Cited page

Citations are available only to our active members. Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

X X

Cited page

Display options
Reset

Technology Assessment in Education and Training

By: Eva L. Baker; Harold F. O'Neil Jr. | Book details

Contents
Look up
Saved work (0)

matching results for page

Page 153
Why can't I print more than one page at a time?
While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.

8 A New Mirror for the
Classroom: A Technology-
Based Tool for Documenting
the Impact of Technology on
Instruction

Maryl Gearhart

Joan L. Herman

Eva L. Baker

John R. Novak

Andrea K. Whittaker

University of California, Los Angeles/CRESST


PROJECT BACKGROUND

Since 1987, UCLA's Center for Technology Assessment has been conducting a set of evaluation, research, and development activities at selected Apple Classrooms of TomorrowSM (ACOT) sites, with the goal of documenting the impact of technology access on K-12 environments ( Baker, 1988; Baker, Gearhart, & Herman, 1990, 1991; Baker & Herman, 1988, 1989; Baker, Herman, & Gearhart, 1988; Baker & Niemi, 1990, 1991; Gearhart, Herman, Baker, Novak, & Whittaker, 1990; Gearhart, Herman, & Whittaker, 1991; Gearhart, Herman, Whittaker, & Novak, 1991; Herman, 1988). When Eva Baker and Joan Herman initiated the work with ACOT in 1987, the ACOTSM project had been implemented in selected classrooms at five sites that were dispersed nationally and varied considerably in student characteristics and school context factors. Students and teachers in all classrooms were provided with high access to individual computer support both at home and at school, and ACOT's goal was to document how instructional innovations emerge in high access environments.1 Since 1987,

____________________
1
ACOT initially defined "high access" as one computer for each student and teacher both at school and at home. By the completion of our studies, however, both of the sites featured in this report had reconfigured their hardware. The elementary site provided fewer computers, greater diversity of computers, and some integrated multimedia technology; not every student was provided a computer at home. The secondary site continued assured access to any student at all times, but access at school was reorganized and supported by a greater diversity of hardware and integrated media.

-153-

Select text to:

Select text to:

  • Highlight
  • Cite a passage
  • Look up a word
Learn more Close
Loading One moment ...
of 260
Highlight
Select color
Change color
Delete highlight
Cite this passage
Cite this highlight
View citation

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?