Sign up for newsletter

May 15, 2003

Is Wireless Worth It? (cont'd)

Research Findings

Perhaps surprisingly, we found that among the sixth and seventh grade science units, there was virtually no difference between the use of wireless laptops or wired labs. The teachers were able to accomplish their defined curricular and instructional objectives regardless of which technology they used. The wireless teachers and students we observed and interviewed clearly enjoyed the novelty of the new technology, but this was balanced by the greater complexity (and thus more time consumed) of setting up and taking down the cart computers at the beginning and end of each class period. Those teachers using the wired lab for their work were able to start their classes with less technology preparation and thus were able to devote slightly more time to student learning activities.

It is essential to note, however, that the sixth and seventh grade science units were not designed to make particular use of the mobility aspects of wireless technology. The sixth grade science unit utilized computer technology primarily for student data recording and analysis. The seventh grade science unit utilized Inspiration in a sort of electronic worksheet that students completed on their wirelessly networked laptops (see "The Teacher Projects" for details). The wireless versions of these activities were essentially the same as those which would have been (and indeed were) taught in the wired labs. In the wireless examples, students were typically working one-on-one with a computer, inputting data or using productivity tools. In both of these units, the computer lab was essentially moved into the classroom via the wireless cart.

The Student-Centered Environment

The math unit was a month-long WebQuest where students were asked to assemble a variety of resources related to planning a household budget. The kids worked in small groups to discuss and make a variety of decisions related to budget planning. The teacher noted that this unit was "very typical" of the types of projects to which his class is accustomed. This became substantially clear as we observed teacher and students working smoothly and effectively in the seemingly chaotic environment of this highly interactive, constructivist activity. The majority of student time seemed to be absorbed by small-group discussions and negotiations. Technology — in this case, the wirelessly networked laptop computers — was accessed as needed, much as one would expect in any real-life budgeting activity.

The teacher had clearly spent considerable time prior to the unit developing materials and researching resources. He reported that he spent approximately 20 hours creating this unit, but he further noted that this was not any more time than he would have otherwise spent preparing a non-technology-integrated project of this magnitude.

The teacher had taught this project before, although in the past the technology use was somewhat different (i.e., the computer work was either lab-based or utilized only his single classroom computer).

While this unit could be conducted quite well with a single classroom computer or by sending students to the computer lab alone or in groups, the availability of the wireless laptops added elements of excitement and real-world authenticity to the student work. It encouraged students to engage with the project and to interact with the online resources. In short, wireless technology fit well with this already highly motivating and highly constructivist student project.

Self-Guidance Is Key

The clear message here is that wireless technology must be used within learning environments different from the traditional if it is to have a different impact on student or teacher performance. In the math unit, the technology helped catalyze a highly constructivist, student-centered learning activity, where the teacher played the role of facilitator for students.

The problem, as demonstrated in this particular study, is that constructivist practices are not necessarily easy for many teachers to employ. The seemingly chaotic yet highly constructivist classroom we found in the sixth grade math unit existed in stark comparison to the well-ordered, quiet environment of the sixth grade science unit. Even though students in both units were involved in project-based activities, and even though the underlying structure of both the sixth grade activities were constructivist, the primary difference between the math unit and the four science units was the degree of student choice and direction involved in the learning. In the math unit, students were responsible for directing their own learning activities within the broad curriculum context provided by the teacher.

On the other hand, in the science unit student learning was highly directed by the teacher. Technology use in this science unit was reasonably extensive, but the choice of what technology tools to use was not in the students' hands. Further, the time at which students chose to use technology in the science unit was prescribed by the teachers. In the math unit, students "owned" their technology use in terms of how and when they used it. In terms of impact on student learning, it is clear that this ownership produces greater impact.

Without a doubt, the impact provided by the technology is entirely dependent upon the type of curriculum activity into which the technology is integrated. Wireless technology by its nature is portable, flexible, and convenient. When the learning situation requires information access and retrieval tools that are quick and easy to access, wireless technology shines.

Maximizing the Wireless Investment

Change is expensive. In the case of wireless, this expense comes not only from new hardware and network infrastructure — in fact, these particular expenses are relatively low — but from costs related to staff time and teacher training.

We believe that districts considering wireless should integrate the new technology simultaneous to a revamping of current curriculum and instructional practices. In fact, our recommendation to Katonah-Lewisboro, which we would generalize to any district considering wireless, is to use the availability of the wireless computers and wireless carts as an inducement or reward for teachers who participate in staff development and curriculum design work targeted at creating a more student-centered environment. In this way, a district can benefit from the cyclical process where technology both supports and inspires new and improved ways of teaching and learning.

Go to next page: To Wire or Not to Wire? > > >

< < < Return to intro

Read other articles from the May Issue

Send a letter to the Editor in response to this article.