Evaluation of the Star Schools Projects
[This report has been divided into a number of separate web pages for browser-loading ease. You may view (and select) the contents by section title from the Contents, or click on the "Next" button at the bottom of each page.]
The Issue of Live, Interactive Broadcasts
Site visits and interviews with project personnel revealed that far fewer classrooms participate in live, interactive broadcasts than anticipated. Estimates of the percentage of classrooms that use Star Schools distance learning programs on tape range from 50 to 90. Even at the low end, this constitutes a major deviation from how the program was conceived. This section focuses on the reasons given for using videotape rather than live broadcasts and the issues they raise.
School personnel videotape broadcasts for a variety of reasons. Anecdotes are exchanged about using a program on videotape rather than live in order to avoid conflicting with cheerleader practice or sports. In fact, however, school personnel give educationally strong reasons for using videotaped programs. With regard to sports, for example, one receiving site sponsors two-week road trips for interscholastic competitions. the site facilitators calls the rival school and asks teachers to videotape the lessons so the students can have classes some time during the same day as the broadcasts. Other reasons for using videotape include the difficulty of synchronizing broadcasts with bell schedules, vacation, fire drill, assemblies, snow days, and other normal events in school days and year. Finally, some teachers use videotape to control the pace of the lessons. They stop the videotape and go over particular material that they believe their students have not gasped, or they repeat certain parts of a lesson
Except for teachers who use videotapes to control the pace of lessons, most of those interviewed believed that it would be better to use live broadcasts. Live broadcasts provide a sense of immediacy. Further, even though each student had little personal interaction with the studio teacher, both students and teachers reported that they learned from the answers and questions of others students. When studio teachers rotated among classrooms so that each had a turn on the air, students valued the interaction. Nonetheless, the amount of live, interactive satellite delivery was low.
At base, the issue is a combination of rigid technology and organization. That is, satellite broadcast television is controlled at the center. Efficient use of satellites requires scheduling classes and other events. The broadcasts are sent to schools, organizations that are rigid in other ways, and for reasons rooted in their mission. Scheduling classes, for example, is complex, particularly n rural settings in which each teacher has multiple preparation and may be teaching three levels of mathematics, for example, at the same time. The effort to increase students' access to courses offered within the school frequently conflicts with the distance learning schedule. Consequently the decision is made to use the broadcast on videotape. If schools use satellite broadcasts on videotape delay, but students and teachers value the interaction between the studio teacher and (other) students, how can distance learning programs accommodate the reality of schooling and preserve its assets? It might be worthwhile to design a small study to test whether other approaches to distance learning might work better. For example, a studio teacher could be taped teaching a regular class. The tape could be shown in many locations and be accompanied by support services, including an audio bridge, access to tutors, and expert grading of papers. Outcomes, including the extent to which schools use the satellite-based broadcast as compared to the taped programs, and student attitudes and achievement could be compared. Use may, in fact, be spurred by the idea that the broadcast is live even if schools actually uses a videotape. Similarly, student attitudes and learning may be affected by their sense of the immediacy of the lesson. The issues are empirical and should be systematically explored.
Implications
The Star School's distance learning program is complex and encompasses at least two goals. First, the program provides seed money to projects to develop distance learning programming and equip sites. Second, Star Schools has served as a focal point for demonstrating innovative uses of technology to advance educational opportunity and improvement. Although these two purposes are not mutually exclusive, their inclusion in the same program has led to stresses in the field. This section discusses the differences between the two goals, leading to a set of recommendations about the future of the Star Schools Program.
Star Schools as a Seed Money Program
As a seed money program, the Star Schools Program provides equipment to producers and receivers of distance learning programs. It also enables producers to develop additional programs, which, it is assumed, will only require minor modification over time. That is, the bulk of funds is provided at the front end, when development and equipment costs are high. Then , fees, subscriptions, and in-kind contributions are supposed to provide sufficient funding for bringing on new schools and modifying courses. From this perspective, the purpose of Star Schools is to provide educational opportunities for students who do not have access to high quality instruction in particular areas, and such access can be provided if the high costs at the start are supported.
The seed money perspective, however, may be inappropriate for distance learning designed to equalize educational opportunity. Students in remote rural areas gain access to courses that otherwise would not be available, and students in low-income and educationally disadvantaged schools are provided with supplemental, and frequently enriching, educational experiences through Star Schools. However, the ongoing costs of participation may be greater than the schools can support. For example, rural schools are generally pressed for funds to support required activities, and urban schools are in what seems like permanent state of fiscal crisis. There is some evidence, moreover, that schools either cannot or will not continue to pay fees for the courses offered through satellite-based technology when other options are under development.
Despite the limitations of the seed money perspective, there is value in assisting schools to gain access to high quality technology. School facilities are unequal in their ability to support educational applications of technology (Kozol, 1992). Seed money provided to schools to equalize their facilities and access technology remains important. However, it is not enough. Schools also need ongoing support to purchase programs that provide their students with access to high quality educational opportunities.
Star Schools as a Demonstration Project
Star Schools has become the focal point for the U.S. Department of Education's efforts to explore innovative educational applications of technology. Along with satellite-based distance learning, which as quite new to schools at the inception of Star Schools, funded projects have applied a variety of technologies, including videodisks, compressed data transmission, and computer networks, to reach their goals. Currently, the Star Schools Program is working with fiber-optic technology in a special statewide demonstration, and projects are using computer networks to provide teachers with a wide range of information about instruction and curriculum. In addition, funded projects are using technology and various distance-earning delivery systems to assist teachers in major educational reform. This focus comprises a set of demonstration projects.
Demonstration projects are different from seed money projects both in process and outcome. On the process side, demonstrations involve developing programs and delivery systems that can be widely used. Such development requires systematic approaches, mainly R&D. The developer field-tests both the content and delivery system and adjusts them to meet the realities of the field.
Within the Star Schools Program, at least three Cycle One and Two projects have worked to demonstrate the uses of varieties of distance learning technologies to reform education. This focus is even more evident in Cycle Three. One finding from the first year of the Star Schools study is that using technology to support educational reform requires a different approach from using technology to equalize educational opportunity. In the latter instance, personnel at the receiving school need moderate amounts of technical support, which all Star Schools projects provided with a high degree of professionalism and attention to the field. In contrast, using technology to reform education requires greater amount of support at the school site. The approach requires collaboration with teachers so they become comfortable with the technology, understand the cognitive and pedagogical demands of the reform, and are able to use the curriculum and instructional methods to advance student learning.
Projects working on reform, then, require time to develop educational applications of technology. When they bring innovative technology to teachers, it should be as "bug free" as possible, which entails fairly extensive field tests. The materials and approaches also must meet high standards, which rely on rigorous quality control that includes content experts. In addition, because educational reform rests on teachers' approaches to curriculum and instruction, they should be supported in their efforts to use technology and change educational practice. Regular and intensive staff development provide such support. Indeed, among the Star Schools-sponsored activities that aimed at educational reform, the most successful projects used well-developed technology and provided fairly intensive ongoing support at the site level.
The demonstration aspect of the Star Schools Program, then leads to different funding policies and approaches from those involved in equalizing educational opportunity. While a seed-money approach, supplemented by subsidies for low-income schools and students, will accomplish the latter objective, the demonstration efforts require fairly long-term R&D approaches to funding.
