Located in Seattle, Washington, Lakeside is an independent school that serves a total of 701 students in grades 5 to 12. The school offers a rigorous academic program in pursuit of its mission to "develop in intellectually capable young people the creative minds, healthy bodies, and ethical spirits needed to contribute wisdom, compassion and leadership to a global society".

In the 1997-98 school year, a task force consisting of faculty, administrators, staff, parents, and a school trustee recommended to the Board of Trustees that Lakeside School implement a laptop pilot program in the Middle School. The purpose of the pilot program was to determine whether the adoption of a requirement for students to own and use a laptop at school would further the school’s mission. The pilot program itself was designed to achieve four principle goals:

• Teaching and learning are positively enhanced by a student laptop program (instructional).
• Laptops are valued as a learning tool by teachers, parents and students (attitudinal).
• The laptop program is fiscally sustainable for Lakeside School (organizational).
• The School provides an infrastructure for the laptop program that is predictable and reliable for teaching and learning (technical).

The 1998-99 school year was designated a planning year for the school. The task force originally planned to institute faculty training and development that year, but teachers preferred to take responsibility for their own training and development. The administration was responsible for the development of relevant infrastructure.

Use of laptops in the classroom was piloted in the 7^th grade during the 1999-00 school year. This evaluation reports on data related to the instruction, attitudinal, and technical goals of the pilot program.

Each of the 78 students in seventh grade in the 1999-2000 school year received a laptop computer at the start of the school year. For the pilot study year, the school assumed the hardware costs, leasing Toshiba computers that met the specifications of the original task force’s recommendations and the support services required by the school. The machines included a 333 Mhz AMD K6 processor, 32 Mb Ram, a 56K V.90 internal modem, 10/1000 Mbs ethernet card, 1 MB video SDRAM, 13" Dual Scan display, Infra-Red com port, USB port, 4.3 GB hard drive, CD-ROM and floppy drives. The choice of the machines was made by the technology committee (members are listed in Appendix A) primarily because the Toshibas offered the most features for the amount of money spent. (In addition, Toshiba has a division entirely devoted to educational use of the laptops, whereas IBM is oriented instead to "business solutions".) The Committee was particularly concerned about cost because in future years it is expected that parents, not the school, will bear the cost of the machines.

The laptops themselves represented only a piece of the substantial investment in technology at the school. Lakeside Middle School resides in a brand new building that was able to anticipated its technological needs in its very design. Every classroom is wired for network connect through hubs that run off three or four lines, reducing the wires that run across the floor. For this project, the school added printers and purchased wiring trays to attach to the tables. Two full-time staff members, the technology coordinator and the support person, provided the bulk of the support for the project, including training of both students and faculty, as well as dealing with repairs and problems. The second staff position was new in 1998, created specifically to support the pilot project.

Although there was a good deal of staff energy devoted to the laptop project, there was no single project manager at the school. According to the Head, both the Director for Educational Programs and the Middle School Director were in charge of the project, while the technology coordinator had responsibility for curricular issues, and budget decisions resided in yet another individual. Thus management of the project was dispersed from the outset.

Students had already begun in the previous year to develop computer skills and knowledge of applications, including Microsoft Office Suite ’97 and a network browser to facilitate effective use of the laptops.

The initial task force plan called for classroom teachers involved in the pilot program to receive training and then develop at least two planned units incorporating the laptop. Faculty rejected this plan, however, and asked to develop their own training program during the 1998-99 school year. During that year, faculty did receive brief training in Internet use and MS Office Suite software began. Teachers did not, however, come to agreement about professional development and never put forward a documented plan as requested by the administration..

This report, presenting findings from the pilot year of the Laptop Project, utilized surveys, focus groups, the "Stages of Concern" inventory, and reviews of student work to assess the Project in terms of how it had been implemented and, most importantly, its impact on instructional practice and student learning. Although originally proposed as an evaluation to help determine whether Lakeside would proceed with its laptop program, in fact the decision to continue the pilot to the 2000-2001 school year had already been made prior to the collection and analysis of the data in this report. In the coming year, the program will expand to include both seventh and eighth graders and to pilot wireless laptops for the incoming seventh grade class. Furthermore, although there has been no formal decision taken, many at Lakeside believe that there is a commitment from the top administration to continue in this direction and gradually spread laptop use through the entire school. In that sense, this report serves more as a formative evaluation, documenting the achievements and challenges of the first year of the program.

A variety of measures were employed to assess the impact of the laptop pilot program. Prior to NWREL’s involvement in this evaluation, surveys were conducted by the Director of Educational Programs with students, parents, and faculty both before the project began (fall 1998) and seven months after implementation (spring 2000). In addition, teacher experience was tracked using the "Stages of Concern" instrument. The results obtained from these two instruments were incorporated into this report. In addition, NWREL evaluators conducted focus groups with groups of students, parents, and faculty, in order to gain expanded insight into these groups experiences with the program. Two evaluators also reviewed student work samples, utilizing established criteria to rate the effective use of technology in learning.

In anticipation of this evaluation, Lakeside School administrators designed surveys to measure student, parent, and teacher attitudes toward the use of laptops before the project began and again seven months after the start of the program. The same questionnaires were used both times and is reprinted in Appendix B.

Students completed the surveys at school. In the fall of 1998, when students were in the sixth grade, 51 students returned completed questionnaires, resulting in a 85%. In March 2000, these same students as seventh graders completed the surveys again at school. Seventy-two questionnaires were returned, giving a 92% response rate.

Parents of these same students were asked to complete questionnaires. The first set of surveys was distributed at Back-to-School Night in the fall of 1998; forty-four parents responded (about 86% of the class). In March 2000, parents received the second round of surveys in the mail; again forty-four parents responded -- not necessarily the same 44 parents. This second group represented about 56% of the parents of the larger seventh grade class.

Teachers also completed similar questionnaires. In the fall of 1998, 18 teachers who taught any seventh grade class were surveyed. In March 2000, only those teachers who were in the pilot program were surveyed. Seven teachers out of eight pilot teachers completed their surveys.

The Stages of Concern (SOC) inventory is an established instrument to measure the intensity and type of teacher concerns about a new program. Like the survey, it was first administered to the Lakeside Middle School faculty in the fall of 1998 and repeated in the spring of 2000. The inventory is attached to this report in Appendix C.

The Stages of Concern Inventory is a 35-item questionnaire that assesses the principal areas of concern to teachers in the process of implementing major programmatic change. Past research has already established that concerns tend to vary by the depending on a number of factors, including teacher experience and the actions of school administration. Administering the inventory twice permits the administration to see how faculty concerns have progressed and also, ideally, to identify current concerns. Prior research on the implementation of change suggests that seriously addressing current teacher concerns is crucial to the success of a new program (Hall and Hord 1987)

At the beginning of May 2000, focus groups were conducted with seventh grade students, teachers, and parents at Lakeside school. For the student and parent groups, participants were randomly selected. Twenty students were randomly selected and sent letters inviting them to participate in the focus groups; eight students actually participated (four boys and four girls). An additional ten students were randomly selected, and their parents were sent letters inviting them to join the parent focus group one evening; eight parents attended. All seventh grade teachers were invited to the teacher focus group, and eleven participated.

Focus group participants were asked to begin by completing a rating sheet (a copy of which is available in Appendix D). Although the wording differed slightly from group to group, each group was asked to rate:

• the degree to which the Laptop Project had had a positive impact on the way teachers taught in the classroom (instructional practice);
• the degree to which the Laptop Project had successfully improved and enhanced the content or process by which students learn (student learning);
• the degree to which practical or technical difficulties interfered with using the laptop when it was needed (practical and technical problems).

After they completed their ratings, participants marked their ratings on large sheets of paper, and the remainder of the focus group time was spent discussing specific issues and exactly what constituted "successful" use of the laptops.

Twenty students were randomly selected to submit two samples of their work, one from the fall of 1999 (October) and another completed in the spring of 2000. Employing a scale developed earlier by NWREL staff for the evaluation of electronic slide shows, each work samples was independently rated by two NWREL evaluators. Please see Appendix E for a copy of this rating sheet. Ratings that differed by two points or more were discussed in detail until the evaluators came to consensus. The difference(s) between fall and spring ratings were then analyzed.

In addition, during a site visit to Lakeside School in early May 2000, samples of other types of student work products were collected. These were evaluated using a previously designed matrix to assess the integration of technology into classroom projects. Also see Appendix E for a copy of this matrix.

Students considered the impact of the laptop project on their learning to be greater than did teachers, who in turn ranked the impact as greater than parents did. In fact, parents were the only groups not convinced that that the laptop program resulted in some positive impact on student learning, except that it had taught them more about technology.

Discussion of student learning is broken down, below, into 1) student learning about computers and technology use and 2) student learning in core subjects that includes a review of student work samples. These two sections are followed by separate sections on student, teacher, and parent perceptions of student learning.

Student learning about computers and technology was evaluated based on results from the pre and post surveys and from focus groups.

Student, teacher and parent survey results. The surveys included a number of items inquiring about what students were able to do with computers. Table 1 compares the responses of students, teachers, and parents on the 1998 and 2000 surveys to items related to student computer skills. The table illustrates that students, teachers, and parents all see students in 2000 as more capable of using MS Office Suite tools and the Internet for research than they were in the fall of 1998. Only in one case were students’ achievements assessed lower in 2000 than in 1998: teachers in 2000 were less likely to agree that student presentations and oral reports were improved using technology resources.

Student, teachers, and parents share similar assessments of students’ ability to use the Internet to conduct research, to send and receive e-mail, and to use MS Word for written assignments. They take different views on students’ ability to use MS Office Suite to manipulate and present data (MS Word tables and Excel). It is possible that students are in fact effective users of these software programs, and teachers are unaware of student abilities because they do not assign work that makes full use of student abilities. Another possible interpretation is that teachers do not feel that students use these programs effectively and therefore rank student skills lower than do the students themselves. This latter explanation might also account for the difference between student and teacher assessments of student presentations and oral reports using technology.

Results from focus groups. As mentioned earlier, focus groups were conducted with students, teachers, and parents. In these focus groups, there was widespread agreement that students had learned a great deal about computers during the 1999-2000 academic year. Similarly, there was little debate that students used their laptops, and computers in general, more than they had in the past. One teacher and several parents commented that they particularly noticed an increased use of computer technology among the girls.

Seventh graders at Lakeside participated in a laptop tutorial class that was new this year. The purpose of this class was to free teachers from the responsibility of teaching students the basics of MS Office Suite and basic care of the laptop. Most students reported finding it helpful or very helpful in the fall but less necessary in the winter and spring, when they already felt much more comfortable using their computers. One boy suggested that in future years, the tutorial should meet weekly only during the first trimester, and after that, it would be more useful to meet only once or twice a month to check in on technical issues. One parent suggested that the school might draw up a list of hardware and software knowledge that students needed to develop over the first trimester in order to ensure effective and safe use of the laptop. Students could sign up for tutorial sessions corresponding to knowledge or skills they needed to develop and avoid spending time reviewing computer basics they already knew.

In fact, a listing of basic skills students should acquire was hastily drawn up this year after fairly informal discussion with teachers about what skills they thought they might use in their classroom. These skills centered around basic competency and comfort with MS Word, Excel, and PowerPoint, as well as virus scanning, power management, and preventative maintenance. It appears that for the most part, students did master these skills fairly early in the year (though power management required frequent reminders). Later in the year, students went beyond these basic skills, but the project had no standards, or systematic plan for what skills students should build next.

One common student use of the laptops in this pilot year was the creation of slide shows using MS PowerPoint. To assess the use of the technology, two NWREL evaluators reviewed the two slide shows each from 20 Lakeside seventh graders. In most cases, one slide show came from an assignment completed before the winter break (the "pre"), and the second came from an assignment completed afterwards (the "post"). Because many students had not retained copies of all of their work, the evaluation was not able to select a random sample and to be firm about the exact time frame of the work completed; in some instances, whatever work was available was evaluated.

Evaluators worked from a previously designed slide show scoring rubric that rated student work on the following dimensions:

• Focus and purpose. To what extent does the slide show effectively communicate its purpose?

• Organization. To what extent does the slide show present information in a way that is organized, engaging and informative?

• Style, Tone and Terminology. To what extent are these appropriate for the topic?

• Format and Layout. To what extent are the layout and format appropriate for the purpose?

• Connectedness. To what extent is the entire slide show connected across slides and with its purpose?

In addition, for the purposes of this evaluation, evaluators developed sixth dimension to assess animation, when used:

• Animation. To what extent does any animation and/or sound contribute to the effective communication of relevant information?

On each dimension, student work was assigned a rating between 1 and 5, where 1 corresponded to "Not Yet", 3 to "Developing" and 5 to "Strong". The numbers 2 and 4 represented in-between positions on this continuum.

As expected, student work completed later in the year scored higher than the work done earlier in the year, but the differences were unimpressive and much smaller than anticipated. In the fall, student means across the dimensions ranged from 2.5 and 3.0 (i.e. close to "developing"), with the highest mean scores in the dimension of format. In the later work, student means fell between 2.94 and 3.22 (i.e. solidly "developing"). The greatest gains over the intervening months were seen in the dimensions of purpose, organization and voice. These results suggest that, on average, as students gained familiarity with this technology, they were somewhat better able to use it to organize their work to convey their purpose in their own voice. For the most part, the quality of student work was not significantly better later in the year than it was earlier.

The quality of students’ work is, of course, shaped by the direction and guidance received in the classroom. Thus the ratings of students’ work also reflect something about the nature of the assignments and instructions they received from teachers. The evaluated work products originated from a variety of classes. It was evident that in some classes, teachers had provided frameworks for students that helped to boost the quality of their work overall. For example, students might have been told to limit the amount of text per slide in order to enhance readability, or students might have been taught to use signposts to help guide the audience through the organization of the report. This guidance would contribute to higher ratings.

Student work is most likely to be effective when faculty are clear about the criteria for assignments. Teachers who are less familiar with the technology themselves have more difficulty specifying appropriate criteria. Of course, this is a skill that improves with experience, but it is also something that can improve more rapidly both through professional development and through exchange with other faculty members inside the school. Students can also be effectively involved in the process of developing criteria for effective slide shows (or any other work using technology).

In addition to the detailed review of the student slide shows, evaluators also looked over samples of other types of student work that required use of the laptop and Internet research. The goal of using technology in student learning is to not to produce "high tech" work per se, but rather to employ the tools to help make lessons, units, or projects more effective in meeting learning goals. Three projects that showed promise of meeting this goal are described below. (These were brought to the visiting evaluator’s attention during the site visit in May, and their inclusion in the report should not suggest that there were no other successful uses of laptops in other courses.)

The "NPR Narratives". In one English class, students wrote and recorded narratives in the style of those often heard on National Public Radio (NPR). This project, which extended for six weeks, required first that students learn to identify the components of effective narrative by listening to many examples available in the web archives. Once the components were identified, students began writing one or more of their own narratives. They read drafts before their classmates, who evaluated the drafts by looking for the components they had learned about. Because they understood the goal they were working toward, were motivated by the instant feedback, and found revision facilitated by the laptops, students were enthusiastic about making major revisions to their work. In the end, they used GoldWave software, downloaded from the Internet, to record and edit their narratives. The end products were sent to NPR commentator Ira Glass and received favorable review. The quality of the writing was impressive, even given the normally high achievement of Lakeside students. The teacher was convinced that the level of enthusiasm and the dedication to multiple revisions could not have occurred without the technology.

Creation of Web-Resources. In a social studies class, students created web resources on topics such as the Salem witch trials or the Trail of Tears. This project required less of the student’s individual creative contribution than did the narrative project, but it developed other skills — research, organization, critical assessment of the quality of resources, and in most cases, synthesis of the main events and their significance. In that sense, the project is similar to, but probably a great deal more engaging and motivating than the creation of an annotated bibliography on an historical subject.

The Supreme Court Briefs. In the same social studies class, students used the Internet to learn about debates in front of the US Supreme Court. This project involved the students in listening to actual debates before the Court (again, archived on the Internet). Then students chose an issue, researched it on line, and wrote a legal brief. A similar project could have been done entirely without the technology, but students would not have been able to hear -- and mimic -- the style and tone of the debates, and legal research would have been a great deal more difficult unless they had traveled to a law library.

In the focus groups, students were asked to assess the impact of the laptops on their own learning. Their responses identified several key benefits to the students:

• Organization of their course material was one main benefit. One boy reported that when he took notes on paper, he would never bother to go back and rewrite or organize his notes, but because of the laptop, he often did this with his biology notes. He also said that he liked the feeling that when it was time to study, he knew for sure that all of his information was together in one place. Other students agreed that their organization had improved with the use of laptops.

• Research was facilitated by having the laptops and access to the net. All students felt that they were better at finding more information in less time than they had been. They felt proficient and comfortable searching for information on the Internet. They had learned about the relative value of different search engines and had determined their favorite ones.

• Projects and collaboration were likewise greatly facilitated by the laptops and network access. Students valued the ability to e-mail drafts of work back and forth, to get feedback, and rework their earlier attempts.

• The ease of typing and revising encouraged them to write more and work longer on projects than they would when the work had to be done by hand.

• Computer knowledge increased tremendously over the year. Even though nearly all students had used computers at home and school before, the much higher level of use and the constant access had allowed them to learn a lot about technology. One student declared, "Every kid in the seventh grade at Lakeside is a computer geek now — and that’s a good thing."

Students are able to assess their learning much more accurately than adults often expect. In fact, their view that the major contribution of the laptops was to make them more organized and better at doing research corresponds closely to what evaluators found in their work. Over the year, some students’ work became somewhat more organized, showed evidence of more revision and greater clarity of purpose. And the greater the familiarity with the laptops (the more they became "geeks"), the more they were able to use the machines to enhance their organization or complete effective revisions.

On the other hand, students did not entirely agree about the value of laptops to their learning. Some held reservations, or at least thought that there were negative aspects to weigh against the advantages listed above.

• Subject area knowledge was not necessarily enhanced by the use of laptops. In some cases, students felt that their knowledge and growth in courses this year was roughly similar to what it had been in courses the previous year, without laptops. This was an area where students held a range of opinions.

• Interruptions and distractions in class were a problem to some students. Some felt that classes took longer to get going because of the time it took to boot up and log onto the network. Others felt that some students inappropriately used their computers to check e-mail or surf the net while in class.

Even students who thought these concerns to be fairly serious, however, did not want to give up the laptop program.

Teachers were divided in their perceptions of the impact of laptops on student learning, but overall, their comments were more positive than negative. Most teachers felt that having the laptops increased student organization, encouraged more revision of writing assignments, increased access to information, and facilitated collaboration and group projects. In some cases, teachers were pleased to see that students were taking learning from one class — a new computer technique, for example — and transferring it to use in a new way in another class.

A few teachers felt that there were certain new pitfalls associated with the use of laptops. One teacher noticed that some students thought that a first draft "looked good" because it was printed off a computer, and student motivation to rewrite actually declined. Another felt that math presentations that used the laptops (it was an option) were weaker and more superficial than those that didn’t, as if students felt that a slicker presentation substituted for content. Finally, several teachers believed that even though students were learning a lot about technology, and possibly a lot about a specific area of research, but the level of comprehension and sophistication of ideas were not greatly altered by the introduction of technology.

Parents felt that their children learned a great deal about technology this year. This sentiment showed up both in the parent surveys as well as in the focus group. At the same time, however, parents were less convinced that this technology had enhanced their children’s learning in core subject areas. Several parents expressed the view that the use of technology and computers in education might hold great potential, but at Lakeside this potential was as yet unrealized. A major obstacle they cited was the incomplete or ineffective adoption of laptops in different classes (discussed more fully in the section on instructional practice, below). Essentially, they felt that until teachers received the necessary professional development to identify the best use of the laptops in their various disciplines, the impact on student learning was limited.

The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) noted in a recent publication (ISTE 2000) that in recent years, many teachers have become effective users of technology to organize and prepare themselves to teach. Many teachers, however, have not yet moved along the continuum from being personal users of technology to integrating it into their curriculum to enhance student learning. According to the ISTE,

Effective integration of technology facilitates student learning by supporting and promoting research-based, "best" instructional practices within content areas. Technology can support and promote project-based learning, hand-on activities, teamwork, active student learning, engagement in student-centered activities, and the use of thematic/integrated learning units (Archer 1998; Jones et al nd.).

Technology is a tool that can increase student efficiency in such activities as writing and data analyses, enhance organization of content, and increase access to resources via CD-ROM or the Internet. It can greatly enhance student and teacher presentations. It can promote communication amongst students, between students and teachers, and between students and experts in various fields, all to enhance student learning. It allows students to graphically display results of data analyses. It can be used to create simulations of situations or perform abstract modeling that students could not otherwise experience in a classroom setting. Effective use essentially means both that the efficiency of traditional activities (writing, organizing, analyzing, synthesizing, presenting) is greatly enhanced and students are engaged in learning activities they could not otherwise have experienced.

Previous research on school laptop usage suggests that laptops can have tremendous impact on shifting the role of the classroom instructor in the direction of learning facilitator, as some of the power to control the direction of learning shifts to the student using the technology. A key component to promoting the effective use of technology within the classroom is on-going professional development that builds a familiarity and comfort with the technology and encourages a willingness to take risks.

The following sections review teacher, student, and parent perceptions of the impact of laptops on instructional innovation at Lakeside School. The predominant finding is that there is tremendous variation in the degree to which teachers use the technology. While a number of teachers feel that laptops have altered their classrooms in ways that enrich the experience for them and for students, in most cases, teachers are still working to discover how this technology can work in their particular class. The impact of the Laptop Project has been most positive in social studies and English classes, and has been more limited in science and mathematics.

Students, teachers and parents completed surveys in the fall of 1998 and again in the spring of 2000. Part of the survey dealt with questions regarding instructional use of computers.

Based on teachers survey results (Table 2), it appears that about half of the pilot teachers used computers as a basic teaching tool in the classroom or used lesson plans from teacher web sites. Few indicated that computers interfered with student interactions with teachers. However, all considered computers as valid tools in their disciplines.

In the spring of 2000, both students and parents reported an increased use of computers by teachers as a teaching tool, and about a quarter indicated that computers interfered with student interactions with teachers.

Teachers in general concurred that technology in general, and the laptops in particular, either could or did make positive contributions to what went on in their classrooms. Asked to identify specific ways in which the laptops had affected the way they teach, faculty made the following observations:

• The biggest change is in the management of assignments, the submission and grading of work. This was one area in which every class, regardless of subject, had experienced some impact. In science class, student submitted all work electronically. Because of the laptop project, all students and teachers use the same software (and same versions), and the exchange of work done of the computer is much more feasible.

• There are more opportunities for students to teach one another. Sometimes kids teach each other aspects of the technology that teachers don’t know. Other times, students are able to use the Internet to gather information rapidly and present it to one another.

• Internet access in class offers instant information. One teacher found, for example, that in-class research supported and enriched the interpretation of novels in English.

• Technology facilitates steady communication. Use of a web site ensures that students always know when assignments are due (as long as the server isn’t down). Web sites and e-mail maintain contact with students who are absent.

Social studies teachers and one English teacher rated the impact of the laptops on instruction most positively, followed by science teachers more in the middle. Math teachers saw the least positive impact of technology on their teaching. They were concerned that in mathematics, using the computer can make it harder to identify student thought processes involved in problem-solving. One English teacher also felt there had been relatively little positive impact and was concerned that the increased use of the Internet for research was accompanied by increased plagiarism.

Several teachers said that having Internet access in the classroom increases student access to information but that conceptually, student work is not much different. To some degree, this may be a reflection of teachers not yet realizing how these new tools can be used to expand the range or depth of student projects. Other teachers disagreed and thought the use of technology is limited because of the developmental stage of seventh graders. One teacher argued that it is exactly the developmental stage of seventh graders that makes the laptop program problematic. "Fooling around" that is entirely age appropriate results in inappropriate care for the machines. Furthermore, at this age, students need to be working with simple, physical tools (rulers and protractors) to master the basic foundations, before moving on to more sophisticated tools such as laptops. (In fact, national standards established by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics as early as 1989 supports the use of both protractors and computers in fifth through eighth grade mathematics (NCTM 1989).)

There continues to be debate among teachers, and between some teachers and the administration around these issues. When faculty are questioning the appropriateness of the use of technology and its relevance to their subject matter (especially math, and to some degree science), their motivation to seek the professional development that might increase their knowledge and use of technology is low. Without more faculty buy-in, the project is likely to continue to stall. Some teachers may expand their use of technology in the classroom, because they have seen a positive impact this year, and the difference in use from one class or one discipline to another will probably increase.

Some teachers reported feeling themselves in a very difficult position. They felt pressured, first, by the administration. They knew this is not a "pilot" but rather the first year of a major change, regardless of their reservations about the direction of the change. They felt pressured by parents, some of whom are disappointed that there was not higher laptop usage this year. These factors pushed toward greater technology use. At the same time, teachers wanted to protect a curriculum they feel has worked well with kids. While they acknowledged that there is a possibility of integrating the technology to enrich the curriculum, they did not want to sacrifice 25% of class time to deal with the transition problems, the technical issues, or just the fumbling around that goes with tremendous change. Professional development could help, but some teachers felt unsure about where to look or even what to look for. They said they don’t have the extensive time to invest in finding out.

The Director of Educational Programs reports he made numerous attempts to ease this situation for teachers. He forwarded information to them on upcoming ESD courses, trainings offered by CompUSA, and educational technology conferences. He invited teachers from area schools that had experience with educational uses of technology to visit Lakeside and encouraged Lakeside teachers to visit those schools in return. He notified teachers of relevant web sites and purchased a "School Kit" subscription that provides teachers with on-line lesson plans. There was a large pool of money set aside for teachers’ professional development, and he encouraged teachers to ask to use it. Faculty were generally unresponsive to these suggestions during both the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 school years. This reluctance seems to reflect the lack of faculty buy-in to the use of technology in the classroom and the morale problems that go along with participating in a program they do not support. It is also possible that the dispersed leadership of the project undermined the administration’s requests that teachers seek out formal training.

Instead of the more formalized professional development promoted by the administration, at least some teachers favored individualized approaches to professional development. This year they relied on the expertise of the technology coordinator to help with particular needs. While this was not an efficient use of that coordinator’s time (and perhaps not possible once more than one grade participating in the program), it was helpful for other teachers who only wanted to spend time on their immediate needs.

Students disagreed about the degree to which laptops had altered the way teachers teach. The disagreement stemmed from the variation among classes. In many instances, this depended on the subject. In general, students concurred that there was more use, and more effective use, of the laptops in some classes than in others. In some cases, it was not only the subject that mattered, but also an individual teacher’s proficiency with the technology. Students said that some teachers could benefit from additional training in technology, including a class parallel to the laptop tutorial which students attended. They also felt that over time, teachers would gain experience that would allow them to use the laptops more fully. One girl worried, however, that since her class was the first to use the laptops, they would be responsible for "breaking in" teachers each year, as they moved from one grade to another. She hoped that teachers in high school would start to prepare now to use laptops in their classroom, so they would be prepared when the current seventh graders arrived in their classes.

Students in the focus groups were asked to identify reasons that laptops were or were not particularly important to different core classes they were enrolled in. Results are summarized in Table 3.

These findings are very similar to findings in another laptop project conducted in an independent girls’ school in New York City, where Abrams (1999) reported that students

valued laptops most for their English, history, and science classes, and least for math, foreign languages and art.

Perhaps the laptop pilot project has uncovered a deeper issue, regarding teachers’ pedagogical philosophies that do not yet incorporate research-based instructional practices. If students feel that biology depends heavily on lecture or that data collection and analysis are not important components of mathematics, then those subjects are often being taught in more traditional ways which probably do not benefit from the influx of technology in the same way that more "hands-on" learning environments do.

Recent research at the national level has linked higher achievement in mathematics, particularly among middle schoolers, to the use of computers in the classroom. In a study based on student performance 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, often known as "the nation’s report card") along with information from teachers and students about how they used computers and math, Wenglinsky (1998) was able to identify specific factors that tied computers to high achievement in mathematics. Eighth graders whose teachers used computers most often for "simulations and applications" (tasks requiring higher level thinking) performed better on the NAEP than teachers who used them for drill and practice. And students whose teachers had professional development in computers outperformed students whose teachers had not.

One of the benefits of technology in mathematics instruction, many researchers now assert, is that it shifts the teacher-student relationship:

Many parents were uncomfortable rating instructional practice because they were more removed from what happens inside the classroom and had to rely on their perceptions of what their children were doing. Several emphasized that teacher and student concerns in this area should be given greater weight than their own. Nonetheless, the areas of strength and concern which they identified were in fact very similar to those mentioned by teachers and students.

• Linkage of technology to larger instructional goals. Many parents worried that the school could take a "technology for technology’s sake" position. They wanted to know that the use of technology in the classroom did, in fact, enrich the curriculum and enhance student learning. In this, they share a common concern with those teachers who weren’t convinced that using laptops would benefit the overall education of seventh graders. Parents seemed to feel that technology could provide an educational benefit, but it depended on its use, and on teachers knowing how to use it effectively.

• Teacher opportunities for helpful professional development. Parents wanted to see incentives offered to encourage teachers to expand their knowledge of the instructional uses of technology, particularly in ways relevant to the teaching of particular disciplines.

• Enormous variation by teacher and subject area in terms of use of the technology. When asked to identify in which class their child got the best use out of the laptop computer, parents gave answers similar to the responses of teachers and students. Most parents chose English, followed by Social Studies. No parent chose Math or Science. One parent felt that Excel was not the best example of a good mathematical use of the computer, but that there was other software available which might be very useful and exciting to the students. Again, parents felt teachers should be given opportunities and incentives to explore existing options.

Results of the two surveys show that attitudes of students, teachers, and parents toward the use of computers in school and for homework did not improve over the period of the pilot project, and in some cases declined slightly (Table 4).

Despite the quantitative survey findings, students appear overall more positive than negative toward the laptop program. In the focus groups, even students who were quite critical about aspects of the laptop use at Lakeside School did not think that students should stop using them.

Some students wrote comments on the survey they filled out in March 2000. Out of the 72 students who responded to the survey, 33 wrote comments, and of these 12 were overall negative assessments of the program, while 20 were positive and one was neutral.

Complaints about weight and infrequent use dominated the negative comments on the surveys. Examples of negative comments included the following:

• "Teachers aren’t adequately trained to use the laptops. They are often confused. I don’t use my laptop in many classes. They don’t fit in your locker if you have a coat. They’re really heavy. The carrying bags really suck. Mine broke after two months, and so did other people’s. STOP THIS PROGRAM!"

• "They’re too heavy to carry home if you are walking. Only one of my classes uses them consistently right now, most often they never use them."

• "I think it is very heavy and a hassle. Although I like taking notes/typing, it can get in the way in class."

Positive comments often merely stated that students liked the laptops, sometimes citing the organizational benefits. Although a "positive" comment support the use of laptops, most of the positive comments included mention of problems or suggestions for making better use of the laptops in the future. Examples of positive comments were

• "I love the laptops! The program would be better if the teachers used them for everything, not just now and then."

• "I have really enjoyed the organization of computers."

• "Laptops are great when using MS Word and for the Internet. They have definitely improved learning for myself."

• "I like the laptops personally. The hard thing is carrying around a laptop and a binder with books."

• "Keep the program! I really like the resources they provide."

• "Let’s use them more."

As described in the section on instructional practices, teachers feel pressured by administration and parents to change faster than they feel prepared to do, and according to some teachers, faculty morale has suffered as a result. This does not mean that they do not value laptops as a tool with educational merit. All but two teachers appeared to see some utility of the technology in their classroom. This year’s experience, however, offered more frustrations than reward to many teachers.

The Stages of Concern (SOC) inventory is a way of measuring teachers’ reactions to a major change, working off the presumption that usually teachers’ reactions progress in fairly predictable stages. By identifying what kinds of concerns are most important to teachers at any given time, administrators or project managers can respond in ways that address those concerns and thereby facilitate successful implementation of the change.

Based on teacher responses to a series of statements about a program, the SOC inventory categorizes their concerns into one of seven stages, and then ranks them in order of importance. The stages are

Generally speaking, these categories represent roughly chronological stages of concern, although usually teachers have pressing concerns in more than one area at the same time. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to anticipate that early in a program, concerns cluster at the lower end of the scale, while later on, there are more concerns in the areas of consequence, collaboration, and refocusing.

Thus teachers participating in the laptop program were asked to complete the inventory both in the fall of 1998 and in the spring of 2000. As expected, their concerns in the fall of 1998 clustered around the "lower" stages, predominantly related to informational, personal, and management concerns. By the spring of 2000, the bulk of teacher concerns had shifted to the areas of collaboration and refocusing, with some concern in the realm of student consequence and management issues.

It is interesting -- and unexpected -- that teachers moved to the comparatively "higher level" concerns even though integration of the technology was incomplete. And in fact, in the focus groups, faculty seemed more concerned about personal, management, and student consequence issues. This surprising finding, however, is probably explained by taking a closer look at the individual inventory items that go into constructing the indices for each stage. For example, teachers are asked to respond to the statement: "I would like to revise the innovation’s instructional approach." This is meant to signify that the teacher has mastered the innovation (the use of the laptop), but in this case it could also signify general resistance to the laptop project. Likewise agreement with "I am concerned about revising my use of this innovation," might mean that the teacher is dissatisfied with the current functioning of the laptops in the classroom. In other words, the clustering of teacher concerns at the refocusing stage is probably most indicative of teacher frustrations and dissatisfactions with the program in general, rather than a rapid move to reach for more powerful alternatives.

Students, teachers, and parents all expressed some degree of frustration with practical and technical obstacles to the successful use of the laptops, but of the three groups, students were the least bothered by the problems. Overall, they felt that problems with the network or laptop were annoying, but not insurmountable. Teachers, on the other hand, were significantly more bothered by the problems, while parents tended to take a middle position.

At the focus groups, students were asked to specifically address how severely practical and technical problems had interfered with their work. For most students, their concerns fell in four main areas:

• Delays in class. Students lost time out of their classes booting up and logging onto the network — frequently one student would have problems and keep the others waiting. Some students felt that this problem was worse with the laptops, while others countered that it was no different from previous years, when some students would leave their notebooks or texts in lockers or at home. A number of students wondered if it wouldn’t help to have faster computers. (Note: staff and faculty observed that student computers were slower than they needed to be because many students had too many programs automatically — an unnecessarily -- starting every time they booted up.)

• Weight of the laptop. For many students, it was a burden to carry the machines around every day. There were a number of specific factors that aggravated this problem. First, student lockers did not accommodate the laptops, so students had to keep the laptops with them all day. Second, most classes did not use the laptop every day, but at least one class used the laptop almost daily, so students often felt there was a lot of carrying for comparatively little use. Thirdly, some classes still required students to bring binders, notebooks, and textbooks to class, adding significantly to the overall weight students carried. (Note: the school did attempt to reduce this problem by purchasing two sets of math books so students could have a book to keep at home.)

• Server downtime. Students said that for the most part, the school server had been fairly reliable, but as it had been down for an entire week just prior to the focus groups, there were many complaints about how much that had interfered with the completion of particular assignments. One boy noted that his inability to access the server the week before had made him realize for the first time how much his learning and studying style had shifted, so that he was now very dependent on being able to work on his laptop.

• Frequent breakdowns. One boy reported, "Personally, I’ve had very few problems, but most people I know have had to get a loaner at least five times." Another boy at the same focus group concurred with that estimate.

Some students also expressed the wish that they had been allowed to choose their own case for the laptop, as there was great variation in opinion about what constituted an adequate case. They also felt that being able to personalize the case would reduce the number of incidents of accidental exchanges of laptops. One student felt strongly that the school needed additional printers available for student use.

Students reported that they were very satisfied with the quality of the support and assistance they received in dealing with their problems. Several of them mentioned that the tech support staff was willing to spend long hours at school or on the phone at home to help them through difficulties.

Overall, students said that technical and practical problems were annoying but did not prevent them from getting practical use out of the laptops. Compared to teachers and parents, students ranked practical and technical problems as less serious. One boy summed it up as follows, and the other boys said they agreed with him:

Teachers saw technical and practical problems as more serious impediments to the success of the Laptop Project than did parents or students. Their major concerns included

• Delays in the class. These might be caused by inadequate functioning of the machines or by student or teacher inexperience. Several teachers reported that in every class, one or two students run out of power even though they have been warned to monitor their power. Some teachers felt that the data projectors generally slowed the start of class, as there were several of them and they didn’t all work the same way. The most problems seemed to occur when teachers and students had only five minutes to move into a classroom that had just been occupied by another class and teacher. The short transition time was not sufficient for the movement of people and the setting up of the laptops, and some classes also required a rearrangement of the furniture around.

• Responding to and grading electronically submitted work. In science, the shift to paperless lab books has significantly slowed the process of reading and correcting student work. The process of copying and transferring lab books, and the time to boot up Windows every time a piece of work is to be graded, continues to drag out the process, even after the teacher has invested time into finding better ways to share and transfer information. A math teacher concurred that grading individual sheets of paper that can be carried around and quickly read in spare moments throughout the day is much more convenient than using the computer.

• Weight of computers and books. Some teachers have tried to resolve this problem by telling students to leave their textbooks at home.

In addition, there were a few concerns about the network unavailability during the week prior to the focus groups, about the durability of the machines, and about the imperfect interface between the laptops and the computers students had at home.

While it was acknowledged that some of these problems might be resolved over time, as everyone in the school became more knowledgeable about dealing with technical issues, some faculty worried that there had been a cost to teacher morale this year. Expectations that faculty should make tremendous adjustments to their teaching to incorporate this new tool and at the same time adjust to new technical challenges were extremely frustrating to many teachers.

Dominating the parents’ discussion of practical and technical issues was a strong dissatisfaction with the Toshiba machines themselves. Parents were quite concerned about the choice of the Toshiba laptop rather than some other brand or make of laptop computer and felt they had not been informed of rationale for the choice. They were concerned that it was not a well-thought-out decision, and that their children were left using "pretty poor machines" — slow, fragile, with a bad screen, and heavy for their children to carry.

Some parents at the focus group felt it would be preferable for Lakeside to place the emphasis not on laptops, but on a solid computer network, with personal, password-protected folder that students could access from every classroom and from home. This way the children would not have to carry the laptops and CD ROM drives that weighed them down. On the other hand, a few parents felt strongly that having the laptops significantly facilitated their student’s life — for example, making it possible for the child to do homework even when the family made frequent weekend trips. These parents felt that if Lakeside chose not to requre laptops, then laptops should be available for students to check out when needed.

A subgroup of parents was also dissatisfied with the interface between the laptops and the computers they had at home.

Several parents, who generally supported Lakeside’s stated commitment to the use of technology, argued that they would like to see that commitment in other arenas than simply the provision of laptops for seventh graders. For example, they said they would prefer the school to move to a paperless communication system, with newsletters delivered by e-mail. They felt disappointed that so few faculty members had active web sites, and suggested that the School should facilitate faculty use of web sites, either through training or by designating a support person who could put teacher schedules and assignments up on the web on a weekly basis.

Parents felt that the program this year, and any laptop program in the future, could benefit from a Project Manager. This person could facilitate communication with the parents, perhaps reducing the concerns about the choice of laptop or the educational goals. The Project Manager could also manage or oversee the management of the school and teacher websites, alleviating the burden from teachers who felt pinched for time. Parents, like students, commended the technical support staff for extraordinary willingness to put in long hours to solve technical problems. At the same time, they felt that the Project deserved other kinds of administrative support as well, which they felt it had not received.

And finally, like students, many parents thought it was a problem also that laptops did not fit in student lockers or backpacks.

Table 5 illustrates the number and type of repairs required as of May 4, 2000. Nearly half of the repairs (95) consisted of retrofitting needed due to a factory error. Of the remaining repair order, 42% were for major repairs.

Students did not find these breakdowns as serious an impediment as they might otherwise have done, because the ready availability of seven loaners allowed them to continue using a functioning laptop in their classes. According to the staff estimates, on any given day, four of the seven loaners were in use by students. Switching students from their laptop to a loaner, and back required about 35-40 minutes per machine:

The time required for the diagnosis and repair of software problems can be even higher, depending on the source of the problem.

Extending the laptop program to two grades in the 2000-2001 school year implies that technical staff will need to deal with approximately double as many repairs. The high demand for loaners and for major and medium repairs suggest that any on-going program will need to offer at least one loaner for every 21 machines.

The Pilot Laptop Project at Lakeside school was characterized by uneven utilization of the technology by teachers in different classes, some frustrating but not insurmountable technical difficulties, and some limited but genuine gains in student learning. This experience suggested that the laptop program met with modest success. The potential benefits were not fully realized, for several reasons.

The principle limitation lay with the differing degrees to which teachers incorporated the laptops into their classroom activities. By all accounts, social science and English classes made the most use of laptops in the classroom, while mathematics appeared to make the least.

In instances where the laptops were regularly used in the classroom, teachers talked about it shifting their role to more of a coach/facilitator, about students teaching one another, and about the use of the laptops for collaborative, student-driven projects. This not only corresponds to findings from other studies, but it demonstrates again that technology is most effective as a supporter of research-based ‘best practices’ in education

In classrooms that relied on more traditional educational approaches, such as frequent lectures or teacher-led activities, the laptops made less of an impact and were less valued by teachers and students alike. In such a setting, computers may contribute to improved student organization, but they added little to what happens inside the classroom, unless the teacher is skilled at using technology for presentations. This was what happened in some classes at Lakeside during the pilot year.

Despite the limitations, seventh graders experienced some gains as a result of the laptop program. Students became more competent users of the Internet as a research tool and proficient in the use of many components of Microsoft Office Suite. Many students felt that the use of the laptops enhanced their organization in their studies and greatly facilitated better research. Some students felt their work was more polished thanks to a tool that facilitates revision.

Attitudes toward the use of laptops were mixed. In general, students, parents and teachers valued the use of computers in school and for homework about the same or slightly less after being in the pilot program than they did before it began. Nevertheless, roughly three-quarters of all three groups continued to feel positive about the use of computers. In the focus groups, most students expressed a liking for their laptop and a sense that it contributed positively toward their learning. Teacher attitudes ranged from extreme skepticism to considerable enthusiasm about the kind of student learning that technology could facilitate. Not surprisingly, the teachers who made more use of the laptops appeared to have a more positive attitude toward their use.

Despite some complaints that laptops were not used enough in all classes, they were used enough that when the Lakeside School server was down for the entire last week of April, the loss was felt keenly by students and teachers. In fact, server downtime was one of the most frequently cited technical problems. Other concerns were the speed of the laptops and the frequency of breakdowns. These concerns appeared to be more serious to parents than to the students, many of whom took the problems in stride. Students were probably most concerned with two practical issues. First, they worried about delays in class caused by time it took for students to set up and log onto the network. This problem is comparatively easy to address. Changes to the configuration of student machines can shorten the time it takes to boot up. The second concern was the weight of the laptops and of student backpacks that also held binders and books.

In focus groups, no student thought that the laptop program should be abandoned, regardless of frustrations they had experienced. And in the student surveys, which represented nearly all seventh graders, very few students expressed the desire to end the use of laptop computers in their classroom. Instead, most students looked forward to using them more, and more effectively in the future.

Prior to the completion of this report, Lakeside School announced its decision to continue and expand the laptop program in the 2000-2001 academic year. Next year’s program will include both seventh and eighth graders, and somewhat different specifications for the new machines for the incoming seventh graders. The best use of this evaluation report, then, is as a planning guide for the coming year. In that spirit, the following suggestions for ways to increase the effectiveness of the program in the future are offered:

• Invest the time and effort into constructing a shared vision of the role of technology in student learning and building teacher commitment to the use of technology.

• Consider the creation of a Project Manager position to oversee the various aspects of the program and centralize leadership of the project.

• Investigate alternative forms of professional development that address the needs and concerns of teachers while also promoting instructional practices supported by educational research.

• Expand and deepen standards and desired technology skills for students to develop.

• Continue to build and strengthen the use of technology in other arenas (e.g. parent communication) and for other grades (e.g. web sites for all faculty, not only those in the pilot).

Specific suggestions for the possible implementation of each of these suggestions follow.

Tensions between faculty and the administration over a variety of issues, including the definition and direction of the program, interfered with the success of the laptop program, and they will probably continue to do so in the future, unless they are addressed in new ways. This year, the administration expressed frustration with what it sees as faculty unwillingness to participate in the professional development that would raise faculty familiarity with computers and, presumably, effective use of technology in the classroom. On their side, teachers express a range of concerns, including time limitations, a lack of clear direction, enduring questions about the value of technology to particular disciplines, and frustration about the absence of clearly defined goals and objectives of the laptop "program". Evidently there are other issues of disagreement which extend beyond the laptop program, as well.

Next year, these tensions could go on to absorb an enormous amount of time and energy that could otherwise go into a myriad of more constructive uses, including the effective integration of technology into the curriculum at the Middle School. In addition, these same tensions will probably interfere with the implementation of any other innovations or changes that either faculty or administration might wish to introduce. Therefore, the following suggestions are aimed at providing some options that might, together or individually, help all parties find common ground for more constructive partnership in the future.

There are existing, tested programs that target problems of disagreement about goals and the resulting morale problems. These generally seek to identify areas of shared concerns and belief — such as the dedication to providing a high quality education for students — and using that to build a common vision.

There are many ways that this process can take place. What follows is a description of one such process ("Creating the Future") developed by NWREL for school improvement projects in the state of Montana. The description is provided only to give a clear sense of how the process works; there are many other options for collaborative mission-defining or vision-building processes. Interested teachers, administrators, parents and students at Lakeside could also develop their own process.

Typically, the process begins with the distribution of two or three short readings on the topic at hand (in this case, the use of laptops in middle school education) ahead of time. This ensures that there is a common frame of reference among participants.

Meetings are facilitated by a team consisting of both administrators and teachers, and probably parents. In practice, many schools have found it very helpful to include student representatives in these meetings as well. The facilitating team must consist of individuals committed to a cooperative process of dialogue and willing to engage in some training and/or planning ahead of time.

At the start, facilitators review key assumptions, guidelines and steps in the dialogue and mission clarification process, referring to any school-specific documents that already exist and are relevant to the process. During the first session dialogue, usually all participants engage in structured activities guided by the facilitators. The product of the meeting is a list of commonly held core beliefs about student learning.

The next step is to organize a dialogue aimed at direction setting, building upon these core beliefs and commonalities. The participants can delineate specific goals for student learning. After that, participants examine how the existing curriculum meets those goals, and in places where the goals are not met, to design plans to meet them. This in turn identifies specific areas of relevant professional development for teachers, whose motivation improves when they have been invested in the process of defining the program’s direction.

At this comparatively early stage of technological integration, Lakeside could make good use of a program manager to oversee the laptop project. This would meet a variety of needs cited by parents, teachers, and students -- all of whom recognize that currently, teacher ability to use the laptops regularly and effectively in their classes varies dramatically from class to class. A single project could provide leadership and specific technical and curricular assistance to teachers and could play a central role in the vision construction efforts described above. This person would need extensive experience with educational uses of technology within the classroom. He or she could come in and observe and advise interested teachers, offering access to proven resources appropriate to the discipline and grade level, and assist implementation. Teachers have asked for someone with both "vision" of what integrated use of technology looks like and the time to attend to and assist them. Parents want teachers to have the support they need to make a successful shift to greater use of technology, and they also want an identified person that they can turn to with specific questions and suggestions. As regular teacher use of the machines increases, student complaints that their laptops are underused will diminish.

One area of high tension was the question of professional development for teachers. Administration and at least some of the teachers disagree about who is responsible for professional development and the way in which it should be delivered. It appears that at least a portion of the faculty would like to see a position created for a person to serve as a consultant on technology and curriculum issues. Meanwhile, the administration would like to see faculty members more proactively seeking opportunities for training in technology and instructional uses of technology — that is, rather than turn to others for consultation and support, teachers should learn more themselves.

Fortunately, there are alternative models for the delivery of professional development that might be acceptable to all parties. One alternative with an established track record is "Generation www.Y" (Pronounced "Generation Y" or "Gen Y" for short). Gen Y works to increase technology use in the K-12 curriculum by utilizing student expertise to support and train teachers. Originating in Olympia, Washington, Gen Y has trained literally thousands of students to assist teachers with technical needs.

The typical Gen Y program begins with a training for students. That training covers technology skills (PowerPoint presentations, construction web pages) which Lakeside seventh graders already posses and would not need. But the training also covers other issues, including how to be a useful resource, how to work with teachers, and how to think about lesson, unit and curriculum development. These issues have the potential to engage and empower students both in their own learning and the learning of their peers. Following the training, students meet with an assigned teacher, and together they discuss what the teacher might like to do with technology in that class. Then a student might develop a web page for the class, design a presentation, or learn and then teach the class to use a new type of software. The teacher meets regularly with the student to be sure that the project continues to align with instructional goals. In theory, the teacher is not required in this process to learn the technology, which can be a relief to teachers who feel pressured by time limitations or lack of experience. In practice, what often happens is that the teacher learns about the technology from the student.

Differences between traditional and the Gen Y approach to integrating technology into the curriculum are laid out in Table 6. The benefits of the program were identified in a survey of 576 participating teachers (Harper, Conor, and Course 1999), who said that Gen Y had, among other things, served as a

• producer of technology leaders in their schools;
• developer of staff at their schools;
• method of involving students by collaborating with educators;
• vehicle for showing students how difficult teaching is, and
• course to help students plan, organize and solve problems.

Gen Y is funded by a U.S. Department of Education Technology Innovation challenge Grant, as well as corporate sponsors and the Washington State Competitive Technology Program. The related curriculum materials are published by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE, www.iste.org). Examples of archived projects are available at genwhy.wednet.edu.

Another option that also works off the idea of students teaching teachers, would be to re-organize laptop tutorial to be a class for both faculty and students. This class could model well-established practices such as project-based collaborative learning, as teachers and students work in groups to develop lessons or units to use in other classes.

Whether Lakeside were to adopt Gen Y or create its own version of a program that enlists students in teacher development, the general model seems to hold a number of advantages which address particular needs at Lakeside. For example, faculty have already demonstrated a preference for individualized professional development that responds to their immediate needs. Furthermore, such a program creates an active, leading role for students in the classroom, and this could contribute to a shift towards more hand-on, student-centered classrooms. Research supports such a role for students and suggests that in these active environments, the benefit from technology is greater. Finally, there is no reason why next year’s eighth graders could not serve as mentors for upper school teachers as well. In so doing, they would pave the way for those teachers to be more prepared to meet the technologically savvy students who will enter there classrooms in just a few short years.

Beyond a list of relatively basic skills in MS Word, Excel, and PowerPoint, and the fundamentals of preventative maintenance, there are no clear guidelines for what Lakeside students are supposed to know about the technology they use every day. If the school chooses to conduct dialogues to build a common vision of technology and education at Lakeside, one task might include the construction of an expanded and enriched set of standards.

The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) has designed national educational technology standards for students. The performance indicators for technology literate students, grades 6-8 (ISTE 2000:22) , might prove a fruitful starting point for a dialogue.

Students and parents cite the ability to retrieve assignments from teachers’ web sites as a highly useful benefit of the laptop program, and they wish to see more teachers use this forum. As part of a program such as Gen Y — or another professional development program — students could help teachers set up web pages, or do it for them and teach them to do their own simple updates.

Parents felt that other changes, such as moving to paperless communication between the school and home, would help underscore Lakeside’s commitment to technology use. More importantly, parents wanted to know that the school was investigating a variety of ways to use technology, including the use of a network that students could log onto from desktop stations at school and home, rather than laptops. The middle school principal was concerned that this would be a more expensive option that could increase tuition, but the discussion should occur in a setting that promotes the participation of everyone in the Lakeside community — administration, teachers, parents, and the students themselves.

While the emphasis in this report has been on professional development for teachers, other members of the administration and staff will also be faced with new challenges that their prior training has not prepared them for. Relevant and on-going professional development for all staff will be essential, and it should include visits to other schools where the effective integration of technology is demonstrated.

Abrams, R. (2000, April). Laptop computers in an all-girls school: hearing the student voice in an evaluation of technology use. Paper presented at the AERA Annual Meeting, 2000.

Archer, J. (1998). "The link to higher scores," www.edweek.org/sreports/tc98/ets/ets-n.htm

Gilbert, J., & Wylie, C. (1999. "Laptop learning community readies faculty and students for digital learning future," http://www.du.edu/uts/buffer/janfeb99/LLC.html

Hall, G. E. & Hord, S. (1987). "The teacher’s point of view: stages of concern," Chapter 3 in Change in schools: facilitating the process. New York: State University of New York Press.

Harper, D., Conor, J. & Course, A. (1999). "Why Generation www.Y," Learning & Leading with Technology. 27(2):7-9.

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). 2000. National Educational Technology Standards for students: Connecting curriculum and technology. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) NETS Project and the U.S. Department of Education.

Jones, B.F., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, D., & Rasmussen, C. (1995). Plugging In: Choosing and using educational technology. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Washington DC: Council for Educational Development and Research.

Milken Exchange on Education Technology. (1998). Technology in American Schools: Seven dimensions for gauging progress. Santa Monica, California: Milken Exchange.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

http://www.enc.org/reform/journals/enc2280/nf_280dtoc1.htm

Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. ETS Policy Report. www.ets.org/research/pic/technolog.html