During the first two years of CK:P two sets of educators were trained on Internet navigation. 31 educators representing two elementary and two high schools were involved during the 1993-1994 school year, receiving initial Internet training during the summer, 1993. 98 educators representing four elementary, one middle, and two high schools were involved during the 1994-1995 school year, receiving their training during the spring, 1994. (CK:P educational and technical support of all 11 sites continued throughout the 1994-1995 school year.) In terms of Hiltz and Turoff's (1993) "phases of user development", most of the educators involved in the first two years of CK:P were in the initial "uncertainty" phase, characterized by hesitancy and anxiety toward the technology. A few participants were in the "insight" phase, characterized by a basic understanding of the technology and a willingness to explore. (These tended to be the team leaders and the librarians.) To better understand who these educators were, Table 1 describes the sample based on surveys conducted during the initial training workshops.
Table 1. Educators and Others Involved in CK:P, Jan. 1993-Dec. 1994
---------------------------------------------------------------------
First Year Sites Second Year Sites
---------------------------------------------------------------------
N 31 98
Female participants 58% 86%
Elementary 55% 74%
Middle 0 15%
High 45% 11%
No previous WAN experience 9% 52%
Some WAN experience 36% 42%
Extensive WAN experience 55% 5%
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Note. Educators included teachers, librarians, other PPS professional staff (e.g., community liaison), aides and principals (5/7 principals attended some or all of the second year workshops). Head librarians were members of each school's network team. The category Others included community people and parents who were involved in CK:P as resource people. The overwhelming majority of participants were teachers. For first year participants the question tapping previous WAN experience was: "How often have you used email?" For second year participants the question was: "About how often do you log into your account in a typical week?"
Training activites over this two year period, although varied, reflected a core "empowerment" model. That model is consistent with a grassroots project which CK:P is, in large part, and is also consistent with site-based management, a recent movement in the Pittsburgh Public Schools. In essence, this is a constructivist approach which asserts that students and teachers learn best through hands-on activities that provide opportunities to construct one's own knowledge base. To illustrate this approach we will describe the training program developed by CK:P education project staff.
Two education project staff members were hired prior to the summer of 1993; a third professional and a full-time secretary were added by the end of the summer. Most training activities took place at a PPS elementary school, where an area had been designated as the "beta site" for staff development, resource exploration, outreach and the like. In addition to computers for the four staff members, the site eventually offered six PCs and four MACs for training and resource exploration. For the summer 1993 workshop, equipment had not yet been purchased and computers had to be borrowed from one of the participating schools.
First year teams attended a basic skills workshop June 30-July 2, 1993 (Workshop 1; 13 hours of instruction), and an advanced skills workshop August 26-27, 1993 (Workshop 2; 10 hours of instruction). They were paid for these workshop days. The instructional method combined lectures, demonstrations, and hands-on skill building. The instructors would present a topic using an overhead projector and then participants would practice the skill. Pair learning was used for two reasons. First, the limited number of computers made it impractical for individuals to work on their own. Second, the instructors felt that the experience would be less daunting for new users if they were able to work with an experienced partner. The instructors also prepared a packet of information sheets, mostly screen dumps of directories and help screens. In addition, participants interfaced with the Internet via easy-to-use menus.
Workshop participants were taught basic email and how to subscribe to mailing lists and accessing newsgroups; they were shown educationally-relevant databases (e.g., PENpages, NASA Spacelink) and how to do online searches. To aid their skills development and exploration, participants were encouraged to think in terms of curriculum projects. Over the summer, participants (who were able to borrow school computers to use at home) were expected to continue their exploration of the Internet. Education project staff, although not paid over the summer (nor were the participants), continued to correspond via email and when needed visited participants' homes to help with software or hardware problems.
Participants completed pre- and post-surveys developed by the CK:P assessment staff. (Survey return rates were on the order of 90%.) One question at the end of Workshop 1 designed to assess participants' perceptions of their own skills development asked: "How long will it take you to become comfortable with the Internet?" Combining several response categories, 39% indicated that they expected to become comfortable with the Internet fairly quickly (e.g., a couple of days); 56% expected to take longer (e.g., a number of weeks); and one person responded "I don't think I will ever be really comfortable." Regarding the extent of summer usage, two sources of information were used. One was a survey that was handed out just prior to Workshop 2. Another source was login data that was collected automatically. Both sources of information agreed that summer at-home Internet exploration varied a great deal across participants. In the survey we asked how often participants had used email over the summer. 36% responded "daily"; 36% "about once a week"; 12% "every couple of weeks"; and 16% "once a month or less". Login data showed that two teachers who had extensive previous WAN experience logged in over 100 times during July and August; four logged in about once per day or somewhat more frequently (45-75 logins); 15 logged in about once per week or somewhat more frequently (8-39 logins); 5 logged in less than once per week; and two people did not log in at all.
For Workshop 2, participants were introduced to client/server interfaces (e.g., H-gopher), which is what was expected to be available in the schools once networks were installed. The exploration during this workshop emphasized finding curriculum materials and developing site-based implementation plans ("action plan"). The reason for having the teams develop action plans was twofold. First, it forced the educators to think through a plan for the school year, and to get feedback from colleagues. Second, it enabled the education project staff to plan their support activities. We asked the "comfort" question again at the end of Workshop 2. 43% indicated that they were already comfortable with the Internet; 11% expected to become comfortable with the Internet fairly quickly; and 42% expected to take longer.
The training for the second year was similar in philosophy, but varied in several important details. There were insufficient funds to pay the 98 participants. Instead, the education project staff negotiated an "increment credit course". In the PPS one 15 hour course is worth one graduate credit. Upon earning ten graduate credits the educator's pay will increase by $200 per annum. It should be obvious that such a course represents significant "in-kind" contribution on the part of the participants. The CK:P staff attributed the large turnout and enthusiastic participation to the interest generated by the competitive process. Course scheduling also had to change to manage 98 participants with only three instructors and 16 machines. Participants could choose either six Monday evenings or three Saturdays, starting in April, 1994. For each session, participants were divided into three groups. One instructor provided background on the Internet and on CK:P using handouts, overheads and chalkboard, in a lecture format. Another instructor used an LCD display device to give practical demonstrations of navigational tools, databases, and so on. The third instructor was in charge of the lab where participants worked in pairs or small groups to gain hands-on experience with the Internet.
A similar progression of topics was used as for the 1993 summer workshop. This group was given more handouts than the 1993 group, partly due to what the instructors saw as gaps in the 1993 training materials, and partly due to the instructors' own increasing Internet experience. Eventually the participants were exposed to the World Wide Web via Mosaic. They were given time to explore, to find information useful for their subjects or for professional interest. Participants completed pre- and post-surveys (pre-survey return rate was 78%; post-survey return rate was 54%). Prior to the course, 32% expected to take until fall 1994 to be comfortable with the Internet; 59% expected to take from a few hours to a month; and 9% reported that they were already comfortable. After the course the percentages were: until fall, 25%; a few hours/a month, 45%; already comfortable, 30%.
The increment credit course was followed by a workshop for the second year network teams. This was a paid workshop like the one for the first year teams. It took place during three days: the first two days after school was finished for the year and the third day during the first semester, 1994. Participants were divided into two groups, one group attending the inservice June 28-29, 9am - 3 pm, the other group attending June 30-July 1, for the same time. Because these participants had had recent training on the Internet, little additional instruction was given. Instead, team members were given time to explore and develop their curriculum projects and action plans. The third workshop day often (but not always) took place once the school had at least some of its network equipment installed. In most cases these workshops were a time to refine the action plan, taking into account staff changes since the action plans were originally written, and also taking into account changes in curriculum plans due to a variety of factors, including new resources found by teachers since the earlier workshops.
Return to Section I
Return to Title Page