Notes by Helen N. Boyle
Presented by Stevan Kalmon

Outline of Main Topics discussed at this meeting.

Present: Roy Gould, Rashidah Hakeem, Stevan Kalmon, Cecilia Lenk, John Musser, Gwen Solomon

Presenters: Ellie Dubus, Kathy Olesak, Mary Lou Ruttle, and Linda Savido

1. Quality of Information found While Researching on the Internet

• how to teach critical assessment of materials found (examining authorship, weeding out advertisements)
• need to train kids to be discerning, to navigate and to narrow searches

2. Ethics/Control/Monitoring during Research Activities

• maintaining curricular focus as opposed to "fun" focus
• training kids not to give out personal information on-line
• plagiarism-cutting and pasting directly from 'net into student work
• resource conservation--thoughtless printing, printing inappropriate materials.
• punishment for ethics violations

3. Training Teachers and Students to Do Research

• coaching teachers, bookmarking, helping them find information
• offering training sessions to teachers
• using TV hook up for big audiences (lack of equipment problem)
• encourage kids to do book research as well in order to search with more knowledge of what they are looking for
• encourage them to use different search engines

4. Access Issues as Related to Research

• limitation on available equipment hinders research
• research a time consuming activity--institutional factors like length of class periods (too short) can impede research activities
• access for students must depend on a curriculum base or link--kids whose teachers do not use internet for class or school related activities might not get accounts
• for some research (like telescope project), students need personal account
• Hot mail and Juno accounts--unlimited access

5. Nature of Assignments and Products from Internet Research

• traditional reports might be out of sync with best use of 'net
• multimedia reports, posters, webpages etc. are newer types of products
• what makes web research different--how does it offer something unavailable previously? If you can find it in a book do you need web? Web offers some things that are unavailable elsewhere and offers extremely current information.
• email and meeting people, exchanging information
• changes in how we treat information sources

6. Research and the Nature of the 'Net

• no sense of history--bulletin board idea vs. real library
• no context for information--books have "gloss" to tell you what you are looking at; often original sources are on-line with no background or context

7. Promoting Essential Change

• teachers need to be trained and need to change classroom practices to use internet well (along idea of asking for new products)
• presentation style of teaching not as suitable
• kids who start young on 'net will have new ideas about research because that is what they will be used to
• more use of novel things (like telescope)
• involve administrators
• how to grade
• lessons more long term--internet is not presented in "units" but is continuous and changing

Notes by Ed Henke and Mark L. Harrison
Presented by Perry Sampson

Notes by Ed Henke

• Helen Wintgerzahn, Westinghouse Corp.
• Tom Valco, Westinghouse High School
• Ed Henke, Westinghouse High School
• Oscar Huber and Al Puskaric, Schenley High School
• Bill Hadley and Jackie Snyder, Langley High School

Westinghouse High School:

• Ed and Tom Demo School Web Site
• WEB site is student developed Http://george.gw.pps.pgh.pa.us/gwhs
• Tom discussed role of teacher in Web page development
• Part of NSF projects below:
  • Common Knowledge
  • Ties to CoVis
  • Project Belvedere
  • Pgh Supercomputing Center - computational outreach program
• Site coordinators work Gratis
• Average age of teachers at school is 28 years of teaching experience
• Westinghouse Corp. provided 45 computers

Schenley High School:

• 35-40 students initially on line
• foreign language teachers took the lead
• Initially worked on Tandy 1000's
• Now use 386 & 486 computers
• Much difficulty in adding to the network
• Language teachers use internet to give students access to native born speakers of German, French and Spanish.
• Technology program uses internet for experience in fixing networks.

Langley High School:

Bill Hadley and Jackie Snyder developed math courses and then work with Carnegie Mellon University to develop intelligent tutoring systems.

Intelligent tutor is called "PUMP Algebra" search for this string on the net- only Mac version now in use.

Common Knowledge: Pittsburgh CK:P provided access to Pump Algebra sites in Germany, Italy, Wisconsin, Florida and Pittsburgh.. This gave students ability to solve problems in a group between Pump algebra sites.

CK:P also required students to write email this resulted in joint math and English classes.

In Pgh, Pump Algebra operates at Langley HS, Carrick HS, Brashear HS and Allderdice HS.

PUMP algebra tutors students at their won rate in the needed areas.

Teachers slower to adopt computer usage than students.

Pump has taken 10 years to develop. Pump sets higher standards for mainstream math students and then helps them meet those standards.

CMU has started a project to develop intelligent tutors in a number of subject areas.

Notes by Mark L. Harrison

The primary presenters were from four sites/organizations. Representing Westinghouse High School were Ed Henke and Tom Valco. Both are teachers at Westinghouse, and together with the school librarian, they are system co-administrators. The principal uses of internet technology on site have been web page design (taught to students in a course developed by Henke and Valco), the use of web pages to publish students' research, and the use of the internet as a general research tool. Westinghouse is a Common Knowledge site.

Helen Wintgerzahn was present as a representative of Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Westinghouse Electric and Westinghouse High School have been involved in a partnership since 1993. Among the services provided by Westinghouse electric was an initial gift of 38 computers.

Schenley High School was represented by Al Puskaric and Oscar Huber. Both are teachers at Schenley, which is a International Studies and Engineering magnet school. Puskaric teaches electrical engineering and Huber teaches Spanish. Primary uses of internet technology at Schenley include its use as a research tool, and the use of Covis (collaborative visualization; see attached document) to develop collaborative problem solving skills. Schenley is a Common Knowledge site.

Langley High School was represented by Bill Hadley and Jackie Snyder, both math teachers. Both Hadley and Snyder are involved in a long-term relationship with Carnegie Mellon University. In a collaborative effort, they have been developing intelligent computer tutoring systems for mathematics (and there are humanities based tutors in the works). They are part of the larger PUMP Algebra program.

In the interest of economy and ease of presentation, I have chosen to produce a summary which is organized thematically rather than chronologically. The main themes discussed during the visit were: 1) problems with installation; 2) problems with getting equipment; 3) external collaborations; 4) internal collaborations; and 5) creating self-sufficiency/institutionalization.

1) PROBLEMS WITH INSTALLATION

A complaint common of the presenters from Westinghouse and Schenley was the difficulties they have had and continue to have in getting their schools wired. At Westinghouse, the difficulty stems from the fact that the school is, in Henke's words, "built like a fortress." As a result, in order to run wire they have to drill through multiple layers of brick and mortar. At Schenley, the problem springs from the fact that their school is insulated with asbestos, and the plaster on their walls has a 1% asbestos content. Because of this, teachers at Schenley are not allowed to drive nails (or use tape on the walls for that matter). As you can imagine, this makes drilling a complicated and expensive proposition. In the words of Puskaric, "It costs $600 to drill a hole." These infrastructural problems will beleaguer many more sites as schools housed in older buildings struggle to get on line.

2) PROBLEMS WITH GETTING EQUIPMENT

A problem common to all three schools is that they don't have enough machines. The reasons for this are several, primarily a) bureaucracy and b) lack of funds. Huber spoke of the first computers that they obtained at Schenley. By the time they got the Tandy 1000's, four years after they had been ordered, they were antiquated. In an example of how schools adapt whatever hardware they can get hold of, Henke spoke about the amount of unpaid time put in by teachers to reconfigure the IBM's donated by Westinghouse Electric. Puskaric spoke of a whole series of bureaucratic snafus. A promised corporate partnership, with the free provision of hardware, installation and training, collapsed because by the time that Puskaric could obtain the necessary permissions, the corporate executive who had made the promises had left the corporation.

District funding continues to be a problem as well. Puskaric spoke of having equipment orders returned "insufficient funds," or having nothing arrive but wire in a year during which the district froze computer equipment purchases. Valco spoke of a recent budget cut in which Westinghouse was asked to trim $400,000 in two weeks.

3) EXTERNAL COLLABORATIONS

Some of the collaborative highlights include:

• Stanford agrees to allow Westinghouse to download the former's entire graphics library
• COVIS supports on-line collaborative problem solving, creating "an electronic community of high school students and their teachers, scientists and educational researchers"
• CK:P provides hardware, server maintenance and other technical support, training, and assessment of educational impact
• PUMP algebra combines the skills of teachers (what do I want to teach?), cognitive psychologists (task analysis) and computer programmers (how can I make the computer do this?) to create intelligent computer tutoring systems

4) INTERNAL COLLABORATION

One of the challenges and dividends of working with internet technologies in the classroom is the resultant shift in the traditional relationship between teacher and student. Hadley and Snyder both spoke of the difficulty presented by their students' uneven skills. While the students' mathematical skills might be rapidly improving, their ability to write about the process of problem solving was hampered by their lagging compositional skills. The two Math teachers quickly realized that in order for them help their students achieve their full potential, they would have to enlist the aid of the other teachers in the school. As a result, they are involved in an ongoing interdisciplinary collaboration in which English and Math teachers are team teaching both subjects.

One problem with collaboration that came up consistently was that many teachers have been very reluctant to learn about and implement these new technologies. One suggested reason for this is that many teachers are nearing retirement age and don't feel that the large investment of time required to train would be worth it. Snyder said that this reluctance seems to slowly dissipate as teachers come to realize how motivated students are to learn when they are using computers. It became clear over the course of the visit that the question of how to motivate teachers is of primary importance.

5) CREATING SELF-SUFFICIENCY/INSTITUTIONALIZATION

Another problem confronting the three sites is how to ensure the continuity of the work they have begun. There are (at least) two components to this issue. The first centers on the question: what happens when CK:P's grant runs out at the end of this year? In order for their efforts to survive without CK:P support, Schenley and Westinghouse must be able to perform the maintenance and technical support functions that CK:P has hitherto provided. The question of whether or not the schools' adaptation of internet technologies has reached the critical mass necessary to maintain momentum was raised repeatedly. One strategy being pursued to this end is the training of students at Schenley to provide the necessary technical support and maintenance. Unfortunately, Puskaric's efforts to this end have apparently been severely hampered by the aforementioned problems of bureaucratic red tape and funding problems.

The second involves the fact that thus far these projects have been run by a small group of very committed teachers. (Henke says "We do it because we're crazy.") What happens when these teachers aren't around anymore? One response to this is the proposed district technology plan, which has thus far been refused by the district. In order for the innovations that have been implemented thus far in these schools to continue, the schools need: Funding and hardware; district-wide, mandatory, computer-based professional development; and better support from on-site administrators.

Notes by Larisa M. Naples
Presented by Jillaine Smith

The presenters, in order of introduction, were:

• James Wright, principal of Knoxville MS
• Jackie Lewis, the CK:P site coordinator for Knoxville MS
• Bobby Womeldorf, a reading teacher at Knoxville MS
• Mary Ann Hobson, half-time teacher, half-time principal at feeder school, Bon Air Elementary
• Margie Doerchner, who is a parent at both Knoxville MS and at Bon Air Elementary
• Terry Russell, who is a title 1 specialist at feeder school, Beltzhoover Elementary
• Larry Mertz, from Knoxville MS.

Two students from Knoxville also participated in the session, to demonstrate some of the work the students there had completed. They were Elizabeth Martina, and Nick Bembic.

Main Topics of Discussion were:

1. How Knoxville got its Internet-linked computer lab through CK:P
   • the proposal review process
   • their concept of using the lab to link the kids with the broader community (specifically feeder elementary schools and the area high school)
2. The use of community parents as computer-lab aids
   • Parent training on the computers
   • The idea of setting up a GED program with a local college for the benefit of the parents who are computer-volunteers
3. Big brother/sister email-pal projects between Knoxville MS and the feeder elementary schools, so that the younger students "know someone" when they start attending the MS
4. How the feeder elementary schools self-funded their computerization as they do not (yet) have funding through CK:P, and only one of them had Title 1 funds to apply. They did it one computer at a time.
5. Teacher testimonials regarding the successes of their students which they attribute to the Internet - "bad" kids actually working - reading skills improved - kids reading and following instructions - more completed HW assignments turned in
6. How to handle large class sizes in a computer lab with a limited number of computers -- specifically, Knoxville's "shoulder partners" program.
7. Student personal web sites. This began as a discussion, and then broke into two small cluster-discussions around two computers where the two student participants gave tours of the Knoxville web site, including their personal home pages.

Notes by Kelly A. Murphy
Presented by Alan Feldman

• "Getting the Grant is the Easy Part: What Comes After is More Difficult"
• Outcomes/Impact of Internet Use on Students: curriculum is more interesting, students are more enthused and motivated: it "grabs" their interest.
• Image of success: teachers drilling holes through walls to hook up more classrooms
• Factors inhibiting successful Internet implementation at the school level:
  • lack of cohesion among school staff
  • lack of collaborative activity among school staff
  • no local experts or enthusiasts to get the ball rolling
• Factors promoting successful Internet implementation at the school level:
  • Local enthusiasts; prime movers'
  • Previous history of change projects and collaborative work at the school
  • Teachers' and Principals' enthusiasm and willingness to invest private time - Flexible scheduling
  • Staff knows the principal supports them and has a personal interest in the project: "I don't really have the time to do this, but the staff looks at it differently because I'm involved".
  • Staff meets regularly, as a team to plan activities
• Time constraints: when to plan/train
  • Successful experiences: after school services; P.D. days; at home
  • Less successful: during already overcommitted teaching/planning periods
• Importance of the CK:P Ed Staff
  • always available; always respectful; provide a district focus
  • "consummate educators, not just technicians"
  • outside/inside relationship with schools means more freedom to do support work well
• Schools on-line do not outgrow the need for Internet support specialists
• Success/Failure: the scale of the CK:P intervention is small; and prospects for institutionalization are weak. Why? Internet projects compete with other demands on the district's limited resources;
  • If the project fails to be institutionalized, who's to blame?
    - The School District, for lack of commitment; CK:P, for not lobbying hard enough
  • If the project fails to be institutionalized, has it failed?
    - Not necessarily: five years ago, no one knew how much WAN would cost: the purpose of CK:P was to learn the costs, the benefits, and how to balance these.
• The role of the funding agency: NSF can catalyze excitement, but building support for a sustained project is a political issue, not a funding issue.
  • Is the "No Buy-In; No Cash" stance appropriate policy for NSF?
  • Will change efforts grind to a halt this way, with educators "eaten alive by edicts from NSF?"

Presented by Gaye Wunsch

We did not visit any classrooms or teachers-- we only observed the activities of a working campus around us as we met in the Common Knowledge office for our discussion. Details of Pittsburgh’s school system were previously described to you, especially in last evening’s dinner remarks. Our visit focused on the process by which Common Knowledge has supported professional development for technology, totally within Pittsburgh’s public school system. You should ask Bob Carlitz and Mario Zinga how CK:P was conceived - an interesting story.

Rick Wertheimer described the development of Common Knowledge which began at a time of change in the Pittsburgh system. A changing of superintendents provided sufficient cracks in the infrastructure and political arena to begin such a program without crippling resistance. CK is a collaboration of university, public schools, evaluator, corporations (Westinghouse), and the Supercomputing Center. Their guiding "essential research questions" were:

Is the Internet a viable tool in the urban setting? (1st two years - yes) Can you institutionalize it? (last 3 years - we think so)

CK:P created an infrastructure based on dial-up modem access, through the collaboration with U of Pitt and the Supercomputing Center.

Rick commented about the bi-directional movement in this research. He found that, from the grass roots direction, you encounter the establishment which doesn't understand. From the administrative direction, you find that teachers don't want to be told what to do.

Common Knowledge provides a strong, ongoing training and support system, although no teachers have ever been paid for receiving training. Training began as support for teachers in the use of their technology applications. The method was based on access to answers for their problems via telephone hot line, e-mail help desk, and even "house calls" by the CK:P staff. Phone and e-mail responses are quick - 1hr or less.

The move to answer the institutionalization question seemed to be influenced by the RFP process. The competitive structure of their rigorous application system has served to drive the infrastructure and formulate campus commitment to technology uses. The maturing application process is all available online for us to review. The URLs are:

• http://info.pps.pgh.pa.us/publications/publications.html
• http://info.pps.pgh.pa.us/publications/articles/rfp/cover.html
• http://info.pps.pgh.pa.us/publications/articles/chaos/chaosfin.htm
• http://info.pps.pgh.pa.us/publications/curriculum#action

Some interesting aspects of the RFP process are:

• Some schools that do not apply have used CK:P as the model to do the work, without applying for CK:P grants.
• Schools are planning how to build capacity through the RFP process.
• There is a change in the culture related to schools’ attitudes about wanting to be a part of the process. (Praise, Power, Accountability = Cultural Change over Time)
• CK:P invites their enemies to the RFP process to build acceptance within the community.
• Rejected applications lead to implementation in other ways, and sometimes receive funding through other means.
• Schools with sufficient money are interested, in order to be a part of the "culture" and CK:P training support system.
• RFP’s = $75,000 per school. Only $12,500 comes from NSF. Additional money has come from foundations more easily than corporations.
• Successful models described in RFP's don't usually "play out" in the manner they were planned. However, the adaptations that substitute, are OK.

1. Focus on one energetic individual
2. Focus on a few leaders, not as a collaborative
3. Small group collaboration
4. Groups of individuals

CK:P considers that they have 1/3 of their 90 schools in their network. However, they have arranged connectivity access for all campuses. The RFP process is only for campus professional development and further implementation through purchases of equipment, inside wiring, etc. CK:P doesn’t consider that schools are excluded from participation, but the successful schools are rewarded through the RFP system.

The current challenge is that there is still no official district technology plan, which NSF expects to see. Repeated attempts to implement a plan have failed. As visitors, our speculation is, how will the successes generated because of the competitive RFP process be sustained when a district-wide policy is adopted. CK:P has operated as a test bed, not a guarantee of global connectivity. They have had a safety of being on the outside of the system. Now the line of responsibility is slow to respond. With 6 months to go, the district is sensing a "crisis."

Side observation: To sustain the program, there needs to be a focus on the issue of commitment in the district to cultural change.

CK:P feels they don't do an adequate job of spreading the word of their work. Attempts to present to groups have not resulted in satisfactory response. Rick speculated that they may be depending too much on the technology itself to get out the word about the technology, so they are "preaching to the choir." Questions as to student involvement in promoting their program caused speculation that they may not have tapped effective use of their successful students.

Overall, the visit was extremely informative. The candid discussion was beneficial to all who were present.

Notes by Jennifer Yee
Presented by Lynn Churchill

• History of setting up a network: some educators early on got into computer networks at Universities, such as Pitt/CMU wanted to set one up in districts

• Building A System:
  • building a system is easy but building as system that can be maintained by others is hard
  • system must be run
    • need air conditioning
    • need personnel
    • need local support persons who are not overburdened with maintaining computers
  • scalability and sustainability are important
    • no one technology does it all - should be flexible enough to adapt to new technologies
    • scalability - should consider available resources and personnel
    • sustainability - try to have something that can be paid for by real (non-grant) dollars

• Problems in implementation
  • need to have a good plan for technical support and be able to anticipate day to day questions and problems - it will not be used if you don't
  • need to have a way to show teachers what is in it for them.
    • best way is to have other teachers train teachers (who know classroom applications)
    • Common Knowledge finds a tiered approach for technical support works best with technical people handling major problems and trained teachers handling local problems.
  • Need to convince policy makers of the need for technical support
    • stress that costs in networks that are not used are greater than hiring technical support
  • Need to have good administrative support from districts and MIS departments, and principals
  • Balancing costs with services/products
    • Must balance need for technical support, costs and the use of technical support
    • Should try to research different operating systems and quality of support provided
  • Need to balance quality vs. price
  • You get what you pay for - you will have more problems with cheaper modems/older computers and it will cost you more in the long run in terms of employee costs
  • You can save money by "farming" network system out

• Developing policies and Procedures
  • Must have a policy for who uses the system -- teachers? students? staff?
  • Not recommended to give wide system administration access to students
  • Need to set minimum requirement for type of computer needed (capacity) for network use.
  • Need to have policies for overutilization

• Types of technologies ([MLW] AN Technologies)
  • The type you choose depends on the phone company and cost effectiveness
  • Technologies
    • ISDN -- Effective and cost-effective problem -- vendors
    • LADS lines and xDSL -- mixed effectiveness
    • Asynchronous dial-up -- people dial in with modem
    • Traditional" Leased Line Service -- can be effective
    • Fast-packet: Frame Relay and SNPS good for rural areas.

Notes by Janet Schofield
Presented by Beverly Hunter

1. They have been able to work with neighborhood schools in a way that has supplemented and enhanced utilization that would have occurred without their involvement because a community organization is truly "local" in a way that a school district is not.

2. They have a pool of 30 volunteers who staff the lab primarily for the gratification they get from learning and being part of something they feel is worthwhile. Small incentives are given, but these do not seem crucial.

3. The large majority of users of the computer facility are adults, many of them senior citizens. Many come from outside the immediate community and most are recruited through word of mouth from friends and relatives.

4. Most users are initially complete computer novices, so training must start with very basic skills and concepts (mouse, floppy disk, etc.). Even when this is recognized in planning training many people never return after their first experience with the lab, citing confusion as one contributing reason.

5. The uses people make of their computer and Internet access are extremely varied and not always predictable at the outset.

6. Working cooperatively with other community organizations (churches, preschools, libraries, schools, etc.) will be crucial to achieve widespread convenient access in this community.

7. Financial viability is an issue. Free access is a goal, but it has become necessary to charge a modest fee recently. Thought is being given to ways of supporting this activity and making it self-sustaining (e.g., starting a training center that would receive fees, finding ways to encourage the city to cover part of the cost, etc.).

Carnegie Library: The assistant curator of the Pennsylvania room has put on-line 600 images of Pittsburgh and accompanying text.

1. Copyright laws play a large role in determining what can go on-line and inhibit putting much useful material there.

2. Digitization poses an interesting possible supplement to difficult and costly issues relating to preservation. (Reporter's Note: Digitization may also raise its own kind of "preservation" issues as technology changes so rapidly).

3. High school and college students are an invaluable resource in efforts of this sort since many of them have very good computer skills, although coordinating their work can be time-consuming and difficult.

Pittsburgh Housing Authority

1. Placing Internet access in new and rehabbed public housing is current policy. One major justification for this is the relatively low cost and its likely pay off in terms of asset management (e.g., it should facilitate information needed for repairs, record keeping, etc.).

2. Although creating the physical infrastructure for Internet access in public housing sites is relatively straightforward and feasible, figuring out how to stimulate and foster productive use is a crucial additional issue which takes collaboration with those in the community.

Presented by Brian Harris

The three (2 elementary and 1 middle) schools did not formally participate in the Common Knowledge: Pittsburgh Project. Vann applied twice but was refused both times. About 90% of the student body is at or below the poverty level. Vann is facing many of the problems that all schools are currently facing, such as budget cutbacks, staff upheaval and high student turnover. With relatively few funds ($300,000 from the Heinz Foundation and two $5,000 grants from Duquesne Power and Light) they have managed to install a robust computer lab in three school libraries. The schools relied heavily on both the CK:P model and volunteer labor. Therefore this was a project that has had a great beginning, but unlike the typical NSF project does not have a well defined middle and end.

For teachers and administrators at Vann the notion of "sustainability" is essentially the same as "doing". As we discussed in the sustainability breakout group, one of the primary issues for sustainability is figuring out what one wants to save. At Vann the question is "what shall we do with our limited resources?" The site visitors' questions focused on the details of how the labs were installed and how the students and teachers were using them. Questions dealing with issues of longer term sustainability such as drafting an acceptable use policy, professional development, curriculum integration and budget were labeled political. Many of these issues will be addressed in the technology plan. When asked about lobbying, the principal noted that she had no time for that activity. This is a shame because no one could tell their story as well as they can, and it is one that the legislature needs to hear when discussing the school budget.