational
technology, tools might further be subdivided into instructional technology and learning
technology
, depending upon whether their use is centered in the delivery of material or
its comprehension. For many workshop participants, learning technology was a
preferred term, connoting as it does education centered in the students’ experience. For
the ensuing discussion, it was typically “educational technology” to which the
correspondents referred, although the term was often used interchangeably with the
more generic “information technology
Experience and Expertise
How can faculty be engaged and encouraged to use information technology, and once
so inspired, to use it properly and to the fullest potential? Who should be responsible for
educating students and faculty in the use of educational technology, and in what
context? For their part, students should be inspired to become producers of information,
not simply consumers or interpreters of the efforts of others. As with any
teaching/learning device, information technology tools can be used in different ways by
different people in different contexts. They can be misused or used improperly,
propagating the same ineffective practices in new ways. How can we ascertain true
interaction
in the student’s learning experience, and whether the application of
information technology is serving to educate and inspire, not simply entrance.
Conversely, the effective use of information technology not only enhances the quality of
the educational experience, but may also aspire to “level the playing field” between
institutions as well as between professors and students. Beyond academe, there is an
increased need for partnerships between colleges and universities and the business
community. Industrial growth can be limited by an insufficient supply of “technically
savvy, professionally agile” graduates; conversely, institutions often lack the funds and
facilities to provide their faculty and students with hands-on experience with leading-
edge technology in the latest industry applications.
Infrastructure for Information Technology
At the nexus of the infrastructure issue was the question of how to establish and
maintain a system that efficiently meets the current requirements of an institution or
institutions, can be broadly implemented, and will be flexible and accommodating to the
technologies of the future. Who shall be responsible for developing information
technology tools (e.g., authoring systems) so as to optimize the cost/benefit of using
information technology in teaching? Are academic institutions assumed to be the nucleus
of this “new education”? What preparation, training, facilities will be needed to assist
departments and faculty to make the best use of information technology? In many cases,
entire curricula may need to be redesigned, from those that rely on passive (e.g., lecture
style) formats to those employing active, hands-on methods. Installation and upgrading
(of facilities, computers, peripherals, network connections, software) also requires firm
commitments to educational technology by the institutions themselves

not only
financially, but in consideration of the time required to install and maintain these devices.
How will the use of such technologies modify the notion of a “university” and how might
the tripartite role of computers

computation, communication, and collaboration

redefine
learning environments? If the promise of the Internet includes the “virtual” university,
how can we ensure that the quality of teaching and learning is improved as the mode of
education is transferred from a central classroom to individual remote locations?
Undergirding the entire discussion of “structure” were issues familiar to non-educational
applications of computer technology, namely cost, authentication, access and security.
Information Technology in the Classroom
“Using information technology changes the timing of information flow in a class,” noted
one participant, citing the example of a question or issue that could be presented at the
4
The boon of electronic mail and World Wide Web browsers were specifically named by the
listserv
correspondents as information technology devices with an immediate and demonstrable
benefit to the educational community.
8
end of one class, then discussed via e-mail or bulletin board before the next class,
enabling the use of class time in new or different ways. A counterpoint to this is
unreliable or temperamental technology

such as a teleconference or particular
software

that fails to perform when needed, and consumes class time with technical
problems. Additionally, a call for e-mail responses to a given issue may produce more
spontaneous replies, but this input is rarely as thoughtful and well constructed as
traditional writing assignments. As other examples, graphing calculators, animation
software, and video can all be effective for illustrating and engaging students to abstract
or complex processes, but the understanding of those processes is not necessarily
revealed on later exams or in group discussion. The assumption that the enthusiastic
use of “educational” technology correlates to improved retention and conceptualization is
not always valid.
Dissemination and Rewards for Successful Efforts
There was a call for making more effective use of the World Wide Web for disseminating
materials, including those products developed with NSF support. In a related discussion,
there was a call for proper rewards for those who develop quality materials and
concepts that become adopted widely. As with successful practices not based in
technology, there is also a need for increased collaboration and sharing of ideas,
nationally as well as internationally. The notion that successful efforts should be
disseminated is a popular one; the real issue is how such dissemination is to occur.
Roles and Responsibilities
Of Institutions and Administrators

Many instructors are already extremely
knowledgeable in the potential and use of information technology in the classroom, and
as with any “labor of love,” are willing to commit the time and resources required to
achieve the desired benefits; this level of comfort and enthusiasm is far from wide-
spread on campus, and many listserv correspondents suggested the need for a
commitment by administrators to support technology in education, and reward those
faculty who effectively implement such tools. Specific rewards mentioned included:
hiring/promotion, tenure qualification, funding, and administrative encouragement

each
contingent upon clear evidence that use of the technology provides an educational
experience that enhances and extends the use of traditional textbooks and lectures.
Of Instructors

It is the purview of instructors to ascertain how information technology
can be used by instructors to maximize the benefit of the students. Is information
technology seen as an inevitable replacement for traditional instruction methods, or a tool
used primarily to facilitate understanding of complex or intangible subjects? Instructors
must not allow their principal role in the classroom to become little more than a monitor of
workstations, providing assistance in interpreting the output of educational machines.
Of Students

In consideration of the rate of change in information technology, how can
students be instructed on the use of today’s currently available tools and also engaged in
the design, creation, and application of the next set of such technologies? Increasingly,
students will need to apply evaluative and critical thinking skills to select useful tools and
quality content from the ever-increasing deluge of “data” purveyed to them.
Of Society

How will the widespread use of information technology in undergraduate
education be understood and accepted more broadly in the social, political, and ethical
context of society at large? How will the new generations of “knowledge workers” from
a technology-based curriculum be viewed by those (faculty, employers, parents) who
9
presume a college graduate should have a thorough tutelage in “fundamental content” in
addition to current and relevant technology skills for the workplace?
The volume and variety of commentary in the pre-meeting exchange presented
workshop organizers with a formidable task: producing a short (but representative) list
of issues addressing the most critical concerns and issues for detailed discussion.
Finally, however broad-based or point-specific the conclusions and recommendations on
the use of information technology in undergraduate education intend to be, the caveats
accompanying them are not without historical precedent. As Steve Ehrmann
5
suggested:
“It’s useful to think about the impact of previous technological innovation
on the education of their day (e.g., the impact of writing on the oral
education of Socrates’ day; the impact of the invention of the campus on
education that had depended on individual tutors.) You don’t need to be a
historian to see just how wonderful and destructive those earlier
innovations were. The issues they raised are similar in many ways to the
issues raised by this newest round of technology: some people gained
access while others lost, power was transferred from some people to
others, some intellectual abilities were emphasized while others were de-
emphasized, some faculty jobs were threatened while others were
created, the nature of “content” itself changed, etc.

Effective Use of Information Technology is Characterized by Applications that


•
Stimulate students and engage them with the material, such as role playing simulations.
•
Illustrate the workings of complex systems by exploring cause-and-effect relationships, or
demonstrate microscopic, molecular, or hypothetical scenarios.
•
Encourage collaboration with other individuals, teams, or institutions to coordinate a group
effort while exposing students to different ideas and perspectives (e.g., electronic mail for
communicating with classmates or instructors).
•
Foster development of critical thinking skills, visualization, conceptualization, integration of
disparate data and resolution of patterns within data.
•
Utilize the World Wide Web for research, advertising, and posting material.
The above are possibly best used to extend, supplement, or re-enforce more traditional
presentation formats, not to replace them. A basic pedagogical principle carries across all
levels of technology: involving students in the process and design of exploration in all fields.
Other examples of effective use include: tutor/mentor applications, modeling, electronic
publishing, independent and non-linear processes, and global access to information.
“Effectiveness” is determined by how the application defines and achieves the intended
outcomes of its use, the ease with which its use is facilitated, and by extension, a minimum of
learning or set-up requirements by the user. However, the increased use of technology does
not necessarily equate to more effective teaching.

Technology and Academic Achievement

by Les Foltos

Over the last fifteen years American schools have dramatically increased spending on
classroom technology to more than $5 billion annually, because there has been a widely
held belief by governmental, business and educational leaders that "wiring schools,
buying hardware and software, and distributing the equipment throughout will lead to
abundant classroom use by teachers and students and improved teaching and learning"
(Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Craig, Winter 2001). In recent years a growing number of critics
of technology in the classroom have raised questions about what kind of return schools
have gotten for this investment. Larry Cuban has been quick to note that his surveys
suggest that fewer than 20% of teachers use technology several times a week, and up to
half of all teachers didn't use technology at all. (Cuban, et al., Winter 2001; Cuban,
August 1999) Even if teachers used the technology, Cuban concluded, few employed
these tools in ways that would improve teaching and learning. "[M]ore often than not,"
he noted, "their use sustained rather than altered existing patterns of teaching practice"
(Cuban, et al., Winter 2001).

America's return on this massive investment in classroom technology seems even more
questionable when parents, policymakers, and educators look for evidence of the impact
on student achievement. Supporters of educational technology continue to believe that
technology will make a difference in academic achievement, but tend to rely on
anecdotal evidence about student motivation and their development of critical?thinking
skills to support this belief. They have been forced to depend on faith and their
observations in a large measure because, "[T]here still is very little scientifically based
research to gauge the effectiveness of technology," according to John Bailey, the
Director of Educational Technology for the U.S. Department of Education (Murray,
October 22, 2002).

Given the lack of evidence that technology increases academic achievement, its not
surprising that some observers are asking whether the resources and time devoted to
technology might produce more significant increases in academic achievement if
focused on other education needs.
New Evidence
Recently, a growing number of researchers have published studies that provide
substantial evidence that technology can play a positive role in academic achievement.
Several organizations like Edutopia, the North Central Educational Lab (NCREL) and
the Center for Applied Research in Educational Technology (CARET) are documenting
research studies that link technology to increases in academic achievement. Two studies
are reflective of the growing body of research on technology's role in academic
achievement.

Harold Wenglinsky's study, "Does it Compute: The Relationship between Educational

Technology and Student Achievement in Mathematics," concluded that for 4th and 8th
graders technology has "positive benefits" on achievement as measured in NAEP's
mathematics test. But it is critical to note Wenglinsky's caveat to this conclusion. He
argues that not all uses of technology were beneficial. Wenglinksky found using
computers to teach low order thinking skills, "...[W]as negatively related to academic
achievement…." Put another way, this type of computer use was worse than doing
nothing. By contrast, teachers who had students use computers to solve simulations saw
their students' math scores increase significantly. As he explored the reasons for the
differing ways teachers used technology, Wenglinsky found that professional
development was the difference between those teachers who used skill and drill software
and those who used software that could create simulations. Teachers who had training
and skills used technology in ways that focused students on simulations and
applications that encouraged students to develop problem solving skills. Those teachers
who hadn't had training used skill and drill software (Wenglinsky, 1998).

More recently, educators in Missouri issued their findings on a study of the impact the
statewide eMints program had on academic achievement. This program is designed as a
comprehensive approach to assist teachers to integrate technology. Participating
teachers receive classroom equipment, and over two hundred hours of professional
development over a two-year period. In addition to traditional workshops, eMints
training includes peer coaching for individual teachers. The training is designed to help
teachers integrate technology so that they can use inquiry-based teaching and
emphasize critical-thinking and problem-solving skills. As one of the program leaders
noted, "We find that when you put the two, (inquiry based learning and true technology
integration) together there's a synergy created that really boosts students' learning"
(Brannigan, 2002). The power of pairing technology with inquiry learning was directly
reflected in the test scores of more than 6,000 third and fourth grade students who
recently took the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) test. "Results show that a higher
percent of students in eMINTS classrooms scored in the 'Proficient' or 'Advanced'
categories…when compared with other students who took the MAP tests…" (Brannigan,
2002; Evaluation Team Policy Brief, 2002).

Technology and Learning: Two Pieces of the Puzzle

These two studies highlight the importance of rethinking our current beliefs about
technology. Educators can no longer accept the belief that technology is a silver bullet.
Secretary of Education Rod Paige recently told educators they need to look beyond their
focus on wiring schools and providing classroom access to computers. "The (real) issue,"
Paige insisted, "is how we use this access-how we get results." Paige encouraged
educators to ask how technology can "add value to student performance?" (Brannigan,
Jan 31, 2002.).

The two research studies highlighted above offer clear direction for educators who are
trying to answer the questions raised by Secretary Paige. Both studies argue that
improvements in student learning occur when technology is paired with instructional
strategies like project-based instruction, which actively involves students in
intellectually complex work that demands higher-order thinking and problem-solving
skills. Henry Becker's research adds further weight to the argument that technology is a
particularly strong tool for supporting active, inquiry-based learning. Becker argues that
the kind of active learning necessary to master principles and concepts and explain
student work is easier to implement in a technology-rich environment where "students
have a rich array of information to work with (rather than only preselected, quality
filtered textbook content), when communications structures enable students to pose
relevant questions to appropriate individuals…and when technology-based tools such as
databases, analytic software, and composition software help them to extract
understanding from information" (Becker, 2000).

Each of these studies also highlights the importance of Michael Fullan's observation that
"The more powerful that technology becomes, the more indispensable good teachers
are" (Fullan, 1998). If we expect teachers to use technology in ways that enrich and
enhance student achievement, we must provide them with the professional development
they need to develop the confidence and skills to apply technology, and an
understanding of how technology supports standards-based education. Preparing
teachers to use technology effectively may also mean following the example of Missouri's
eMints program and ensuring that professional development focuses on instructional
strategies like project-based learning, and cooperative or collaborative strategies, in
addition to technology skills.

This need to prepare teachers to use technology effectively means schools and district's
have to adopt new models of professional development. Too often the limited staff
development available focused on the computer, not technology's role in learning and
teaching. As a result, the President's Commission on Web-Based Learning found that
the training teachers received was "usually too little, too basic, and too generic to help
them develop real facility in teaching with technology" (Web-Based Commission, 2001).
Ninety-six percent reported that the most common training they received was on basic
computer skills (Web-Based Commission, 2001). Another survey of public school
teachers found that while most (78%) received some technology-related professional
development in the 1998-99 school year, the training was basic and brief, lasting only 1
to 5 hours for 39 % of teachers, and just 6 to 10 hours for another 19% of those trained
(Web-Based Commission, 2001), The results of this failure to prepare teachers to use
these new teaching tools were predictable. In 1999 a survey commission by the U.S.
Department of Education reported that two-thirds of teachers surveyed were not
comfortable using technology (Web-Based Commission, 2001).
There is a consensus about the characteristics of a new, more effective model of
professional development. One of the most salient of characteristics is that "…teachers
need opportunities to work with colleagues, both in their school building and beyond.
They need chances to learn from one another's successes and failures and to share ideas
and knowledge" (The National Center for Research on Teacher Learning, 1995).
Professional development also needs to be ongoing, and if we are to overcome the
barrier of time, teachers' daily schedules must include "embedded opportunities for
professional learning and collaborating with colleagues…" (The National Council of Staff
Development, 2001). Others argue professional development must be immediately
linked to the work teachers are doing in their class each day, and must model effective
classroom instruction (The North Central Education Research Lab, 2000). To meet
these needs, many leaders who are pressing for new staff development models
encourage schools to adopt peer coaching or study groups to provide needed on-the-job
collaboration on issues that are immediately relevant to classroom needs.

Conclusion
During the Clinton Administration a presidential committee on educational technology
noted there was too little research being conducted on the impact of technology in the
classroom and called upon researchers to accept the challenge. Some researchers,
perhaps too few, have accepted this responsibility. They are finding that it is difficult to
isolate technology as a variable in good instruction, but they are finding that in the right
circumstances, technology plays a positive role in enhancing academic achievement.
Educators are increasingly focusing on this research, but must also be mindful of the
circumstances in which research studies show technology has been a powerful learning
tool. With this understanding of the context for success, educational leaders can shape
programs that prepare teachers to use these powerful new learning tools effectively.

Resources:

Edutopia: Research on Project Based Learning

This site summarizes the findings of eight studies on technology's role in academic achievement when
paired with project based learning.

Caret (Center for Applied Research in Educational Technology)

Caret contains links to a growing number of studies done on the relationship between technology and
academic achievement.

enGauge: Research and Best Practice.

enGauge identifies recent research that demonstrates this linkage between technology and instructional
strategies that increase academic achievement, and defines what the research looks like in practice.

References
Becker, H. (July, 2000). "Findings from Teaching, Learning, and Computing Survey: Is Larry Cuban
Right?" Teaching, Learning and Computing. Archived at http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/ccsso.pdf
.

Brannigan, Cara. (January 31, 2002)."Paige: Focus on Learning Outcomes, Not Hardware." eSchool
News.

Brannigan, Cara. (June 5, 2002). "Study: Missouri's ed-tech program is raising student achievement."
eSchool News.

Cuban, Larry, Kirkpatrick, Heather, and Craig Peck. (Winter 2001). "High Access and Low Use of
Technologies in High School Classrooms: Explaining an Apparent Paradox." American Education
Research Journal.

Cuban, Larry. (August 22, 1999)." Don't Blame Teachers for Low Computer Use in Classrooms." Los
Angeles Times.

Cradler, J., McNabb, M., Freeman, M., and Burchett, R. (May, 2002). "How Does Technology Influence
Student Learning?" Learning and Leading with Technology.

Evaluation Team Policy Brief. (2001). Analysis of the 2001 MAP Results for eMINTS Students.
http://emints.more.net/evaluation/reports/map2001-emints.pdf.

Fullan, Michael. (1998). "The Three Stories of Educational Reform: Inside; Inside/Out; Outside/In".
Kappan Professional Journal. Archived at http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kful0004.htm

Murray, Corry. October 22, 2002. "Webcast Probes Meaning of "Scientifically-Based Research." eSchool
News.

National Center for Research on Teaching and Learning. (1995). "Learning to Walk the Reform Talk: A
Framework for Professional Development for Teachers".

North Central Regional Education Laboratory. (2000). "Critical Issue: Providing Professional
Development for Effective Technology Use." Archived at
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te1000.htm

National Staff Development Council. (2001). NSDC Standards for Staff Development. Archived at
http://www.nsdc.org/library/standards2001.html.

Web-Based Education Commission to the President and Congress of the United States. (December, 2001).
The Power of the Internet for Learning: Moving from Promise to Practice.

Wenglinsky, H. (1998) Does it Compute? The Relationship Between Educational Technology and Student
Achievement in Mathematics. Princeton, N.J.: ETS Policy Information Center.

Learning with the Internet

by Muthu Kumar

The Internet is a complex repository containing a huge maze of information from a

variety of sources. It has become a prominent source of information for many people
worldwide. The Internet wave has also hit the educational landscape in many big ways.
The use of technologies such as the Internet as a teaching tool in schools is not the issue
now since it is pervasively used. Rather, the issue is how to effectively employ such
technologies and harness fully the new opportunities created by them to promote
positive student learning experiences.

Schools need to consider how technology-based instructional programs are mounted to

ensure that students use the Internet efficaciously as a learning tool for various
authentic learning activities such as conducting research on a given topic or finding
relevant information for an assignment. Bruce and Levin (1997) posit that the Internet
can be viewed as providing the following three basic types of tools in the educational
domain:

· Tools for inquiry

· Tools for communication
· Tools for construction

In providing tools for inquiry, the Internet facilitates finding sources of information
appropriate to a task, working to understand the information resources and how they
relate to the task, and if possible applying this understanding in a productive way. The
Internet enhances students' knowledge acquisition by facilitating students' access to
resources from the outside world including experts in the field, as well as interacting
directly with them. Thus exposure to real life contexts of the external world trains the
students to face the uncertainties of the ever-changing outside world.

In providing tools for communication, the Internet is a remarkable tool for rapid
communication. Such communication can be both synchronous and asynchronous and
takes on many forms such as e-mail, mailing lists, newsgroups, chat and
videoconferencing. Such interaction involves communication with students and
professionals in distant places, cultures and traditions as well as facilitating teachers to
be in touch with other teachers.

In providing tools for construction, the Internet promotes learning by scaffolding

varieties of authentic learning activities for students. Through these activities the
Internet also supports the development of students' higher-order thinking skills. For
example students are able to demonstrate their conceptual understanding by
constructing products such as web pages. In these activities learners regulate their
individual learning progress according to their own experiences and expertise. Learners
can access a wealth of resources at their own pace and have meaningful interactions
with the content information. For instructional activities, the Internet also has the
added advantage of being adaptable for both individual and cooperative learning.

Though offering a myriad of pedagogical benefits, there are also a number of caveats
that educators need to bear in mind in their attempts to employ the Internet as a
teaching aid. Being aware of possible pitfalls in conducting Internet based lessons,
teachers would then be able to invest in proper planning to ensure that the learning
experience for their students is a meaningful and stimulating one. Students often go
straight to the Web without waiting for guidance from a teacher or librarian. This results
in students having a difficult time navigating the Web and locating appropriate
information relevant to the tasks in their homework.

Students may also not differentiate between authentic web sites and sites that contain
biased and inaccurate information but masquerade as being reliable. Schools are thus
faced with the challenge of teaching the students not just the power of having a wealth of
information at one's fingertips in the Internet but also proper evaluation skills.

Besides being cognizant of the strengths and shortcomings of conducting Internet-based

lessons for students, teachers need to consider practical constraints that might
otherwise hinder the desired implementation of these lessons. Time is one barrier to the
extensive use of the Internet as students may be unable to spend a specific block of time
on the Internet due to limitations in availability of computers with Internet access in
schools.

In the knowledge based economies of today, it is critical to be able to search for and
retrieve information from the Web. Locating appropriate information on the Internet
requires a variety of skills such as the ability to use Internet tools (e.g. search engines),
having knowledge of search techniques (e.g. browsing through an information tree) and
ability to execute the search (Carroll, 1999).

Effective use of the Internet to glean relevant information requires the ability to apply
Boolean logic rules (e.g., and, or), an understanding of how information is organized,
critical thinking skills that allow the searcher to make informed choices, and a working
knowledge of Internet notations. One needs to have abilities such as searching for
information, scanning and skimming information, and strategies such as planning,
monitoring and evaluating in executing the search.

In conclusion, the Internet has been beneficial in the educational domain as a repository
of gargantuan amounts of rich information. However schools, educational policy
makers, and instructional/curriculum designers who intend to employ the Internet as a
learning tool in their instructional programs must bear in mind and highlight to
students the fact that just not any piece of information found on the net can be accepted
as being authentic.

Thus it is imperative that students be taught a wide range of internet literacy skills from
verifying the veracity of content hosted by the Internet to seeking for information by
using various search strategies and techniques. This will help to ensure that the true
potential of the Internet as a learning aid is properly tapped to inject greater vigor into
teaching practices in schools.

References
Bruce, B., & Levin, J. (1997). "Educational Technology: Media for Inquiry, Communication, Construction
and Expression." Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(1), 79-102.

Carroll, J. B. (1999). "Expert Internet Information Access." Journal of Educational Computing Research
20(3): 209-222.

The use of Information Technology in science teaching:

implications on student learning
 

May Hung CHENG and Kai Ming LI

The Hong Kong Institute of Education

Email: maycheng@ied.edu.hk , kmli@ied.edu.hk  

Received 7 May, 2002

Abstract
There is a drive to promote the use of Information Technology (IT) in teaching and a
number of innovations have been made in science teaching. Science learning and
teaching have been informed by learning theories that advocate the construction of
science concepts in the minds of the individual. Moreover, there are theories that
emphasize the importance of the support of the social environment in science
learning. With the use of IT in science teaching, it is important that teachers are aware
of how science learning has been influenced. This paper aims to explore the influence
on students' science learning as a result of these innovations with reference to the
learning theories that support the construction of science concepts and the impact of
the social environment. Three types of innovations, namely data logging experiments,
the use of web technologies in science projects, and the use of IT in science
assessment are analysed. The paper finally concludes with a conceptual framework
that may be applied to analyse the influence of IT on the teaching and learning of
science.

Teacher education needs to move with the technological advances being

encountered globally. The use of ICT by teacher education will greatly enhance the
introduction of technology into the school system. Using 20 science and
mathematics teacher educators a survey was undertaken to find out the extent to
which teacher educators make use of IT personally and in the teaching and learning
situation through the use of a questionnaire. The results indicated that a low
application exists in the teaching and learning process with a majority of those who
are computer literate acquiring it through self effort for e-mailing and
administrative purposes.

Advantages of It in science teaching

In too many schools, teachers and students still use computers only as the equivalent
of expensive flash cards, electronic worksheets, or as little more than a typewriter.
The productivity side of computer use in the general content area curriculum is
neglected or grossly underdeveloped (Moursund, 1995). 

Recent publications by educational associations are advocating for a more meaningful

use of technology in schools (ISTE, 2000). Educational technologists are clearly
describing what students should know and be able to do with technology. They are
advocating integrating computer skills into the content areas, proclaiming that
computer skills should not be taught in isolation and that separate "computer classes"
do not really help students learn to apply computer skills in meaningful ways. There is
increasing recognition that the end result of computer literacy is not knowing how to
operate computers, but to use technology as a tool for organization, communication,
research, and problem solving. This is an important shift in approach and emphasis. 

Moving from teaching isolated technology skills to an integrated approach is an

important step that takes a great deal of planning and effort. Fortunately, we have a
model for doing so. Over the past 25 years, library media professionals have worked
hard to move from teaching isolated "library skills" to teaching integrated
"information skills." They found that information skills can be integrated effectively
when the skills (1) directly relate to the content area curriculum and to classroom
assignments, and (2) are tied together in a logical and systematic information process
model. 

Schools seeking to move from isolated information technology skills instruction will
also need to focus on both of these requirements. Successful integrated information
skills programs are designed around collaborative projects jointly planned and taught
by teachers and library media professionals. Information technology skills instruction
can and should be imbedded in such a curriculum. Library media specialists, computer
teachers, and classroom teachers need to work together to develop units and lessons
that will include both technology skills, information skills, and content-area
curriculum outcomes. 
A meaningful, unified information technology literacy curriculum must be more than
a "laundry list" of isolated skills, such as knowing the parts of the computer, writing
drafts and final products with a word processor, and searching for information using
the World Wide Web. 

While these specific skills are important for students to learn, the "laundry list"
approach does not provide an adequate model for students to transfer and apply skills
from situation to situation. These curricula address the "how" of computer use, but
rarely the "when" or "why." Students may learn isolated skills and tools, but they
would still lack an understanding of how those various skills fit together to solve
problems and complete tasks. Students need to be able to use computers and other
technologies flexibly, creatively and purposefully. All learners should be able to
recognize what they need to accomplish, determine whether a computer will help
them to do so, and then be able to use the computer as part of the process of
accomplishing their task. Individual computer skills take on a new meaning when they
are integrated within this type of information problem-solving process, and students
develop true "information technology literacy" because they have genuinely applied
various information technology skills as part of the learning process. 
The Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Information Technology in Teaching The most obvious
advantage of using information technology in teaching and learning is the flexibility for learners to get
access to computers. Now that computers have become common, learners can get access to the Internet
and engage in study at any time, any place and at their own pace. This is the reason why distance learning
has become so common nowadays. Another advantage of information technology is its versatility. Other
than just sounds, computers can produce colourful graphics, which will greatly enhance the learning
outcome as learners will retain the majority of what is taught through sights rather than sounds. Besides,
compared with humans, computers have absolute superiority in generating attractive graphics. In a nutshell,
a picture is worth more than a thousand words. Besides, computers can provide instant feedback to learners
when they are doing exercises or practising.

Why is Information Technology important?

Information technology is used for storing, protecting, processing, securing, transmitting, receiving and
retrieving information. In business establishments, information technology is used for solving
mathematical and logical problems. Information technology helps in project management system.
Firstly, planning is done, then the data is collected, sorted and processed and finally, results are
generated. It helps managers and workers to inquire about a particular problem, conceive its complexity
and generate new products and services, thereby improving their productivity and output.

The primary importance of information technology in education is that various learning resources can be
accessed instantly, by students as well as teachers, at their convenience. Learners can also adopt
multimedia approach and collaborative learning. The information is authentic and the latest updated
information is available. Multiple communication approaches like chats, forums, e-mails, etc. can be
adopted by them. Students can access the on-line libraries and distance learning is also possible.
Information technology has proved to be a significant employer. Many people with knowledge of
computers have got jobs in the field of information technology and have successfully made it into a
career. It has helped in finding cures for many diseases thereby serving mankind in more ways than one.
Different kind of softwares are provided for hearing and visually impaired people which aids them in
their passion for learning new things and gathering information.

Hopefully this article has given you an idea about why is information technology important today and
also about its advantages. Information technology has advanced tremendously since its invention and
will continue to advance in the future. In today's world, owing to its wide applications, sound knowledge
of information technology is a must for having a successful career.

Role of Parents

Studies show that students perform better in school if their parents are involved in their
education. Therefore, parents have an important role to play in supporting their child's learning.
By reading the curriculum, parents can find out what their children are learning in each grade
and why they are learning it. This awareness enables parents to discuss their children's work with
them, to communicate with teachers, and to ask relevant questions about their child's progress.
Knowledge of the expectations in the various grades will also help parents to interpret their
child's report card and to work with the teacher to improve the student's learning. For this reason,
parents are urged to read through the expectations for all grades rather than just the particular
grade their child is in.

The Philippines is a developing country in Southeast Asia whose educational system shares
many of the same problems and limitations as those of its fellow developing nations. Some provincial
schools lack chairs and tables, blackboards, and laboratory equipment (4). Some do not have
electricity and water (5). There is a scarcity of learning aids in general. In contrast, American
students have 140 times more reading material available to them than their Filipino counterparts (1).
Pedagogical Benefits of ICT
Despite these conditions, the Philippines along with other developing countries in Asia,
Africa, and Pedagogical Benefits of ICT
Despite these conditions, the Philippines along with other developing countries in Asia,
Africa, and South America are generally interested in educational technology, particularly in ICT,
hoping that their educational systems reap the pedagogical benefits associated with it. Drill and
practice or tutorial software, for example, individualizes instruction and provides students with
immediate feedback (6). Students can proceed at their own pace (7). Internet connectivity enables
students to access remote sources of information (6). It exposes them to diverse expert opinions and
makes them aware that they are part of a global community (7). There is evidence that multimedia
learning environments, simulations, and computer-based laboratory analysis tools foster superior
math, science, and language skills (8). Researchers characterize the ICT-infused classroom as highly
interactive learning environments (9). Communication and collaboration between and among
students, teachers, and outside experts occurs through formal presentations, cooperative learning
activities, and informal dialogue in large groups, small groups, or on a one-on-one basis (9). Finally,
some researchers believe that ICT fosters self-direction. Students learn to initiate their own learning
by asking probing questions and seeking out answers using a variety of resources (9).
Social and Economic Rationales for Using ICT in Education
Aside from pedagogical benefits, there are social and economic factors that motivate
technology infusion in schools. Volk noted that the ability to use modern technology is essential in
preparing a people for competition in a global workplace (10). Limiting technology may then limit
freedom of choice and opportunities for advancement. Both developed and developing nations share
these sentiments. In the United States, educators and policymakers recognize that skills and
knowledge in ICT are key to maintaining national competitiveness in the global economy (11).
Belgium, Denmark, and Singapore view ICT in education as a strategy for producing a workforce
that can meet the technology challenges of the twenty-first century (12). The governments of China
and Uganda regard computers in schools as a necessary step towards becoming industrialized nations
(3). Malaysia’s Ministry of Education believes that embracing high-technology industries is the key
to elevating the country from developing nation status, and has tasked a consortium of 12
multinational ICT companies with designing systems and software for Malaysia’s schools (13).
There is also a need to develop proficiency in ICT to supply internal demands for technology
literate personnel. The knowledge economies of the Western world depend on knowledge workers
who can find, acquire, manage, share, and apply new information (14). Exposing students to
technology creates future employees who may be later expected to use ICT to increase productivity,
reduce costs, and improve results (6). In poorer nations such as Uganda, business environments
generally provide computer training as necessary (3). However, more and more corporations are
requiring experience with ICT as a qualification for prospective employees (3). Because
computerization of small companies is hindered by training costs and it is prohibitively expensive for
the average Ugandan to seek training in a commercial ICT school, familiarization with computers is
best provided through the educational system (3). In rich and poor nations alike, ICT-infused
educational systems increase graduates’ opportunities for employment and satisfy a demand for
computer literate workers.
Finally, countries invest in ICT in education to decrease the social and intellectual
inequalities among schools and their respective graduates. In developing countries, researchers have
perceived a glaring disparity among schools. Lewin (2) observed that
…the prospects of the poorest developing countries benefiting from the potential of ICTs
to transform opportunities and access to learning are severely constrained. For small minorities,
concentrated in the professions and amongst the wealthy, …participation in global networks offers
real advantages which can and will influence development and learning. However, for the
majority easy and convenient access will remain unaffordable and/or unavailable.
Indeed, some urban schools in Belize and Lithuania boast advanced computer resources and highly
trained personnel, while rural schools have few to no ICT facilities (10,12). The unevenness causes
differences in learning outcomes achieved by student populations and, in the long-term, differences
in the types of employment opportunities open to graduates. Bagatsing noted that public school
students, marginalized by their schools’ lack of ICT facilities, are “in a predicament of competitive
disadvantage. While private school students are on their way up the corporate ladder, their public
school counterparts are continuously missing the bus” (15). In a February 2000 statement, Manuel
Villar, Jr., Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Philippines, underscored the need for ICT
in public schools by saying that ICT is “not only for the rich but for the masses as well, who, by
learning to use them will be given the opportunity to improve their quality of life” (16).
ICT in Philippine Schools
Philippine national policy has, therefore, been formulated to advance the use of ICT in
education. In March 2001, the Senate Committee on Education in cooperation with the DECS
launched Project CARES. Project CARES was designed to upgrade the use and application of ICT
in public elementary and secondary schools nationwide (17). The project’s primary concern is school
administration and is a response to the need for accurate and timely data that administrators and
teachers need to manage their classes. Rimando quotes former DECS Undersecretary for
Administration Isagani R. Cruz as saying that CARES will provide public schools and district offices
with “computer-based management and operations support tools…and eventually make elementary
and high school principals…more efficient and productive in their work” (17).
To produce a critical mass of ICT professionals and ICT-literate manpower, both the Senate
and the House of Representatives of the Philippine Legislature contemplated laws directing public
and private institutions to incorporate ICT into the curriculum at all levels of education (18-22).
Congressman Erico B. Aumentado proposed tax incentives to encourage private companies and
individuals to donate computer equipment to schools or research institutions (23). One
congressional bill would have mandated the installation of computer equipment in all public schools
(24). Yet another proposed law would have a 7% tax on all cellular phone calls to fund the
computerization of public schools and state universities and colleges (25). Although the Philippine
Congress adjourned before passing any of these bills into law (26,27), these bills depict the
legislature’s determination to provide for ICT in education.
The executive arm of the Philippine government has also adopted extensive ICT in
education policies. DOST, DECS, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), the Technical
Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), and the Department of Trade and Industry
(DTI), in 1998, drafted an interagency Educational Technology Master Plan that would improve the
accessibility and quality of education through the use of ICT (28). Among the objectives of the plan
were to promote the use of ICT in education; to develop competence in the design, production, and
use of ICT in education; to provide the physical infrastructure and technical services needed for
educational technology programs; and to monitor and evaluate the outcomes of these programs (28).
One significant project by the executive branch of government was the PhP375 million
modernization program of the DECS, initiated in 1996 (29). Seventy-five percent of the funds was
used on hardware and software procurement (30). The remaining 25% was spent on staff training
(30). Administrators, teachers, and support staff had to undergo at least seven days of instruction in
the development of computer-aided instruction, and the use of productivity tools and administrative
support software (e.g. accounting software, library systems, and student information systems) (31).
The modernization program also included the establishment of a Center for Education and
Technology (CET) whose functions included the development and production of local multimedia
instructional materials, training of DECS personnel, and showcasing of a “school of the future,” with
state-of-the art multimedia hardware and software (32). An additional PhP300 million was allocated
in 1997 for a nationwide program to computerize 97 state universities and colleges (SUCs) and 168
private schools (29). Finally, the 1999-2000 DECS Computerization Program had a budget of
PhP210 million to equip 325 schools with computers and train 4,000 teachers (29).
One of the success stories of the DECS modernization program was the Science and
Technology Education Center in Lapu-Lapu City in Region 7, Central Visayas. District
Superintendent Caridad C. Labe, Ph.D., described her current four-year ICT curriculum in which
students learn basic computer literacy, use of productivity tools, troubleshooting of hardware and
software, and multimedia authoring (34).
In recent years, DECS has partnered with other government agencies or the private sector to
improve public school facilities. DECS's Adopt-a-School Program, initiated in 1998, enlists the help
of private corporations in delivering educational goods and services, among these computer
laboratories and equipment, to underserved areas (29).
DECS, in partnership with the Department of Trade and Industry and the private sector,
has also embarked on the PCs for Public High Schools Project (35). The PhP600-million project
began as a private sector initiative, but then became a flagship project of former Philippine President
Joseph Ejercito Estrada. Its objective was to provide 1,000 public high schools nationwide with 20
computers each. The project also provides for the ICT training of one “master teacher” per high
school. The project’s implementation began in school year 2000-2001 and is scheduled for
completion in school year 2001-2002 (36). DECS hopes that these efforts will enable high schools to
produce a critical mass of ICT-literate graduates.
Finally, the private sector has established ICT in schools through a combination of outright
purchases, leases, and grants (37). Philippine Business for Social Progress (PBSP) is one of many
non-government organizations filling the need for ICT in education. From May to November of
1994, PBSP convened the Consensus Group on Business and Education. The group was composed
of 18 chief executives, corporate officers, and university presidents. The group's purpose was to
discuss the state of science and technology education in the Philippines. The group noted that, in
terms of growth and development, the Philippines lags behind its Asian neighbors (38). This is
caused, in part, by the lack of science and technology personnel, the educational system’s incapacity
to produce quality graduates, and the lack of investment in science and technology activities (38).
The group, therefore, formulated a portfolio of project proposals to build schools’ and training
centers’ capacity to produce quality technicians, as well as masters and doctoral graduates (38).
Interested corporations reviewed this portfolio and selected projects they would like to fund. One of
the projects, entitled “Computer Laboratories Program for Secondary Schools,” aimed to establish
computer laboratories in at least 50 public and private high schools nationwide (38). In February
1999, Citibank, N.A.-Philippines granted US$100,000 towards the computer laboratories program
(39). By July 1999, Citibank and PBSP constructed computer laboratories in San Juan Municipal
High School, Pedro E. Diaz High School, Jose Abad Santos High School, and Makati High School-
San Antonio Annex, all within Metro Manila (39). The computer laboratories program established
eight laboratories in all, 42 short of the intended 50 (40). However, PBSP still considers the program
a success because school heads, computer education and non-computer education teachers, and
students viewed the laboratories favorably (40).
The Foundation for Information and communication technology Education and
Development (FIT-ED) is another non-government organization dedicated to the application of ICT
in education and training. Together with the Ateneo Center for Education and Development
(ACED) and Lucent Foundation, FIT-ED initiated an educator training program for public school
teachers and instructors from social welfare institutions (41). The program began in the second
semester of school year 1999-2000 and was open to teachers from Muntinlupa City, Quezon City,
and Makati City, as well as social workers from the National Training School for Boys and the
Marilac Hills Institute for Girls. In the second semester of school year 2000-2001, FIT-ED opened a
second program at the Ateneo de Davao in Davao City, Mindanao. The program was open to public
school teachers from the division of Davao City. Funding for both programs expires in 2001.
On 13 July 2000, FIT-ED entered into a joint project with the Ayala Foundation, the
philanthropic arm of the Ayala group of companies whose holdings include Ayala Land (real-estate),
Ayala Systems Technology (software development), EDINet (e-commerce) and Globe Telecom
(telecommunications). The project was Pilipinas SchoolNet, a network of Philippine schools that
will use information and communication technology to interact and collaborate (42). When fully
operational, the Pilipinas SchoolNet will be connected to a regional network called the Asean
SchoolNet and then eventually to the World Links for Development Program (WorLD), a network
that links schools in 35 developing countries.
The Ayala Foundation further manifested its commitment to ICT in education through its
Youth Tech program. The objective of the program is to provide junior and senior students of public
high schools with access to ICT and the necessary training to use the technology (43). In partnership
with the Ayala group of companies and DECS’s PCs for Public High Schools project, the Ayala
Foundation will provide computer laboratories, Internet access, and teacher training to selected
schools.
Another private firm, Procter & Gamble (P&G) Asia, with the cooperation of IBM
Philippines, promoted the use of technology in education through Project Sagip-Isip (44). Under the
program, schools were asked to accumulate points by collecting wrappers from P & G products. The
schools could then exchange these points for IBM personal computers. P & G targeted 5,000 schools
nationwide.
The League of Corporate Foundations1 recently initiated Project Jumpstart (45). The
project’s purpose was to equip 100 public schools with computer laboratories, network peripherals,
and Internet connectivity. Telecommunications partners committed to providing these schools
Internet connectivity for one year while member organizations promised to supply the necessary
hardware and software.
Other private institutions, such as the University of St. La Salle in Bacolod City, Visayas, are
making smaller but still meaningful contributions to promoting ICT in education. Lily C. Go,
chairperson of the Department of Management Information Systems, described her university’s ICT
training program for public school teachers (46). For four consecutive Saturdays, volunteer teachers
from St. La Salle train the teachers from one public school in the use of word processors,
spreadsheets, presentation software, and the Internet. The training is free of charge. At the end of
the four sessions, the training is made available to another public school. Note that this initiative is
supported solely by volunteers and survives with virtually no funding.
Shortcomings of ICT Implementations in Philippine Education
Despite enthusiasm from all sectors, the implementation of ICTs in Philippine Education
suffers from a number of shortcomings. Among them are the absence of documentation, a lack of
coordination between public and private sector efforts, and insufficient teacher training. The
remainder of this paper shall discuss each of these limitations in turn.
Surveys Regarding ICT Use
ICT adoption in the Philippines, as in other developing nations, is relatively recent and has
limited coverage. It is, therefore, understandable that examinations of the extent of use are limited as
well.
A presentation by Labe of DECS cited some broad national statistics on the pervasion of
computer technology (34). She said that 71% of private elementary schools and 70% of private
secondary schools have computers for administration and teaching. On the other hand, only 7% of
public elementary schools and 45% of public secondary schools have ICT resources. Six percent of
public elementary schools use their computers solely for administrative purposes, while the remaining
1% use theirs for both administration and education. Unfortunately, Labe did not elaborate further.
In line with the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education’s (SEAMEO) Regional Center for
Education in Science and Mathematics (RECSAM), Roxas and Marinas gathered information about
the availability of computer technology in Filipino schools, computer technology’s current and
intended uses, the status of computer technology in the curriculum, and the attitudes of principals
1 The League of Corporate Foundations is a non-stock, non-profit organization consisting of 44 member
foundations. Its mission is to harness the resources of corporate foundations in pursuit of national
development goals through greater corporate social responsibility.
and teachers (47). The researchers began the study in December 1986 and completed it in February
1988 (47). The survey included 80 out of 3,357 schools nationwide (47). It was not possible to
sample representative schools from all regions because few public schools had computers at the time
(47). In their report, Roxas and Marinas cited another study that the Curriculum Division of the
Bureau of Secondary Education conducted in 1986 (47). The 1986 study surveyed high schools
within the National Capital Region (NCR) and nearby areas. The study revealed that 46% of
schools surveyed had fewer than five computer units, while 33% had more than ten (47). Seventyone
percent of respondents opened computer classes after 1984 (47). In 67% of schools these courses
were electives, while in 44% they were open to high school seniors only (47).
These and similar surveys were valuable because they documented how schools used limited
ICT resources. As of 1989, elementary schoolchildren gained exposure to ICT by creating programs
using Logo2 (47). These computer awareness courses are normally sponsored by private computer
education centers during the summer break (47). An earlier survey by Capalad (47) gathered data
from primary and secondary schools throughout the country. Of the 63% of schools with
computers, other findings by Capalad (47) were as follows:
• 70% were private schools
• 31% integrated ICT into math, science, and other courses
• 89% offered a separate computer literacy subject
• 30% used computers as teaching aids
• 20% used computers in co-curricular activities
A national survey conducted by the New Educational Technologies (NET) Foundation in
1996 showed increases in ICT diffusion and changes in utilization. At the elementary level, about
one-third of public and private schools surveyed offered computer education as a separate course
(37). Fifty percent (50%) of public schools and 21% of private schools used computers as an
instructional “component” of an existing subject area (37). The term “component” was not
qualified. Among high schools, about one-half of the schools surveyed offered computer education as
a separate subject, while 47% of public schools and 13% of private schools used ICT as part of
another subject (37).
A study of computer use in a premier elementary school further emphasized the recent and
limited introduction of ICT in Philippine education. The school introduced computers to grade 6
and 7 students in 1983 and only opened the classes to grades 4 and 5 in 1996 (48). Over the course
of one semester, each computer class met once a week for 80 minutes (48). The curriculum was
limited to Logo programming (48). Students suggested that the curriculum be expanded to include
the use of productivity tools and the Internet (48). They also suggested that computer classes be
conducted throughout the school year and that the classes meet twice a week for a total of 120
minutes (48).
As of this writing, another nationwide survey is ongoing. Project CARES of the Senate
Committee on Education in cooperation with the DECS began a survey to determine the present use
and curricular inclusion of ICT in all public elementary and secondary schools (17). The results of
the survey will be the basis of legislative actions towards the modernization of basic education.
Lack of Documentation in the Philippines
These studies notwithstanding, the extent to which ICT is being used in Philippine public
and private schools is still largely unknown. The Secretary and Undersecretary of DECS as well as
members of the private sector lament the general lack of documentation regarding the status of ICT
2 Logo is a programming language designed for use by learners, including children. Its most popular form
involved a turtle that could be directed to move using simple commands.
in education projects (49,50,30). More specifically, there is uncertainty whether computers in
schools are, in fact, being fully utilized for educational computing (30). Some congressmen have
even aired concerns that computers meant for students were instead being used only by teachers for
preparing lesson plans or playing games (51).
Updates regarding the DECS modernization program have been difficult to obtain, even for
Congress. The congressional Committee on Education complained that they received copies of
DECS orders regarding the modernization program, but DECS has not submitted a report on the
actual implementation (52). The Senate Committee on Finance also asked for a status report,
displeased that it had received criticism for appropriating such a large budget for a modernization
project that had no apparent results (53).
In a meeting with DECS officials on 17 July 2001, private sector representatives asked
DECS for baseline statistics on schools’ uses of ICT. They said it was important for them to know
exactly how their donations were being used (54). DECS Undersecretary Ramon C. Bacani
acknowledged that DECS had no data regarding ICT use (55). However, Marivic Abcede of DECS
assured the private sector representatives that current ICT initiatives, such as the PCs for Public
Schools Program, have provisions for documentation and feedback to donors (33).
The lack of documentation regarding ICT use is a problem that exists in many countries. In
developing countries in particular, data that could help determine how scarce educational resources
should be distributed or how effectively they are being used are simply not available (56).
Educational researchers in these countries tend to collect data on inputs such as teachers, students,
classrooms, and expenditures (56). Researchers tend to ignore substantive issues regarding IT
implementation and its effect on people and work processes (57). Without adequate documentation,
decision makers tend to base educational policy on imprecise data or purely political considerations,
rather than rigorous, empirical analysis and evaluation of educational outcomes (56).
Lack of Coordination Between Public and Private Sector Efforts
Anecdotal evidence further suggests that public and private sector programs lack
coordination within and between themselves. During the implementation of the 1996 DECS
modernization program, teachers were trained to use Macintosh computers but were supplied with
IBMs (50). There was also a one-year time lag between the training sessions and the equipment
delivery (30).
Victoria Tinio of FIT-ED and Pilipinas SchoolNet narrated that in mid-2001, two public
schools in Cebu province received computer and network equipment (58). Unfortunately, neither
school had rooms that could accommodate the machines. The schools were not expecting the
computers, and were therefore unprepared to receive them, because the machines had been promised
to them two years earlier, as part of the 1999-2000 DECS Computerization Program. Ultimately,
one public school set up its network, but in a room without air conditioning. The other had to store
the computers unopened in another school until school officials could determine how to
accommodate them.
In May 2001, Pilipinas SchoolNet sent a group of public school teachers to Singapore for
one week of training on telecollaboration. The teachers in the group were selected because they were
computer literate. In some cases, their schools had computer laboratories and Internet connections.
Upon returning to Manila, at least two of the teachers from schools with ICT were transferred to
campuses without computers (59,60). Others were not allowed to use their school's computer
facilities because their principals had no knowledge of the Pilipinas SchoolNet project (61). Others
still expected either Pilipinas SchoolNet or the PCs for Public Schools Program to supply computers
and Internet connectivity (62,63).
Insufficient Teacher Preparation
Finally, teacher preparation is insufficient. Some teacher training programs emphasize use of
specific software packages but overlook the integration of ICT in curriculum (30). Others provide
teachers with training in integration, but not in computer literacy. One public school teacher noted
that she was asked to teach a mathematics class using mathematics software, after only one day of
training. Prior to that one-day session, she had no previous exposure to ICT.
If teachers venture to use ICT without adequate training, they are likely to do so
erroneously. A Physics teacher of a private secondary school in Metro Manila attempted to
demonstrate the Doppler Effect using the Microsoft’s Sound Recorder tool. A microphone was
attached to her computer. She asked one of her students to produce a sound about 10 feet away from
the microphone. She then asked the student to move directly in front of the microphone and then
produce the sound again. In both instances, the teacher recorded the sounds. She then instructed
her class to examine the sound files and relate their observations to the Doppler Effect.
There were several flaws in the way the experiment was conducted. First, the Doppler
Effect refers to the shifting of a sound’s frequency depending on the relative motion of the sound’s
source. As a sound source moves closer to the observer, the frequency of the sound is higher. As the
sound source moves farther away, the frequency becomes lower. It is essential, therefore, for the
source of the sound to be in motion for frequency to change. In the case of this demonstration, the
sound’s source was stationary; therefore, there was no Doppler Effect.
Second, the choice of tools was inappropriate. The Sound Recorder of Microsoft is not the
correct tool to show differences in frequency. The sound waves are too small and too compressed for
the observer to see distinctions.
Conclusion
Developing countries such as the Philippines are committed to infusing schools with ICT.
There is great faith that these technologies will improve teaching and learning, and consequently
afford these countries a greater stake in today's knowledge society. Consequently, the Philippine
government and the private sector have initiated programs to provide schools with computer
hardware and software, Internet connectivity, and teacher training. However, considerable gaps still
exist in ICT program implementations. There is a lack of data on schools’ use of ICT. Hence, there
is little basis for policy formulation. There is a lack of coordination between public and private sector
efforts, and within ICT programs themselves. This leads to wasted time, money, and human
resources. Finally, there is a need for further teacher training in both computer literacy and ICT
integration in the curriculum. These gaps must be sufficiently addressed before ICT can have a
significant impact on teaching and learning in Philippine schools.
References
1. W. T. S. Gould, “Global patterns of education” in People and Education in the Third World
(Longman Scientific and Technical, England, 1993), pp. 31-59.
2. K. M. Lewin, Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education [Online] 30 (3), 313-321 (2000),
[accessed 13 June 2001].
3. Beauchamp, A. P., “Uganda's schools: Do these need computers?” in World Conference on
Computers in Education VI: WCCE 95 Liberating the Learner: Proceedings of the Sixth IFIP World
Conference on Computers in Education, J. D. Tinsey & T. J. Van Weert, Eds., (Chapman & Hall,
London, 1995) pp. 193-201.
4. Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee H., Transcript of committee meeting, House of
Representatives of the Philippines, Quezon City, 4 September 1995, pp. 123-124.
5. R. A. Fernandez, “Only 1% of RP high schools have computers” in Philippine Star, 32 (23
February 1996).
6. Chief Executive Officers’ Forum on Education & Technology), Year 1 Report: From Pillars to
Progress (1997) [Online: http://www.ceoforum.org/reports.cfm?RID=1], pp.3, 33, [accessed 14
January 2000].
7. J. M. Peha, in Educational Leadership [Online] 53 (2), 18 (October 1995), Available: Expanded
Academic ASAP in Infotrac. Record No. A17473008, [accessed 14 January 1999].
8. E. R. Bialo, G. Solomon, in Technology & Learning [Online], 18 (2), 70 (1997), [accessed 16
June 2001].
9. V. Hancock, Educational Leadership, 55 (3), 60-63 (November 1997).
10. M. Brandenburg, K. P. Dudt, International Education [Online], 28 (1), 42-57 (1998). Available:
WilsonSelect in FirstSearch. Item: BEDI98029772 [accessed 4 October 1999].
11. F.L. Scheffler, J. P. Logan, Journal of Research on Computing in Education [Online], 31 (3), 305-
326 (1999), [accessed 4 October 1999].
12. W. J. Pelgrum, R. E. Anderson, Eds., ICT and the Emerging Paradigm for Life Long Learning: A
Worldwide Educational Assessment of Infrastructure, Goals, and Practices, (International Association
for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Amsterdam, 1999), pp. 22, 38, 77, 65.
13. M. Pennington, “Asia takes a crash course in educational reform”, in UNESCO Courier [Online],
5, 17-20 (July-August1999), [accessed 14 January 1999].
14. Abell, A., Information Management Journal [Online], 34 (3), 33-41 (2000), [accessed 29 June
2001].
15. R. Bagatsing, Speech in transcript of session proceedings, House of Representatives of the
Philippines, Quezon City, 17 December 1996, pp. 6-16.
16. “IT education bill passed”, in Manila Standard, 3 (2000, February 2).
17. T. P. Rimando, “Senate, DECS set computer project for public schools”, in Manila Bulletin, 13
(6 March 2001).
18. R. G. Biazon, Senate bill no. 1081, Senate of the Philippines, Manila, 1998-1999.
19. R. A. Briones, House bill no. 2328, House of Representatives of the Philippines, Quezon City,
1998-1999.
20. D. V. Liban, House bill no. 361, House of Representatives of the Philippines, Quezon City,
1998.
21. J. R. Magsaysay, Senate bill no. 614, Senate of the Philippines, Manila, 1998.
22. D. E. Suarez, House bill no. 659, House of Representatives of the Philippines, Quezon City,
1998-1999.
23. E. B. Aumentado, House bill no. 6287, House of Representatives of the Philippines, Quezon
City, 1999.
24. A. C. V. Badelles, House bill no. 2068, House of Representatives of the Philippines, Quezon
City, 1998-1999.
25. D. E. Suarez, et al., House bill no. 8278, House of Representatives of the Philippines, Quezon
City, 1999.
26. N. Alvis, personal communication, 11 June 2001.
27. E. Lomeda, personal communication, 13 June 2001.
28. Department of Science and Technology (DOST), Department of Education, Culture, and
Sports (DECS), Commission on Higher Education (CHED), Technical Education and Skills
Development Authority (TESDA), and Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Education
Technology Master Plan, (New Educational Technologies Foundation, DAP Building, Gold
Loop, Pasig City, 1998), p. 7.
29. IT21 Philippines Asia’s Knowledge Center: IT Action Agenda for the 21st Century, National
Information Technology Council, Manila, October 1997, p. 39.
30. N. L. Rosas, report presented at the Congress on the Educational Technology Master Plan,
Makati City, 30 October 1998, pp.2, 30, 4, 6.
31. R. T. Gloria, DECS Memorandum 90, s. 1997, Department of Education, Culture, and Sports,
Pasig City, 18 March 1997.
32. R. T. Gloria, DECS Order No. 59, s. 1996, Department of Education, Culture, and Sports,
Pasig City, 30 August 1996.
33. M. Abcede, personal communication, 17 July 2001.
34. C. C. Labe, paper presented at the Etrends 2000, Quezon City, 6 January 2000.
35. V. Manhit, personal communication, 19 September 2000.
36. Secretariat of the PCs for the Public High Schools Project, Department of Education, Culture,
and Sports, Pasig City, 2000.
37. The 1996 National Survey on Computer Education, New Educational Technologies (NET)
Foundation, Pasig City, 1996.
38. Final Report of the Consensus Group on Business and Education, 1994, Center for Corporate
Citizenship, A project of Philippine Business for Social Progress, Consensus Group on Business and
Education, Manila, January 1995, pp.5, 9, 28.
39. Philippine Business for Social Progress, Center for Corporate Citizenship, Manila, 1999, p. 3.
40. E. B. Barsaga, et al., Rapid Appraisal of the Education Program of PBSP’s Center for Corporate
Citizenship, Philippine Business for Social Progress, Manila, 2000.
41. Priming the Philippines for the Information Age, Foundation for Information and communication
technology Education and Development, Makati, 1999.
42. T. R. Salazar, “RP classrooms to be wired with Asean counterparts”, Philippine Daily Inquirer,
H2 (17 July 2000).
43. M. Deriquito, personal communication, 26 September 2000.
44. IBM Philippines to Donate IBM PCs to Qualified Schools [Online], at http://www.ph.ibm.com.
[accessed 23 January 2000].
45. T. Cabalia, personal communication, 17 July 2001.
46. Lily C. Go, personal communication, 6 January 2000.
47. P. S. Roxas, B. O. Marinas, SEAMEO-RECSAM Computers in education Project: Country Report
Philippines, SEAMEO Regional Centre for Education in Science and Mathematics, Malaysia,
1989, pp.2, 24-25, 7, 13, 11, 12.
48. G. J. D. V. Solis, thesis, St. Joseph's College, Quezon City, September 1997, pp. 82, 9, 81.
49. A. I. Felipe, “I.T. solutions for school and classroom use in the Philippines”, in I.T. Education in
the Philippines: Preparing for the 21st century: Messages and Selected Papers of the 1997
Information and communication technology and Telecommunications Education Congress, L. G.
Casilan, Ed., (NET Foundation, Pasig City, 1997), pp. 51-63.
50. A. Gonzales, keynote address in the Conference on the Education Technology Master Plan,
Makati City, 30 October 1998, p. 3.
51. Committee on Education, Transcript of committee meeting, House of Representatives of the
Philippines, Quezon City, 5 May 1997, p.65.
52. Committee on Education, Transcript of committee meeting, House of Representatives of the
Philippines, Quezon City, 5 February 1997, pp. 37-93.
53. Committee on Finance, Transcript of committee meeting, Senate of the Philippines, Manila, 22
October 1997, pp. 23-33.
54. T. Cabalia, personal communication, 17 July 2001.
55. R. C. Bacani, personal communication, 17 July 2001
56. J. M. Puryear, International Journal of Educational Development, 15 (1), 79-91 (1995), pp. 86,
84.
57. R. Montealegre, “A case for more case study research in the implementation of information
technology in less-developed countries”, Information Technology for Development [Online], 8 (4),
199-207 (1999), [accessed 13 June 2001].
58. V. Tinio, personal communication, 20 July 2001.
59. A. Marcelino, personal communication, 29 June 2001.
60. S. Saet, personal communication, 29 June 2001.
61. R. Lacanlale, personal communication, 10 July 2001.
62. E. Mangubat, personal communication, 13 July 2001.
63. J. Piñero, personal communication, 23 June 2001
64. E. J. Angara, “Legislative initiatives in promoting the use of I.T. in education”, in I.T. Education
in the Philippines: Preparing for the 21st century: Messages and Selected Papers of the 1997
Information and communication technology and Telecommunications Education Congress, L. G.
Casilan, Ed., (NET Foundation, Pasig City, 1997), pp. 7-17.
65. W. J. Pelgrum, T. Plomp, The IEA Study of Computers in Education: Implementation of an
Innovation in 21 Educational Systems (International Studies in Educational Achievement),
(Pergamon Press, Great Britain, 1993).