Effects of Computer Enrichment

Evaluators seldom examined the effectiveness of programs of computer enrichment

during the 1970s and 1980s. James A. Kulik’s comprehensive meta-analytic review of

instructional technology studies from the 1970s and 1980s cited only five studies of computer

enrichment—out of a total of 96 evaluation studies at the elementary and secondary school level

(J. Kulik, 1994). The enrichment programs of this period provided students with relatively

unstructured exercises of various types, including games, simulations, tutoring, and so on. The

purpose of the exercises was to enrich the classroom experience and stimulate and motivate

students.

The studies measured the effect of enrichment on tests of reading or mathematics or both.

In three of the five studies, student test scores were lower in the group that worked in the enriched

environment. The median effect of computer enrichment in the five studies was to decrease

posttest scores by 0.14 standard deviations. An effect size of –0.14 is equivalent to a drop in test

scores from the 50th to the 44th percentile. These results may be of limited relevance to today’s

programs of computer enrichment, however, because the computer-rich environments of the

1970s and 1980s did not include many of the resources available today, including World Wide

Web resources, e-mail, and laptop computers.

During the 1990s investigators turned their attention to effects of computer enrichment on

student writing. Results of six studies of enrichment and writing appear in Table 9. In five of the

six studies, the effect of computer enrichment on the quality of student writing was positive. In

the remaining study, computer enrichment had a small but statistically significant negative effect

on student writing.

Gardner, Morrison, and Jarman’s study (1993) reported the clearest positive effects of

computer enrichment on student writing. Their study assessed the effects of laptop use on student

writing, as well as on mathematics and science, in elementary and secondary schools in Northern

Ireland. Experimental subjects were 145 students from five classes in five schools, four

secondary-level schools and one primary school. Each of the students in these classes received a

personal portable computer for a whole school year. These five classes were matched to five

similar classes in which pupils did not have laptop access. The 130 students in these classes

served as the control subjects. The investigators measured the writing performance of the

experimental and control groups both before and after the treatment period by providing students

with the opening sentences of a story and asking them to complete the story in up to 50 minutes.

The investigators used both atomistic and holistic scales to rate writing quality. The experimental

group received the higher ratings. On the average comparison, the effect size was 0.66 for the

secondary-level students and 0.27 for the primary students.

Another study with clear positive results is Follansbee et al’s (1997) investigation of

effects of Internet assignments on student learning. The experimental and control populations

were fourth and sixth grade classes in seven urban school districts across the United States.

Students in the 14 experimental classes had on-line access to the Internet. Students in the 14

control classes used traditional methods including computers but had no access to on-line

resources. All students worked for 6 to 8 weeks on a project-based unit on civil rights. When the

student projects were complete, the investigators asked an independent evaluator to rate a sample

of the projects completed by the students receiving the experiment and control treatments. The

evaluator rated 66 experimental and 38 control projects on nine factors (e.g., effectiveness of the

presentation, completeness, organization). Experimental projects received the better ratings.

Median effect size was 0.36.

Nix’s study (1998) also reported clear positive results. Nix investigated effects of regular

use of an e-mail system on the writing skills of fourth graders. Subjects for the study came from

two Texas schools that were similar in demographic and academic characteristics. Students in the

experimental school exchanged e-mail with students at another school for the last three months of

the school year. Students in the comparison school did not engage in e-mail exchanges. Nix

compared improvement in handwritten essays from the two schools during the three-month

treatment period. She found greater overall improvement in writing in the experimental group.

This improvement was clear both with holistic scoring of essays (effect size = 0.40) and with

scoring of essays using prespecified rating categories (effect size = 0.30).

Owston and Wideman’s study (1997) is important because it is a long-term study.

Owston and Wideman examined student writing during a three-year period, beginning in Grade 3,

at a school where students had routine daily access to word processors. They compared writing

of the 52 third graders at this school with writing of 58 third graders at a nearby comparison

school that had only a few, infrequently used computers in its classrooms. Both schools were

located in a suburban area on the outskirts of a major Canadian city. Analyses revealed that

writing quality improved significantly more in the high-computer-access school during the three

years of the study. The improvement in writing quality was clear on holistic measures of content

and meaning (effect size = 0.33) and on measures of technical skill in communication (effect size

= 0.33).

Although positive, the results of Stone’s study (1999) are weaker than the results of other

studies with favorable findings. Stone investigated the effect of using guided Internet writing

activities upon the writing of second grade children. Fifty-six students from two elementary

schools in Massachusetts were the subjects in the study. The 28 students in the experimental

group followed a step-by-step guide with a parent at home. The guide presented Internet-based

writing activities. The students completed two activities per week for eight weeks; each activity

required 25 minutes or more for completion. The 28 students in the control group did not use the

guide. The study coordinator administered a pretest writing activity at the start of the

investigation and a postwriting activity at the conclusion of eight weeks. Although the difference

in writing improvement for experimental and control groups was not statistically significant,

gains were somewhat greater for the experimental group (effect size = 0.28).

Schieber’s study (1999) found that computer enrichment had a small negative effect on

the quality of student writing. Twenty-four classrooms in Washington State were involved in the

study. Students in nine of the classrooms (199 students) used laptop computers in instruction and

homework for the school year. Students in the other 15 classrooms (278 students) were taught

the same curriculum, but the students did not own laptops or use them regularly for their

schoolwork. Scheiber compared writing samples from laptop and nonlaptop classrooms after two

years of laptop instruction. The writing scores were similar in the two groups (effect size = -0.10).

Overall, these six studies represent a variety of approaches to computer enrichment. The

six studies include investigations of both anytime-anywhere laptop programs and programs of

extended Internet access. The common denominator of the six studies was their shared goal of

improving writing skills by increasing student access to computer resources. The results of the

six studies suggest that computer enrichment programs have the desired effect. In five of the six

studies, computer enrichment had small positive effects on student writing. Effect sizes in the

five studies were between 0.28 and 0.46. In the remaining study, computer enrichment had a

small and statistically significant negative effect on student writing. Effect size in this study was

–0.10. The median effect size of computer enrichment programs in the six studies was 0.34.

Read More

Student Use of Technology

The growth in school computing since the 1980s is not just a matter of an increase in

number of machines. How computers are used in schools has also been changing. At the end of

the 1980s, schools were using computers as tutorial devices for basic skills instruction and as

objects for study in computer literacy courses. At the end of the 1990s, students were most often

using computers as tools for word processing and reference. The shift from computer-as-tutor

and computer-as-topic toward computer-as-tool is one of the important developments in the

recent story of instructional technology in schools. No single study provides a definitive account

of how students have been using computers in schools over time, but a number of surveys provide

relevant data. Becker, Ravitz, and Wong’s report (1999) on their recent national survey is one of

the key documents. In response to one question in the survey, teachers listed their main

objectives for student use of computers. The objective chosen by most teachers (51%) was to

have students find out about ideas and information. The next most popular objectives were to

help students express themselves in writing (44%), to help students master skills (37%), and to

improve students’ computer skills (32%). Thus teacher objectives emphasized, in order of

importance, reference work, word processing, basic skills tutorials, and development of computer

literacy. In Becker’s surveys of a decade ago (e.g., Becker, 1991), teachers said that they most

often used computers for basic skills training and computer literacy.

In their 1999 survey, Becker and his associates also asked teachers to identify the

categories of software that their students were using in school. Word processing and reference

software were the most popular categories. About 50% of all teachers reported that their students

were using word processing software. Other popular types of software used in schools were CDROM

(36% of teachers reported student use), World Wide Web (29%), skill practice games

(28%), and simulations (23%). Teacher reports on the specific software that they considered

most valuable gave a similar picture of student use of computers. Becker and his colleagues

found in 1999 that ClarisWorks (now AppleWorks), an integrated office application, is the

program most widely viewed by teachers as valuable for students. Other programs singled out by

teachers as especially valuable included another integrated office application (Microsoft Works),

a word processing program (Microsoft Word), and a Web browser (Netscape). Other programs

that found adherents among a substantial percentage of elementary teachers were the multimedia

authoring program Hyperstudio and the reading management program Accelerated Reader.

Another survey asked college-bound seniors about their computer-related experiences

(Coley, Cradler, & Engel, 1997). Most students (72%) reported using computers for word

processing in schools. About half of the students (51%) reported coursework or experience in

computer literacy. Nearly half (44%) had used a computer in an English course. A smaller

percentage (27%) used computers to solve math problems. Like Becker’s data, the data of Coley

and his associates suggest that computers are today used more often as tools than as tutors.

These data on computer use remind us again of the importance of knowing about the

effectiveness of various technological applications. If computers are to be used in schools, they

should be used in ways that are helpful to students. But what are the best ways to use computers

in teaching? Should students use computers as tutors or as tools? What are the best ways to use

computers in tutorial instruction? Which computer tools are most useful? It is difficult to answer

such questions without knowing what the evaluation literature says about computer effectiveness.

Read More

Technology Changing World

Major changes have occurred within the computer revolution; changes which encompass all aspects of its role. These are not just quantitative in nature, such as exponential increases in processing power and storage capacity, but are more fundamental, pointing not only to the function of computer technology, but its emerging diversity both in terms of its form and place in the world. Computers are now embedded within a huge range of materials and artefacts, and take on roles in almost all aspects of life. People and lifestyles are altering. These changes are sometimes spurred on by technology, but other times work in parallel or provoke technological innovation. There is a global scale of change which is taking place hand in hand with new technologies. This gives rise to tensions between individuals and governments, and between globalisation and cultural diversity. In this Part, we comment on change at all levels, and provide pointers to where we are going in future.

Changing Computers

There have been various computer-driven revolutions in the

past: the widespread introduction of the personal computer

(PC) was one, the invention of the graphical browser was

another, and the Internet yet another. There have also been

computer eras where one type of computer has dominated,

having straightforward implications for whether the

computers were shared or personal, and for whether they

were specialised commodities or not (see diagram below). But

the ways computers have altered our lives, all aspects of our

lives, is more comprehensive than, at first blush, recollections

of these technological revolutions or eras might suggest.

Computers affect how we undertake the most prosaic of

activities – from buying food to paying our bills – and they

do so in ways we might not have imagined when the first

personal computers arrived on our desks. They have also

created wholly new experiences, for example, allowing us

to inhabit virtual worlds with people from many different

parts of the globe. In between these extremes, from the

prosaic to the wholly new, computers have taken over

from older technologies in ways that looked merely like

substitution at first but which have ended up creating

radical change.

Photography, for example, has retained its familiarity despite

moving from being chemically-based to being digital. At the

point of creation, people still ‘point and shoot’ in much the

same way as they used to.

However, what one can do with images when they are digital is

quite different. Whereas, before, we may have only printed one

or two rolls of film, displaying the photos on the mantelpiece

or in an album, digital images are now reproduced many times

over, and are often broadcast around the world on websites.

The activities we undertake and the goals we have in mind

when we take photos and share them, then, are not at all the

same now as they were even five years ago.

It is not just in terms of user experiences, such as shopping,

games, and picture-taking that the world has changed.

Computers have altered our sense of the world at large,

letting us see images of far-away places, instantaneously and

ubiquitously. The world, now, seems so much smaller than it

was even a decade ago. In this section we begin to look at

many different aspects of how computing technologies have

changed and their impact on our lives.

Read More

Computer Interaction in the year 2020

In March 2007, Microsoft Research organised the ‘HCI 2020’

meeting at the El Bulli Hacienda Hotel near Seville, Spain. The

event’s title expressed its key question: what will Human-

Computer Interaction (HCI) be like in the year 2020? That

question is important because HCI, significant as it was in

the late 20th century, has a pivotal part to play in the 21st,

when computers will become so pervasive that how humans

interact with them will be a crucial issue for society.

HCI 2020 produced many ideas, both thrilling and troubling.

This report is not a conventional publication of an academic

conference but seeks to convey the passion of those ideas,

both for the general reader and the HCI practitioner. For

the general reader, this is important because knowledge of

what the future might be may empower, while ignorance

harm. For the HCI practitioner, its purpose is to map out the

terrain and suggest new approaches while keeping an eye

on the main prize: the embodiment of human values at the

heart of computing.

This two-day forum brought together academics from

the fields of computing, design, management science,

sociology and psychology to debate, contribute to,

and help formulate the agenda for Human-Computer

Interaction in the next decade and beyond. Participants

also came from the commercial world, including

representatives from software companies, hardware

manufacturers, and content providers.

The forum was convened because the field of HCI has

moved on and matured in many significant ways since its

emergence in the early 1980s. Over the years, a number

of influential books and articles have helped to shape its

goals and perspectives. As HCI has developed, many of the

questions posed by its past research agendas have been

answered, while others have become less important with

the passing of time. Computing itself has moved on from

what was possible when HCI first developed. As a result,

many members of the HCI community have begun to voice

concerns that HCI needs a new agenda if it is to continue to

be relevant for the 21st century.

If there was one thing that the participants in this forum

had in common, it was a recognition that any new direction

for HCI would need to place human values at its core. The

great accomplishment of HCI has been, to date, that it allows

investigations of matters beyond what one might call the

mechanics of the interface, such things as the design of the

graphical user interface, and of keyboards and of mice. Its

success now allows researchers to focus on how computers

can support human-to-human concerns, rather than simply

human-machine interaction. HCI has helped to produce a

world in which interacting with computers is easier and richer.

The real HCI issues now include what might be our aspirations,

our desires for self-understanding and expression, and our

willingness to use imagination to create a different future.

The questions that result are far-reaching and profound.

HCI can no longer be solely the scientific investigation of

what role technology might have – it will need to be part of

the empirical, philosophical and moral investigation of why

technology has a role. It will entail asking new questions

about how we ought to interact with technology in this

new world and it will even entail asking what the use of

computing implies about our conceptions of society. Even

philosophical questions will be important. For example,

our concepts of how the mind works will affect the way we

design technologies to support memory, intelligence and

much more besides. All of this implies that other disciplines

from the Arts and Humanities will become more relevant as

the remit of HCI becomes broader.

The goal of the forum was therefore to uncover and

articulate new paradigms, goals and perspectives for HCI.

By bringing together some of the world’s leading thinkers

on this topic, the hope was that their discussions, debates

and scholarly commentaries would help define how HCI can

deliver this ‘human face’ of computing.

This report is the result of that forum. It is not a record of

the papers presented or discussions held, but a distillation,

an attempt to capture the spirit of what concerned and

excited the participants, looking ahead to 2020. It describes

how the world around us has changed and continues

to change, and how the design of computers is helping

to create a new socio-digital landscape. It explains how

the field of HCI can contribute to making this landscape

one that reflects the values we hold as well as provide

opportunities for the expression of diversity in those values.

Being human is not simply a label; it is about a set of

aspirations. Recognising those aspirations and striving to

realise them can make the world we live in one to celebrate

rather than fear.

Needless to say, this report cannot encompass all the

issues that this ambition implies, just as it cannot relay all

the topics raised by the participants at the forum. While

we have endeavoured to represent, as much as possible,

the views of the contributors, its main purpose is to entice

the reader, whoever that might be, to think more seriously

about the role of computing in our everyday lives. If it can

further highlight the importance of a new kind of HCI in

making 2020 the kind of future we want it to be, so much

the better.

Last but not least, we would like to thank: all the

participants in HCI 2020, and the organisations and

institutions that supported them; Sarah Cater who

organised the event; Vicki Ward and Rachel Howard

for public relations and marketing; Angela Still for

local support; Denise Stanley who facilitated the event;

Stephen Emmott for advice and guidance; Bill Buxton

who inspired the title of this report; book designer Nick

Duffield; designer Richard Banks for helping with images;

editor Peter Bradley; and our careful printer, Piggott Black

Bear. Finally, a special thanks to the director of Microsoft

Research Cambridge, Andrew Herbert, who gave the green

light for this event and made it possible.

Read More