DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 261 659 IR 011 808

TITL7 Guide to Software Selection Resources: Part Four.Science and Mathematics.

INSTITUTION New York State Education Dept., Albany. Center forLearning Technologies.; Northeast Regional Exchange,Inc., Chelmsford, MA.

SPONS AGENCY National Inst. of Education (ED), Washington, DC.PUB DATE Aug 84GRANT NIE-G-82-0017NOTE 46p.; For Parts One and Three, see ED 246 861-862;

for Part Two, see ED 237 064.PUB TYPE Guides - Non-Classroom Use (055) -- Reference

Materials Directories/Catalogs (132)Tests /Evaluation Instruments (160)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Computer Assisted Instruction; *Courseware;

Elementary Secondary Education; *Evaluation Criteria;Evaluation Methods; *Information Networks;Information Sources; *Mathematics Instruction; MediaSelection; *Science Instruction; Worksheets

IDENTIFIERS Computer Uses in Education; *Software Evaluation

ABSTRACTFourth in a series, this loose-leaf guide reviews

resources for evaluating, selecting, and using software for teachingmathematics and science skills. Both commercial publishers and publicdomain sources are listed as sources of educational software. Sourcesof information on software selection are divided into journals andnewsletters, books and special publications, informationclearinghouses, and human and organizational resources. A section onmethods of describing and evaluating educational software for scienceand mathematics includes two evaluation forms, developed by theNational Council of Teachers and the National Science TeachersAssociation, which contain descriptive application and evaluationcriteria for use with science and mathematics programs. Evaluationcriteria related to science and mathematics are discussed, and asection on software applications presents data on the educational useof mathematics and science software programs as well as suggestionsfor curriculum integration and applications. A brief summary callsfor revitalization of science and mathematics instruction through useof the computer. Eighteen references are listed. (JB)

************************************************************************ Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document. *

***********************************************************************

I

GUIDE TO SOFTWARESELECTION RESOURCES:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONC3 NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

Lt.\ EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER ERIC)

Tns document has oeen reproduced astecened from the person or Oro/matron

osnatrog

\C) Moos changes have been mads to trnntovereptoduetton guilty

Pants 011 vaw or °moans stated m this docu

ment do not necessarily represent c thcsal NIE

posMon a task,"

III) ...1%it

PART FOUR

SCIENCEAND

MATHEMATICS

4 \

Q,

1111 I NI% I IZsITY !III SIAI I O1 NI IA WO.( rdormi rl ( IN 11 FOR irmno(.Ip,

1111Vs \J% )RI .!.) tn

III) NI )10111 1.I RI (MIN NI I \( II \\1.1

2

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS

MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Gregory Benson

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)"

e

GUIDE TO SOFTWARE SELECTION RESOURCES:

PART FOUR

SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS

Center for Learning TechnologiesNew York State Education Department

Albany, New York 12230

Northeast Regional Exchange, Inc.34 Littleton Road

Chelmsford, MA 01824

The Nev York State Education Depaament does not discriminate on the basis of age, color, creed,disability, marital status, veteran status, national origin, race, or sex in the educational programs andactivities Iv hich it operates. This policy is in compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

Inquiries concerning this policy may be referred to the Department's Affirmative Action Officer,Education Building, Albany, NY 1234.

The University of the State of New YorkThe State Education DepartmentCenter for Learning Technologies

Albany, New York 12230

The development of this publication was supported through a subgrant from the Northeast RegionalExchange, Inc., vhich is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute of Education,under grant number N1E G 82 0017. The opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflectpositions or policies of the U.S. Department of Education or the Northeast Regional Exchange, Inc.

Copyright 0 August, 1984

Center for Learning TechnologiesNew York State Education Department

Albany, New York 12230

Northeast Regional Exchange, Inc.34 Littleton Road

Chelmsford, MA 01824

All rights reserved.

4

e

THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY

(with years when terms expire)

1988 Willard A. Genrich, Chancellor, BuffaloLL.B., L.H.D., LL.D., Litt.D., D.C.S., D.C.L.

1987 Martin C. Barell, Vice Chancellor, Kings PointB.A., I.A., LL.B., LL.D.

1986 Kenneth B. Clark, Hastings on HudsonA.B., M.S., Ph.D., LL.D., L.H.D., D.Sc.

1989 Emlyn 1. Griffith, RomeA.B J.D.

1986 Laura Bradley Chodos, Vischer FerryB.A., M.A.

1988 J. Edward Meyer, ChappaquaB.A., LL.B., L.H.D.

1987 R. Carlos Carballada, RochesterB.S., L.H.D.

1988 Floyd S. Linton, Miller PlaceA.B., M.A., M.P.A., D.C.L.

1988 Salvatore J. Sclafam,B.S., M.D.

1989 Mimi Lieber,B.A., M.A.

1985 Shirley C. Brown,B.A.. M.A., Ph.D.

1990 Robert NI. Best,B.S.

1990 Norma Gluck,B.A., M.S.W.

1990 Thomas R. Frey,A.B., LL.B.

1991 Jorge L. Batista,B.A., J.D., LL.D.

1991 Louise P. Matteoni,B.A., M.A., Ph.D.

President of The University and Commissioner of EducationGordon M. Ambach

Executive Deputy Commissioner of EducationRobert J. Maurer

Staten Island

Manhattan

Albany

Binghamton

Manhattan

Rochester

Bronx

Bayside

NORTHEAST REGIONAL EXCHANGE, INC.The Northeast Regional Exchange, Inc. (NEREX), a private, not-for-profit Lorporation, is a SUNILC and researchagency that promotes educational equity and improvement. NEREX Loordinatrs resources and sharing of informa-tion among the seven sate departments of education in the Northeast based on an established set of state and regionalpriorities. Through NEREX, states are able to expand their available resourt.e base and work through regional bharingefforts toward program improvement in local st.hool districts and other eduational institutions. The Northeast RegionalExchange, Int.. is governed by a Board of Directors that includes the seven Chief State School Offw.ers from theNortheast and eight representatives from a wide variety of education constituent.), groups in the regioa.

Connecticut:Gerald N. Tirozzi

Commissioner of EducationDavid G. Carter

Associate Vice PresidentUniversity of Connecticut

Maine:Robert E. Boose

Commissioner of EducationRobert Goettel

Director, Center for ResearchUniversity of Southern Maine

Massachusetts:John H. Lawson

Commissioner of EducationKevin T. Andrews

Principal, Spaulding SchoolNewton

Board of Directors

New Hampshire:Robert L. Brunelle, Chair

Commissioner of EducationJeannette Vezeau

President, Notre Dame College

New York:Gordon M. Ambach

Commissioner of EducationAnne L. Bondy,, Vice -Chair

President, B.O.C.E.S.Southern Westchester

Sandra FeldmanAssistant to the PresidentUnited Federation of Teachers

J. Lynn GricsemcrExecutive Director

iii

Rhode Island:Troy Earhart

Commissioner of EducationAnn Prosser

Principal, Hunt SchoolCentral Falls

Vermont:Stephen S. Kaagan

Commissioner of EducationSylvia Kelley

Assistant SuperintendentBurlington

Acknowledgments

Part IV of this Guide was written by Charles Mojkowski of Technology Applications Associates, Cranston,Rhode Island. Research assistance was provided by Tim Barclay of Technical Education Research Centers(TERC), Cambridge, Massachusetts. George Hanify of the Merrimack Education Center, Chelmsford,Massachusetts and Mr. Barclay provided helpful reviews of early drafts of the text.

Parts I and III of this Guide were written by Charles Mojkowski of Educational Consulting Services,Cranston, RI Part Ii was prepared by Nancy Baker Jones of the Southwest Educational DevelopmentLaboratory and Larry Vaughan of the Northeast Regional Exchange, Inc.

Robert Caldwell, chairman of the National Council of Teachers of English Committee on InstructionalTechnology, provided resource information used in Part III.

6iv

Foreword

As with all instructional material, the selection of appropriate educational computer software is one ofthe most Important responsibilities of teachers and administrators. In these early stages of the dev elopmentof educational applications of the microcomputer and other interactive learning technologies, it is importaut to establish a strong foundation for our uses of these powerful new tools. Unfortunately, it hasbecome commonpla,e to hear criticism of much of the available microcomputer educational software.Unless high quality materials are used appropriately, the power of the technology will be wasted.

Recognizing the critical role of software in computer based teaching and learning, the Center for LearningTechnologies of the New York State Education Department and the Northeast Regional Exchange arepleased to provide this resource senes for teachers and administrators. It provides information on resourcesand tools for locating software and assessing its appropriateness for various instructional applications.The purpose of the series is not to identify "good" software for educators, but to provide a means throughwhich teachers can make decisions about appropriateness and quality within the .;ontext of their curriculum and instructional needs.

This Guide to Software Selection Resources has been designed as a resource series to aid the decisionmaking process in schools. The series includes both generic and content area resources. Part IV is thesecond of the content-specific materials, it focuses on science and mathematics. Continued collaborationbetween the Center for Learning Technologies and the Northeast Regional Exchange will yield additionsto this Guide to focus on other curriculum priorities.

Gregory BensonDirector

Center for Learning TechnologiesNew York State Education Department

IV

J. Lynn GriesemerExecutive Director

Northeast Regional Exchange, Inc.Chelmsford, Massachusetts

Overview

The purpose of this Guide to Software Selection Resources is to provide teachers and administrators%vith a reference tool for identifying, evaluating and selecting software for use in computes -based teachingand learning. The Guide is organized as a series of modules that deal with different aspects of the process.

Part I provides an overview of software :,election and general educational technology resources in NewYork State. This section serves as a preamble to the remaining sections of the Guide, ,v ilk!' deal withsofty are selection resources in specific content areas. Special emphasis is placed on the organizationaland material resources that are available throughout New York State to assist edu,..aturs in implementingmeaningful applications of computer technology, particularly software.

Part it is a general purpose introduction to evaluating software. Prepared oy the Northeast RegionalExchange, Inc. and the Regional Exchange of the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, Evalua-tion of Educational Software: A Guide to Guides serves as an introduction to criteria, procedures andsources of software evaluation information.

Part III deals with software selection information and procedures relating to reading and communicationskills. Part IV is devoted to resources for selecting software for science and mathematics instruction.Subsequent updates of the Guide will deal with additional subject areas, as well as new general purposeresources.

A number of assumptions explain the approach we take in the Guide:

Software ev aluation and selection is only one component of a comprehensive computer program development and implementation process. This process requires the identification and use of a wide rangeof information and assistance resources available throughout New York State.

The selection and evaluation of software is primarily an educational task and only secondly a technicalone. However powerful and sophisticated the microcomputer may be, the pedagogical qaality of thesoftware is what determines its value in supporting teaching and learning. Thus, while evaluation ofsoftware may be a relatively new activity, the evaluation of traditional instructional materials has beentaking place for many years. Such evaluation forms the foundation for selecting software.

Evaluating instructional materials requires an understanding of the teaching and learning context inwhich the materials will be used. What is "good" instructional material in one setting may be unacceptable in another. For this reason, we have avoided evaluating or recommending specific software. Thisis not to say that software v.aluation is solely a matter of individual judgment, there are acceptedstandards and procedures that can be applied. This Guide deals with such standards, and explainshow they can be used by teachers and administrators.

vii

The amount of software is grow;ng rapidly, as are sources of information about it. This manual presentsa "snapshot" of information available presently. Updates will be prepared as time and resources permit,helping teachers and administrators to keep up with new developments.

The loose -leaf' format of the Guide allows you to add your own resources, as well as incorporate theupdates provided by the Center for Learning Technologies. The Center would appreciate receiving copiesof materials you identify so that they may be included in future editions. Please send them to:

Center for Learning TechnologiesNew York State Education DepartmentCultural Education CenterEmpire State PlazaAlbany, NY 12230

9

Contents

Part IVSoftware Selection Resources: Science and Mathematics

Introduction xi

Sources of Educational Software 1

Commercial Publishers and Distributors 1

Public Domain 3

Sources of Software Selection Information 4

Journals and Newsletters 4

Books and Special Publications 5

Information Clearinghouses 5

Human and Organizational Resources 5

Methods of Describing and Evaluating Educational Software 7

Essential Descriptive and Application Information 7

Evaluation Criteria Related to Science and Mathematics 8

Software Applications: Principles and Practices 19

Overview of Software Applications 19

Software Descriptions 19

General Purpose Software Tools 20

Curriculum Applications 21

Effectiveness: What the Research Says 24

Summary 25

Bibliography 26

ix

10

!NTRODUCTION

It is difficult to deal with educational softwareresources for science and mathematics without attending to the pervasive and growing concern aboutthe curriculum itself. Several national studies andreports :iced the inadequacy of K-12 scienceand mat. aides instruction for preparing studentsto live and work in an increasingly technologicalsociety. Major initiatives at national, state and locallevels have been or are being formed to address theseinadequacies and recover, if not preserve, our coun-try's worldwide leadership in technology.

Recommendations for the new science andmathematics curriculum include substantialamounts of content on technology. This technology also is a major source of support for the neededinnovation and improvement. Rapid advances inhardware and software are serving as a principalmotivation to rethink the content and processes ofscience and mathematics instruction and also aremaking it possible to implement some of thosechanges in the classroom.

Software selection for use in teaching science andmathematics must be linked closely to the curriculumitself. This Guide reflects that concern. It is writtento help teachers, and others concerned with using

xi

computers and related interactive technologies, tomore effectivey teach science and mathematics.Despite the relatively large amount of softwar.available in these areas, we are still at an earlydevelopment stage in terms of effectively using com-puters and software to teach.

This part of the Software Selection Guide is devotedto resources for selecting software for science andmathematics instruction. As with Part III, dealingwith software for reading and communication skills,this part builds upon the general resources and pro-cedures discussed in Part II, Evaluation of Educa-tional Software: A Guide to Guides. It is addressedto the following questions saised by an increasingnumber of teachers.

Where can I find software for teaching scienceand mathematics?

Where can I find descriptive and evaluative information on software used in teaching scienceand mathematics?

What subject-matter standards can I use to assessthe quality of the software available?

Where can I find information to help me use ap-propriate software in my teaching?

11

SOURCES OFEDUCATIONALSOFTWARE

A relatively large amount of software is availablefor use on microcomputers and is appropriate formath and science educational applications, K-12.The Technical Education Research Centers (TERC),in a study conducted for the National Institute ofEducation, found that, as of May 1983, there wereabout 1,000 commercially available software titlesin math and about 750 in science, and that approx-imately 100 new titles were being added each month.To this quantity must be added the large numberof public domain and locally developed softwarethat is available to educators. Significantly morethan half of the software runs only on the Apple.This is especially the case in the more advancedareas of math and science where the software marketis thin.

In spite of the large number of titles, there is farfrom uniform coverage of math and science topicsthat are taught at the precollege level. There is almostno elementary science software, and many highschool math topics have no supporting software.Software in biology is dominated by games andsimulations, many in ecology. Topics such as hu-man physiology and medicine are inadequatelyaddressed, if at all.

Math software is strongly oriented toward elemen-tary grades. For math, most titles are available forsixth grade, with large numbers for grades 3 through8. Science software, on the other hand, is highlyconcentrated at the high school level. The largestnumber of titles is available for the twelfth grade,with decreasing numbers in the lower grades.

A spring 1983 survey of computer use in New YorkState conducted by the Center for Learning Tech-nologies in the New York State Education Depart-ment found that science and mathematics softwarewere among the most frequently used. Of all schoolsreporting the use of software, nearly seventy per-Lent reported using mathematics material and thirtyfive percent reported using science software.

The amount of science and math software is con-siderably larger than that for all other subject areas.Scores of publishers produce and distribute soft-ware in these areas. A selected list of softwarepublishers and distributors, both commercial andpublic domain, is provided in the following sections.

CommercialPublishers and DistributorsThe following publishers of software eitherspecialize in software for science and math or haveextensive portions of their materials devoted to ,IL.subject areas.

The Cactusplot Co.1442 N. McAllisterTempe, AZ 85281

Cambridge Development Lab (CDL)100 Fifth Ave.Waltham, MA 02154

COMPressP.O. Box 102Wentworth, NH 03282

1

12

Computer Curriculum CorporationRepresented by:Instructional Systems, Inc.560 Sylvan AvenueEnglewood Cliffs, NJ 07632

ConduitP.O. Box 388Iowa City, IA 52244

Creative Publications3977 E. Bayshol.e Rd.P.O. Box 10325Palo Alto, CA 94303

Cuisenaire Company of America12 Church StreetP.O. Box DNew Rochelle, NY 10805

Educational ActivitiesP.O. Box 392Freeport, NY 11520

Educational Materials and Equipment Co.P.O. Box 17Pelham, NY 10803

EduTech, Inc.634 Commonwealth Ave.Newton Centre, MA 02159

HRM Software175 Tompkins Ave.Pleasantville, NY 10570

The Learning Co.4370 Alpine Rd.Porto la Valley, CA 94025

Learningways, Inc.98 Raymond StreetCambridge, MA 02140

MECC2520 Broadway Dr.Saint Paul, MN 55113

Microcomputer Workshops225 Westchester Ave.Port Chester, NY 10573

MicropiBox 5524Bellingham, WA 98227

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education252 Bloor Street WestToronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1V6

Microphys Programs2048 Ford StreetBrooklyn, NY 11229

132

Programs for LearningP.O. Box 954New Milford, CT 06776

Quality Educational DesignsP.O. Box 12486Portland, OR 97212

Spinnaker Software215 First StreetCambridge, MA 02140

Sunburst Communications39 Washington Ave.Pleasantville, NY 10570

Vernier Software2920 S.W. 89th StreetPortland, OR 97225

Wadsworth Electronic Publishing Co.20 Park PlazaBoston, MA 02116

WICAT Systems358 South Main StreetMarlborough, CT 06447

John Wiley & Sons605 Third AvenueNew York, NY 10158

While these publishers will provide information ontheir products, contacting each may be unnecessar-ily time-consuming. Traditional school suppliers arebeginning to distribute a large selection of softwarefrom a wide range of producers. In the Northeast,the following companies distribute science andmathematics software, and have catalogs whichmake the identification and procurement of ap-plicable material more efficient.

J.L. HammettMicrocomputer DivisionBox 545Braintree, MA 02184(800) 225-5467

MARCK280 Linden AvenueBranford, CT 06432

In addition to computer software in its most typicalform the magnetic floppy disk a new softwaremedium, the videodisc, is being introduced to sup-port science and mathematics instruction. A smallnumber of publishers already have produced video-discs for use in science and math education.

Starship Industries605 Utterback Store RoadGreat Falls, VA 22066

Videodisc Design Production GroupGreat Plains National LibraryUniversity of NebraskaLincoln, NB 68583

Video Vision Associates Ltd.39 East 21st StreetNew York, NY 10010

WICAT SystemsP.O. Box 539Orem, UT 84057

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.605 Third AvenueNew York, NY 10158

The April, 1984 issue of Electronic Learning de-votes several pages to a description of videodisc soft-ware in all curriculum areas, and reviews hardwareand educational applications as well.

Public DomainAll of the public domain software centers cited inPart II (Evaluation of Educational Software: AGuide to Guides, pages 83-86) have substantial of-ferings for science and mathematics. Contact theseorganizations for specific listings. Public domainsources that focus on science and mathematics soft-ware are:

Project Seraphim.NSF Development in Science EducationDepartment of ChemistryEastern Michigan UniversityYpsilanti, MI 48197Contact: John W. Moore, Project DirectorSeraphim is a source of public domain soft-ware in chemistry. A list of available softwarewas published in the Computers in EducationNewsletter, June, 1983 and is updated quar-terly. A catalog also is available.

Microcomputer Software Exchange in theNorthwestern Section of the MathematicalAssociation of America

Department of MathematicsUniversity of New HavenWest Haven, CT 06516This exchange has programs for teachers andstudents beyond first-year algebra.

Young People's LOGO Association SoftwareExchange

1208 Hillside DriveRichardson, TX 75081While most of the software is devoted to LOGOapplications, the Exchange does have otherdisks. A catalog is available.

3

14

SOURCES OFSOFTWARE SELECTIONINFORMATION

Information resources for learning about scienceand mathematics software and their applicationsare organized here into four categories: journalsand newsletters; books and special publications; in-formation clearinghouses; and human and organiza-tional resources.

Journals and NewslettersOne journal is devoted exclusively or primarily tothe use of computers in science and mathematics.

The Journal of Computers in Math andScience Teaching.

Association for Computers in Math and ScienceTeaching

Box 4455Austin, TX 78765(512) 258-9738

The following journals regularly feature articlesdealing with the use of computers and instructionalsoftware in science and mathematics. These jour-nals also feature articles discussing needed revitaliza-tion of the science and math curriculum and therole that computers can play in that reform (seethe Bibliography for citations from these journals).

Arithmetic TeacherMathematics TeacherNational Council of Teachers of Mathematics1906 Association DriveReston, VA 22091(703) 620-9840

154

Science TeacherScience and ChildrenNational Science Teachers Association1742 Connecticut Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20009(202) 328-5800

School Science and MathematicsSchool Science and Mathematics AssociationBowling ireen State UniversityBowling Green, OH 43403(419) 372-0151

The Computing TeacherDepartment of Computer and Information

ScienceUniversity of OregonEugene, OR 97403(503) 686-4414

Classroom Computer Learning5615 Cermak RoadCicero, IL 60650(415) 592-7810

Electronic LearningScholastic Inc.902 Sylvan AvenueP.O. Box 2001Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632(212) 505-3000

An excellent overview of science software is pro-vided in the April, 1984 issue of Personal Software("Science Software Like Having an Einstein inthe House"). Check the Bibliography for the com-plete reference.

A newsletter which is devoted almost exclusivelyto math and science teaching with computers isHands On!, published by Technical EducationResearch Centers (TERC), Cambridge, MA. Thenewsletter contains articles on classroom applica-tions and software reviews.

The Computers in Mathematics Sciences EducationNewsletter provides information on research as wellas projects, practices and software. The newsletteris produced by:

National Consortium on Uses of Computers inMathematical Sciences Education

032 Purnell HallUniversity of DelawareNewark, DE 19711(302) 451-2140

Books and Special PublicationsThe very existence of books dealing exclusively withthe use of computers in mathematics instruction istestimony to the relatively advanced stage of com-puter applications in this area compared to othercurriculum areas. The following titles offer ideasfor using computers and software in mathematics.

Computers in Teaching Mathematics by PeterKelman et al., Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.,1983.The work of a team of experienced educatorsand computer experts, this book contains awealth of information on a variety of applica-tions. The appendices contain lists of booksand software.

Using Computers in Mathematics by Elgarten,Posamentier, and Moresh. Addison-Wesley,1983.This is a book of math problems and computerprograms organized by topics that fit withinthe normal high school curriculum: algebra,geometry, trigonometry, number theory, prob-ability and statistics, and calculus.

Turtle Geometry: The Computer as a Mediumfor Exploring Mathematics, by Abelson anddiSessa, MIT Press, 1981.This book is based on summer classes held atMIT for high school students. It is a rich sourceof excellent material, but it may not fit intothe normal curriculum. An alternative geom-etry course could be designed using this bockas a basis.

Selecting and Using Microcomputers in ScienceInstruction, by Jean Graef, CambridgeDevelopment Laboratory, 1983.This book has sections dealing with: 1) ways

5

to use the computer to enhance science educa-tion, 2) microcomputer features of special in-terest to science teachers, and 3) resources forfurther study.

Information ClearinghousesThe computer-based information databases that giveexclusive or primary attention to software and com-puter applications are described in the resource guidefor reading and communication skills. Please seepage 7 in Part III for that information.

The ERIC Clearinghouse on Science, Mathematicsand Environmental Education is the largest sourceof information on these content areas. The Clear-inghouse is located at:

Ohio State University1200 Chambers Road, Third FloorColumbus, OH 43212Contacts:

Science: Dr. Stanley HelgesonMathematics: Dr. Marilyn Suydam

The Clearinghouse provides bibliographies, lists oforganizational resources, and information analysisreports on science, mathematics and environmen-tal education.

Human andOrganizational ResourcesBecause there is relatively more activity in usingtechnology in science and math than in other cur-riculum areas, the number of individuals andorganizations with expertise is quite extensive. Thislist is representative and not exhaustive.

Educational Technology CenterHarvard Graduate School of Education337 Gutman LibraryCambridge, MA 02138Contact: Dr. Judah SchwartzThis newly established national center is fundedby the National Institute of Education to promote and conduct research on the uses oftechnology in education, particularly in scienceand mathematics.

Society for Applied Learning Technology50 Culpepper StreetWarrenton, VA 22186Contact: Dr. Raymond FoxSALT conducts conferences and prepares pub-lications on a wide range of interactive learning technologies. Many of its materials aredirectly applicable to IC-12 schooling, with aheavy emphasis on science and mathematics.

16

Technical Education Research Centers1696 Massachusetts AvenueCambridge, MA 02138Contact: Dr. Robert Tinker or Tim BarclayTERC provides training, publications and con-sultation on applications of technology toeducation, with a special focus on science andmathematics, K -12.

Other individuals who work in the application oftechnology to science and mathematics are:

Jean GreafGeneral ManagerCambridge Development LaboratoryCambridge, MA 02138

George HanifySenior ConsultantNDN Technology LighthouseMerrimack Education Center101 Mill RoadChelmsford, MA 01824

Dr. Donald LaSalleTalcott Mountain Science CenterAvon, CT 06001

Adeline NeimanDirector of SoftwareHRM Software1696 Massachusetts AvenueCambridge, MA 02138

In New York State, there are several sources of in-formation on uses of technology in science andmathematics.

The Association of Mathematics Teachers ofNew York State

Box 322, RD #5Creamery RoadHopewell Junction, NY 12533The Association has published Guidelines forComputers in Education.

The Science Teachers Association of NewYork State

7 Lawnridge AvenueAlbany, NY 12208(518) 489-8246

17

6

The Association holds meetings and producesseveral publications relating to.elementary andsecondary school science.

Southern Tier Technical Assistance CenterBroome-Delaware-Tioga BOCES412 Upper Glenwood RoadBinghamton, NY 13905Contact: Mark Kneidinger(607) 729-9301 ext. 322The Center maintains an automated softwareevaluation file on science and mathematicsmaterials. The Center also has developed arobotics curriculum for use in secondaryschools.

Herkimer County BOCESGros BoulevardHerkimer, NY 13350Contact: Everett Carr(315) 363-8000This BOCES runs several projects dealing withthe use of computers and videodiscs in com-bination with a planetarium. Training andmaterials are available.

New York City Public Schools131 Livingston StreetBrooklyn, NY 11201Contact: Irwin Kaufman(212) 596-4434Information is available on a wide range ofK -12 applications of technology in math andscience education.

At the New York State Education Department, con-tact the following individuals for information onscience and mathematics instruction:

Douglas Reynolds, ChiefBureau of Science EducationState Education DepartmentAlbany, NY 12234(518) 474-7746

Fredrick Paul, ChiefBureau of MathematicsState Education DepartmentAlbany, NY 12234(518) 474-3900

METHODS OFDESCRIBING ANDEVALUATINGEDUCATIONALSOFTWARE

The checklists in Part II of the Guide are usefulfor categorizing and evaluating all software. Thissection deals with information specific to scienceand mathematics that should be obtained as asupplement to that in the general checklists. Manyof the popular content and professional journalscited previously (see page 4) feature evaluations ofscience and mathematics software. These evalua-tions provide examples of how subject matter criteriaare applied to software. The Bibliography containscitations of articles devoted to science and mathe-matics software evaluations.

Essential Descriptive andApplication InformationThe instruments contained in Part II of this Guide,and the form used by the Center for LearningTechnologies (see Part I) will serve most re-quirements in deciding whether undertaking anevaluation of a particular software program is worthyour time. Most of the questions in those checklistsalso can be applied to general-purpose software pro-grams, such as those for manipulating formulas,performing computations, and graphing and plot-ting data.

The Technical Education Research Centers (TERC)divides science and mathematics software into twocategories based on educational style and teachingstrategy. One style teaches material "explicitly"through tutorials, demonstrations, dialogs, or drilland practice. Tiis style, using the computer as aninstructional medium, is by far the most popular,

7

best represented in the available products, and themost researched. This style is probably most effec-tive when there are a lot of tacts or procedures tobe learned.

The second style of software includes a number ofdifferent teaching strategies, all of which have thestudent learn implicitly through exploration or useof the computer as a problem solving tool. TERChas termed the "implicit" styles, since the materialto be taught is implicit in the software but not ex-pounded explicitly. Categories of software in thisstyle include:

Computer as Modeling Device*

I. Games. The material to be learned is an intrinsicpart of the game and must be mastered to im-prove the score. Examples: Green Globs, Rocky'sBoots.

2. Simulations. Models or real situations that pro-vide an opportunity for students to learn aboutsystems that cannot be brought into theclassroom because of cost, time, danger, or otherreasons. Examples: Three Mile Island, Energyand Geology Search.

3. Microworlds. Cybernetic environments in whichstudents can explore and solve problems. Ex-amples: Dynaturtle, Factory.

*This categorization was developed by Henry Oldsin "Evaluating the Evaluation Schemes," in PartII of this Guide.

18

Computer as Tool

4. Microcomputer -based laboratories. The com-puter is turned into a powerful instrumentstudents can use to analyze, display, and savedata from experiments. Example: Experimentsin Science.

s Databases. Large collections of data that studentscan access. Examples: DE Master, Notebook.

6. Tools. Software that solves specific computa-tional or display problems such as graphs andequation solvers. Examples: TK! Solver, Visi-Plot.

7. Computer languages. General purpose softwarethat students use to program solutions to prob-lems. Examples: LOGO, DYNAMO.

Evaluation Criteria Related toScience and MathematicsBoth the National Council of Teachers ofMathematics and the National Science TeachersAssociation have prepared recommended evalua-tion forms for assessing software quality and ap-plicability. The NCTM instrument, which appearsin Part II on pages 60-61, was one of the firstavailable. The NSTA instrument, on the followingpages, is new; it is designed to be used primarilyin school-level or district-level evaluations of scienceinstructional software packages. It is reproducedwith permission of the National Science TeachersAssociation.

In general, checklists such as those of NCTM, NSTAand those in Part II of this Guide will be of limitedutility in assessing the subject content of the soft-ware, unless they adequately take into account thesubject matter of the institutional program. Decidingwhether a specific software package is appropriatefor the classroom applications you wish to makefirst requires an understanding of curriculum stand-ards and guidelines. In addition to the generalevaluation criteria listed in Part II, you will needto assess the software against the curriculum stand-ards established at the district and state levels.

The New York State Education Department makesavailable syllabuses for every curriculum area. Atpresent, these syllabuses do not include standardsrelating specifically to the use of microcomputersand other learning technologies in science andmathematics curricula. These syllabuses are useful,however, in determining whether the subject mat-ter of the software is addressed to appropriate ob-jectives and activities in the related curricula.

19 8

Another way to identify curriculum standards thatcan be used as a guide to software selection isthrough an analysis of the recommendations of ma-jor study groups. Educating Americans for the 21stCentury is one of these reports. Prepared by theNational Science Board Commission of PrecollegeEducation in Mathematics, Science and Technology,the report delineates specific objectives for improvedscience and mathematics programs (see pages 43-44of the report, which is referenced in theBibliography). The objectives are included here asan indication of the changes that science and mathinstruction will be undergoing in the future.

Mathematics instruction at the elementary levelshould be designed to produce the followingoutcomes:

comprehensive understanding and facility withone-digit number facts, place values, decimals,percentages and exponential notations

skill in informal mental arithmetic, estimation andapproximation

ability to use calculators and computers selectively

basic understanding of elementary data analysis,simple statistics and probability, and fractions

ability to use some algebraic symbolism andtechniques

thorough understanding of arithmetic operationsand knowledge of when each should be used.

At the secondary level there is a need to examinethe content, emphasis, and approaches of coursesin al5ebra, geometry, precalculus methods, andtrigonometry. Some components in the traditionalsecondary school mathematics curriculum have littleimportance in the light of new technologies. Thecurrent sequence which isolates geometry in a year-long course, rather than integrating aspects ofgeometry over several years with other mathematicscourses, must be seriously challenged. Some con-,:epts of geometry are needed by all students. Othercomponents can be s.reamlined, leaving room forimportant rim topics.

Discrete mathematics, elementary statistics andprobability should now be considered fundamen-tal for all high school students.

The development of computer science as well ascomputer technology suggests new approaches tothe teaching of all mathematics in which emphasisshould be on:

algorithmic thinking as an essential part ofproblem-solving

e

NATO/1\1AL SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIA4NTASK FORCE ON ASSESSING COMPUTERAUGMENTED SCIENCE INSTRUCTION MATERIALS

microcomputersoftware evaluation

instrumentVERSION 1983

01984 NSTA

20

TASK FORCE MEMBERS, 1982 1984

Leopold E. Klopfar, University of Pittsburgh, ChairGerald L. Abegg, Boston University

Mitchell E. Batoff. Institute for Professional DevelopmentJerry Doyle, Iowa Area Education Agency #16

Fred N. Finley. University of MarylandWillis Norsk. University of Arizona

Judith Keane, University of Chicago High SchoolDaniel Luncsf ord. Hammond (Indiana) High School

Vincent N. Lunetta, University of Iowa

4i

GUIDELINES FOR USING THEMICROCOMPUTER SOFTWAREEVALUATION INSTRUMENTThis instrument should help you and your colleagues in examining and discus-sing the merits of a microcomputer software package intended to be used inscience instruction. The instrument provides a sensible process and basic criteriafor judging science software packages. It also lets you add criteria which educa-tors in your particular school situation need to consider.

We are interested in evaluating the entire software package, which includes:

(a) the computer program,

(b) any attendant student instructional materials which are pot on the com-puter, and

(c) teacher's guide materials and/or program documentation.

The back page of the instument has .1 space where you can describe the compo-nents of the package you are examining, its science content and other character-istics.

The four sections of this instrument call attention to four important aspects ofevaluating microcomputer software packages Policy Issues, Science Subject Matter Standards, Instructional Quality, and Technical Quality. Each aspect shouldbe rated separately, and the four section ratings can then be listed to give a profile for the software package. (A box for the profile is on the back page.)

BEST COPY AVAILABLI-

Under each :action of the instrument is a set of descriptive criteria pertaining tothat aspect of evaluating software packages. Bipolar scales (with + and values)are used to obtain the rating in each section, so the section ratings of a softwarepackage you are evaluating may turn out to be negative, zero, or positive. We(the Task Force members) think that an acceptable package should never haveany negative rating in its profile. Probably you and the other educators at yourschool will want a software package to show strong positive ratings in its profilebefore you would accept it to be used in science instruction. The exact standardyou set for acceptability of software packages should be decided on the basis ofyour local conditions and your educational good sense.

Section P

POLICY ISSUES

This section deals with the most difficult (and, we think, most important) ques-tions that must be answered when any software package is being considered.These questions have to do with the appropriateness, compatibility, cost effectiveness (in both time and money), and instructional effectiveness of the software.

They include such concerns as these: Are the computer's special capabilitiesutilized to provide a learning experience not easily obtainable through othermedia? Does the computer program make good use of the student's time on thecomputer? Is the software package compatible with the goals and theoreticalbase of the school's instructional program? Does the computer encourage inter-action among students while they are using it? What evidence is availabkyrtstudents attain the learning objectives of the software package? If you haveother concerns of similar importance in your local situation, they should beadded to the criteria of the Policy Issues Section.

Some people have suggested that, if a software package is seriously deficient onthe criteria in the Policy Issues section, then it need not ba given much further

Ilivnsideration. You should decide aila " . this for your local evaluation pro.

.2,3

Section S

SCIENCE SUBJECT-MATTER STANDARDS

Good science instruction must present good science. Toassure that science software packages meet this expecta-tion, this section is concerned with the accuracy ofscience content, the sound application of science processes, the absence of stereotyping, and other issues relatedto the honest representation of science in instruction.

There is ample space in the section for adding (if youwant to) subject matter criteria that are important inparticular science areas.

Section I

INSTRUCTIONAL QUALITY

This section is concerned with matters of effective peda-gogy, application of good instructional design principles,adaptability of the software to students' individual dif-ferences, assessment of students' learning, and the roleenvisioned for the students using the software package.You should add any omitted criteria that you think areparticularly important for good instruction.

- -Section T

TECHNICAL QUALITYThe focus of this section is the technical quality of boththe computes program and the other components of thesoftware package. We are concerned with how well thecomputer program runs, how carefully its operationalfeatures are designed, and how welldesigned the accom-panying student and teacher materials are. Additionalcriteria may be needed here if you have particular computer hardware requirements or other expectations for areliable software package.

MAKING YOUR RATINGSEach section of this Instrument contains a set of bipolar scales. (Any criteria youadd should bti constructed with similar scales.) You should carefully consider thedescriptions at both ends of each scale and then assign a value or. the 3 to + 3scale according to how well the left or right description applies to the softwarepackage you are judging. Mark only one point on each scale. (If you cannotmake a decision about a particular scale, mark the zero point for the scale.) To

24

obtain the rating for each section, find the arithmetic sum of the values youassigned to all the scales in the section. You can enter the section .stings in theSoftware Package Profile box on the back page. The lower portion of the profilebox should list the minimum standard you have determined for acceptability ineach section. A comparison of the obtained ratings with the minimums can leadto a recommendation concerning the suitability of the software package.

25

r

N.)

.,.b

SECTION P

POLICY ISSUESLEFT DESCRIPTION IS

NeitherRIGHT DESCRIPTION IS

Pertly Slightly Description SlightlyTrue True True Applies

IPertlyTrue True True3 2 1 O

IDefinitely

+ 1 +2 +3

The program makes the computer act as littlemore than a page turner or workbook.

The program is wasteful of the limited timeavailable for students to use the computer.

The purpose and learning objectives of thesoftware package are vague.

The software package is in conflict with orirrelevant to the goals of the school's instruc-tional program.

The program expects one student to workon the computer and not to interact withanyone.

'There is little or no evidence that studentsattain the learning objectives of the softwarepackage.

The software package is incompatible withthe learning objectives and instructionalmaterials of a current course.

This software package's cost is exorbitantfor v, "at it delivers.

1 I I i I t I

1 I I I I I 1

1 I I I I I

i i 1 1 i 1 i

1 i I I I I I

I i i 1 1

I 1 I I I I I

i i i i I I l

i i 1 I I. i 1. 01984 NSTA

The program exploits the computer's specialcapabilities (e.g., graphic animation, simula-tion) to provide a learning experience noteasily possible through other media.

The program makes good use of thestudent's limited time on the computer.

The purpose and intended outcomes of theof the software package are clearly defined.

The software package is compatible with thethe goals and theoretical base of the school'sinstructional program.

Two or more students are encouraged to in-teract with one another while using the com-puter program.

The evidence that students attain the softwarepackage's learning objectives is convincing.

The software package fits in well with otherinstructional materials already being used inparticular courses or classes.

The total cost of this package is reasonablecompared to its instructional value.

BEST COPY ivAiLmi

r". iI..

SCIENCE SUBJECT-MATTERSTANDARDS

The package presents topics which are irrele-vant to the educational needs of the intendedstudents.

The science content is very inaccurate.

Racial, ethnic, or sexrole stereotypes aredisplayed.

Biased or distorted information is paraded 3sfactual information.

The package includes science informationwhich is greatly outdated.

The presentation of the science content isconfusing.

LEFT DESCRIPTION IS

Definite Partly SlightlyTrutt TrueTrue3 2 1

1 1 1

NeitherDescription

Applies0

I_

RIGHT DESCRIPTION IS

Slightly DefinitelyPartlyTrue TrueTrue+1 +2 +3

1 1 1

I I I I 1 1 1

I 1 1 1 1 1 1

i t I I I 1 I

I I I I I I I

The package gives no attention to the pro-cesses of scientific inquiry. I

1

L

The topics included in the package are verysignificant in the education of the intendedstudents.

The science content is free from errors.

The presentation is free of any objectionablestereotyping.

Well-balanced and representative informa-tion is presented.

The science content presented in the package

represents current knowledge.

The science content is very clearly presented.

Science inquiry processes are well-integrated

I 1 1 1 1 1 into this software package.

1

1I

01884 NSTA

I1

r29

30

9SriCTION I '99

The student is given very few choices thatcontrol how he/she works in the computerprogram's environment.

INSTRUCTIONAL QUALITY

The student using the program is passive anddoes little more than punch keys occasional-ly.

The instructional strategies used in the com-puter program do not take pertinent researchresults tnto account.

The program cannot easily adapt to differ-ences in students' ability, prior knowledge, orlearning style.

The software package fails to inform studentsabout its learning objectives or the availableactivities.

The software package's instructional strate-gies and evaluation procedures ignore perti-nent pedagogical principles.

The software package expects that all stu-dents will attain the same level of achieve-ment.

The software package makes no provision formanaging various instructional resources in aclassroom.

LEFT DESCRIPTION ISMolt er

Definitely Partly Slightly DescriptionTrue Truo True Applies3 2 _1

RIGHT DESCRIPTION IS

SlightlyTrue

0 +1

PartlyTru+2

IDefinitelyTrue+3

t I IThe program offers the student several op-tions about the content to work on, the levelof difficulty, and the rate of presentation.

The student is actively involved in interact-' 1 1 ing with the computer's program.

L. I I t

t I t I I 1 1

01984 NSTA

The program's instructional strategies arebased on relevant educational or psychologi-cal research findings.

The program has options which allow it toaccommodate students' individual differ-ences.

Directions in the software package tell students where they will be going (objectives)and what they will be doing (activities).

The instruction used in the software packageincorporates good sequences, motivatingfeatures,and evaluation procedures.

Students using the software package can ex-perience success in attaining learning, objec-tives at several levels of sophistication ordifficulty.

The software package incorporates a man-agement scheme for deploying available in-structional resources.

.71

. 32

Students require an unacceptable amount ofguidance by teachers to successfully operatethe program.

Feedback given by the program to studentresponses is inappropriate and confusing.

The program's graphics displays are crude andcluttered.

The program's stance is callous and insulting.

The program has uncorrected "bugs" whichcause it to behave inconsistently under cer-tain circumstances or to "crash."

Program documentation is incomplete, con-fusing, and inconsistent with the observed be-havior of the program.

Student instructional materials other than thecomputer program are poorly organized, un-attractive, and inappropriate.

Teacher's materials in the software packageare shabby, incoilplete, and written in "hack-er's" vernacular.

The software package is physically flimsy andeasily sabotaged.

TECHNICAL QUALITYLEFT DESCRIPTION IS

Definitely Partly SlightlyTrue True True3 2 1

1

Neither

Applies0

RIGHT DESCRIPTION

Slightly PartlyTrue True+1 +2

1

IS

DefinitelyTrue+3

1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1

1

1 1

1

01984 NSTA

Students can easily and independently oper-ate the program after a modest period oforientation.

The program's feedback to student responsesis appropriate, informative, and timely.

Graphics displays are crisp and clear.

The program is "user-sensitive."

All possible combinations of user input andvariable ranges are anticipated by the pro-gram, making its operation predictable andreliable.

Program documentation is comprehensive,clear, and consistent with observed programbehavior.

Instructional materials other than the com-puter program are well-designed and appro-priate for the students who will use them.

Teacher's guide materials are attractive, com-prehensive, and suitable for the teacher-userwho has little technical computer knowledge

The package's components are designed tosurvive classroom conditions.

133

Title of Software Package: Evaluators-

Publisher or Distributor

cr.

34

RATINGS

MinimumStandards

SOFTWARE PACKAGE PROFILE

P S I T

Section P POLICY ISSUESSection S SCIENCE SUBJECT-MATTER STANDARDSSection I INSTRUCTIONAL QUALITYSection T TECHNICAL QUALITY

The 1983 Version of this instrument was developed by our taskforce after more than a year of deliberation and discussion.Thefirst draft was prepared by J.L. Fox and L. E. Klopfer, LearningResearch and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh. The1983 Version is our best current draft, which we expect to reviseas computer technology and available software change.

We ask your help in preparing the next version. Information aboutyour experience in using the instrument would be most helpful.Please send your comments and suggestions to:

Task Force on Assessing Computer-Augmented ScienceInstructional MateriaN

National Science Teachers Association

1742 Conneticut Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 20009

Additional copies of Microcomputer Soft-

ware Evaluation Instrument are availablefrom NSTA Publications.

Design & Illustration: Patricia Winstein Kelley

4)1904 NSTA

Reprinted with permission of NSTA.

Comments and Recommendations:

Software Package Description:

(Topics, program type, grade level, print materials forstudents, teacher guide)

Hardware Requirements:

e

I

student data-gathering and exploration ofmathematical ideas in order to facilitate learningmathematics by discovery.

New computer technology not only allows the intro-duction of pertinent new material into thecurriculum and new ways to teach traditional mathe-matics, but it also casts doubt on the importanceof some of the traditional curriculum. Particularlynoteworthy in this context at the secondary level are.

symbolic manipulation systems which even now,but certainly far more in the near future, will allowstudents to do symbolic algebra at a far moresophisticated level than they can be expected todo with pencil and paper

computer graphics and the coming interactivevideodisc systems which will enable the presenta-tion and manipulation of geometric and numericalobjects in ways which should be usable to enhancethe presentation of much secondary schoolmathematical material.

Science and technology instruction at the elemen-tary and secondary levels should be designed to produce the following outcomes:

ability to formulate questions about nature andseek answers from observation and interpreta-tion of natural phenomena

development of students' capacities for problem-solving and critical thinking in all areas of learning

development of particular talents for innovativeand creative thinking

awareness of the nature and scope of a wide vari-ety of science and technology-related careersopen to students of varying aptitudes and interests

the basic academic knowledge necessary for ad-vanced study by students who are likely to pur-sue science professionally

scientific and technical knowledge needed to fulfillcivic responsibilities, improve the student's ownhealth and life and ability to cope with an in-creasingly technological world

means for judging the worth of articles present-ing scientific conclusions.

An even more strident voice is heard from StephenWilloughby who, as President of the National Coun-cil of Teachers of Mathematics, states:

Even more disturbing than our apparent lackof substantial progress in mathematics are theskills in which the students appear to be making progress lower-order skills such as factrecall and multidigit computation the veryactivities that a $10 calculator will always be

17

able to do more efficiently. The back to basicsmovement, hav ing misidentified what is reallybasic, is producing youngsters who are slightlybetter at skills that were of.questionable valuein the 19th century and will be of little valuein the 21st century.

NCTM's An Agenda fur Action: Recommendationsfor School Mathematics in the 1980s provides sev oralcurriculum standards that can sere as standardsfor assessing the value of software in helpingstudents learn mathematics. Those of particular im-port for software assessment are:

I. Problem-solving should be the focus of schoolmathematics in the 1980s.

2. Basic skills in mathematics should be definedto encompass more than computational facility.

3. Mathematics programs should take full advan-tage of the power of calculators and computersat all grade levels.

In New York State, the Board of Regents' ProposedAction Plan to Improve Elementary and SecondaryEducation Results contains several references to arevitalized and more rigorous science andmathematics curriculum. Recommended changes ininstructional requirements for grades K-6 include:

Science A hands-on approach to learningwill be emphasized, with opportunities for experimentation and individual problem-solving.The K-6 science syllabus being developed em-phasizes logical thinking and reasoning skills.

Mathematics The newly implemented K-6mathematics syllabus focuses on reasoningskills and logical process, and includes applica-tion of mathematic reasoning to otherdisciplines and computer technology. Thesyllabus gives increased attention to probabil-ity and statistics.

For grades 7-12, one additional unit of science andmathematics is proposed, with increased emphasison science at grade 7-8 levels. In mathematics atgrades 7-9, a component on computer use will berequired.

The thrust of these and other similar reforms is thatscience and mathematics will need to improve inquantity and quality, and that technological toolssuch as the computer area principal means by whichthe revitalization can take place. Selecting saw arcbefore attending to needed curriculum revision maybe unproductive, because the improved l, urrkulumconstitutes a major standard by which software isto be judged.

:lk

Even with the use of revitalized curriculum stand-ards, it is very difficult to judge the utility ofavailable software, since different users look fordifferent properties in software. Many observers feelthat software is of quite low quality. For instance,in one report, 4,000 titles were reviewed, and only3-4% were found acceptable. To some extent, thesenegative attitudes stem from a lack of fit betweenavailable software and an individual teacher's re-quirements and expectations. One person might re-ject a!I drill and practice software as inapplicable,while another might find the perfect remedial lessonamong these rejects. As the large number of text-books for most courses attest, there are greatdifferences of opinion about language, scope, andstudent autonomy that color teachers' evaluationsof software.

In addition to the checklists of technical criteria andthe established curriculum standards, there are mar*basic pedagogical standards through which softwareutility may be assessed. Odvard Egil Dyrli, in"Science Software in High-Button Shoes" (seeBibliography), asks the question: What should learn-ing science be like? Many of the curriculum stand-ards address this question, but Dyrli believes thatthere are other, specific questions that teachers needto ask in selecting science software:*

Does the software help the student see that scienceis not a verbal activity?

18

Is there an opportunity to develop the processskills of students, such as measuring, experiment-ing, and communichting? Can the software en-courage and responi to the students' questions?

Does the software allow the student to infer orpredict the results?

Does the software make Inks to the concreteworld and the real world? Conversely, can theproblems of the world be brought into thesoftware?

Can the software take in raw data and make itmeaningful for the student? Does it providegraphs or charts to help students organize andinterpret the data themselves?

The focus of these questions on proceduralknowledge rather than on factual knowledge mir-rors the direction of all the curriculum reform effortsin science and mathematics. The following sectionprovides descriptions of how the selection critena

technical standards, curriculum guidelines, andpedagogical principles are addressed in practice.

Dyrli's questions were taken from "Science Soft-wareLike Having an Einstein in the House" byArielle Emmett. Please see the Bibliography for thecomplete reference.

37

SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS:PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES

Overview of Software ApplicationsGiven the relatively large amount of software thatis available for science and mathematics, it is notsurprising that applications are more varied thanfor subjects such as history or literature. In a surveyconducted as part of a national study, TERC col-lected data on the use of science and mathematicssoftware by elementary and secondary teachers. Ofthose using software, drill and practice was mostpopular, with seventy-five percent of the respond-ents using such software. About two-thirds useeducational games and computational tools, andabout half use simulated labs and other simulations.In keeping with these usage statistics, TERC foundan even higher percentage of the commerciallyavailable titles are either, in tutorial or drill and prac-tice style, including about ninety percent of thosein mathematics.

Other usage data from the survey:

The heavy use of software in advanced scienceis reflected by the popularity of physics titles(2801o) followed by chemistry (25%) andbiology (18%).

The elementary grades orientation of math isreflected by the preponderance of basic skillssoftware (76%), especially in arithmetic (34%of all math titles).

The converse of the elementary grades orien-tation of math software is the paucity of ad-vanced topics like calculus (1.2%), analysis(1.7%), and trigonometry (1.2%). \ ,

19

Drill and practice is very common, especiallyin math where it dominates with 42% of titles(22% for science).

Combining games, which are usually disguiseddrill, with the drill and practice category ac-counts for fully 67% of math but only 26%of science titles.

Games and drills are more common in elemen-tary grades than advanced grades. In math, theydrop from 78% at the fourth grade to 62%at the eighth grade and 38% at twelfth grade.

Tutorials are popular, especially for sciencetopics (32%), but also for math (22%).

Simulations are used in 28% of science titlesthey represent the most frequently used style

in eleventh and twelfth grades.

The statistic for New York State are similar to thosefor the codntry. Over 60010 of the mathematics soft-ware in use in New York State schools is drill andpractice. In science the figure is about 26%. Thepercentage of software used for problem solvingin science is 22%; for math, 18%.

Software DescriptionsDescriptions of a few software programs will serveas a means of illustrating the range of softwareavailable. No endorsement of these programs isimplied.

SemCalc: The Work Problem Solver by Sun-burst Communications

38

One of the major stumbling blocks for studentsin dealing with word problems is the tendencyto focus on manipulating the numbers withoutpaying attention to the units of measure. Sem-Calc requires that the student attend to the unitsfirst before doing the computation. SemCalccan be used by the teacher as an aid to teachingimportant mathematics concepts.

LOGO. Produced by several publishers.LOGO is a popular programming language be-ing used in schools, particularly at the elemen-tary level. Its capability includes turtle graphicswhich establishes a micro-world in which stu-dents can explore geometric and mathematicalconcepts such as angle, direction, geometricfigures, position, coordinates and patterns. Atthe same time, the programming helps to teachsequential thinking and problem solving skills.As a full programming language, it can be usedat higher levels of math as well. Because LOGOis a tool, its applications depend on the cur-riculum context in which it is employed.

The Puzzle of the Tacoma Narrows BridgeCollapse by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.This "software" is a videodisc that uses thebridge disaster as a means of studying wavemotion and resonance. The videodisc is de-signed for use with a programmable videodiscplayer. The software narrates the disaster us-ing archival film of the bridge oscillations andcollapse. Students can manipulate the variables(wind speed and gust frequency) to study theproperties of waves and how specific kinds ofwaves caused the bridge to collapse. Three levelsof difficulty may be selected to accommodatedifferent ability levels of students.

The Factory: Strategies in Problem Solvingby Sunburst CommunicationsThis program helps students develop inductivethinking skills and problem solving strategiesby having them create geometric products onan assembly line that they design. Students areassisted in analyzing a process, determining se-quence, and applying creativity.

DemoGraphies by ConduitThis is a population program which includesa database of 1980 census data for about fortycountries, categorized by age groups. Using theprogram, students can investigate the conse-quences of the current population variables(fertility rates, life expectancies and infant-childmortality) for any country. Students can alsoinvestigate the changes that could be broughtabout through changes in these variables over

20

time. The software provides a powerful toolfor use in social studies and biology.

Green Globs by ConduitThis mathematics software program promotesan understanding of the visual representationof equations. To "destroy" green globs scat-tered on a set of coordinate axes, students mustdevelop equations which will have lines passthrough the globs.

Rocky's Boots by The Learning CompanyThis game software allows students to buildlogic machines using traditional logic symbols.The machine is then operated in a game wherethe winner gets the most points for "booting"characters. The game helps develop anunderstanding of circuitry and logic.

Without making judgments on the quality of thesesoftware programs, it is apparent that they repre-sent a diverse array of tools that can help supportrevitalizing the teaching of science and mathematics.They provide this support by assisting with conceptdevelopment or by making more efficient the learn-ing of material that is best done through experimen-tation. These programs are representative of a largerbody of software that moves away from the morecommon drill and practice to a focus on the develop-ment of higher order concepts and skills.

General Purpose Tool SoftwareThere are a number of general purpose tool pro-grams which offer great potential for math andscience teaching. The most common categories ofthese are described here.

Graphing programs. These programs allowstudents to look at functions, move themaround, change the scale, zero in on particularparts of the graph such as a point of intersec-tion or a root, to find the slope, and to ex-trapolate to much greater values. Most of thisprovides opportunities for exploration andlearning that previously have not been availablebecause of the excessive labor to do these thingswith pencil and paper.

Data collection and analysis. Collection of datausing probes connected directly to the computeris now possible, with display in tabular or real-time graphical format. Students can monitorand plot temperature changes, chemical reac-tions, and similar phenomena and analyze anddisplay the data for science reports andpresentations.

39

Statistical packages. This software makes itpossible to analyze real data. Students canorganize and code data and compute statistics.

Equation manipulation. A number of softwarepackages are coming on the market which workwith abstract variables rather than concretenumbers, making it possible to manipulategeneral equations rather than just numbers.

Filing programs and database programs. Thissoftware provides the capability to collect,store, sort, and retrieve data which could becollected in the lab or from the environment,and could become a database of informationadded to by students over time.

Electronic Spreadsheets. This software, ofwhich VisiCstIc is the most commonly known,allows students to store data and the relationsbetween them in order to study the conse-quences of modifying either the data or therelations.

The following software programs are representativeof the general purpose software which can be usedin science and mathematics.

Experiments in Science by HRM Software(similar packages are available from the Cam-bridge Development Laboratory).This software package is a series of programsthat enable students to use the computer to con-duct experiments in biology, physics, chemistry,and earth and planetary science. The packagealso contains hardware that allows the com-puter to directly monitor experiments, andmeasure and plot data. Experiments can be con-ducted in such areas as reaction kinetics,kinematics, reaction times, and evaporationand humidity.

Electronic Blackboard Series: Algebra andTrigonometry by Wadsworth ElectronicPublishingThese graphing tools can be used to create andcompare a wide range of functions studied inalgebra and trigonometry. By using the com-puter to generate graphs quickly and accurate-ly, students can focus on the mathematics ratherthan on drawing skills. Scores of graphs canbe developed as students experiment with dif-ferent equations, deriving the generalizationsthat &Le the essence of the lesson. In addition,the software provides tutorial material directedto the experiments.

TKI Solver by Software ArtsThis software tool is intended for use in solving problems involving mathematical calcula

21

tions and analysis. Developed for engineers,scientists, and businessmen as a "word proc-essor" for numbers, the software solves equa-tions, converts units of measurement, plotsgraphs, and makes tables. Application packshave been created for mechanical engineering,building design and construction, financialmanagement, and introductory science. Thelast of these provides formulas for such sub-jects as population growth, chemical equations,gas laws, waves, and acids and bases. It is ap-propriate for high school use.

These powerful tools offer exciting and innovativepotential for the teaching of math and science, bothin terms of how we teach and learn, and in termsof what we teach. This potential is largely unreal-ized at the moment, but is a particularly importantarea to keep in mind as one thinks of uses in thenear future. There appears to be a trend towarddeveloping templates or models for applying stand-ard tool programs, such as Tia Solver. Suchtemplates will make it easier for teachers to applyspreadsheet, graphics, and database managementsoftware tools to problem solving in science andmathematics.

Curriculum ApplicationsTeachers have difficulty integrating software intotheir classroom activities. A large fraction of thesoftware is single topic, i.e., it is designed to ex-plicate a narrow group of ideas in a particulardiscipline or area. Because the set of single topicsoftware does not provide uniform coverage,teachers must be opportunistic at using softwarewhen and if it fits the material they want to cover.On the other hand, there are some comprehensivesoftware packages that cover a range of topics overan extended period. However, comprehensivepackages can be even more difficult to use in theclassroom because any given package may not ad-dress the topics the teacher wants to cover t: thereading level and concept level that is deemed ap-propriate for the particular group of students. Thevery size of these packages makes them difficultto review.

The use of microcomputers in mathematics is ad-vanced compared to its use in science. Mathematicsteachers tend to have brought the microcomputersinto middle and upper grade schools and tend tohave more microcomputers available for their use.However, many faculty in math, as well as in sciencehave only one or a few microcomputers accessibleto them, and thus tend to emphasize applicationssuch as demonstrations that require only a single

40

computer per class. Thus, the large number oftutorials and other applications that assume one ora few students per computer cannot readily be uti-lized by most faculty at this time.

It is not surprising that the most popular way thatmath and science teachers have for using computersinvolves no software at ali, but rather involvesteaching how to program in BASIC. This is prob-ably attributable in part to the fact that many mathand science instructors are unusually computerliterate and are called upon to teach computerprogramming courses. It also reflects the fact thatmany teachers feel that the most educationally soundway of using the microcomputer is to have studentssolve problems by doing their own programming.

The most significant impact of microcomputer soft-ware on education will be through the changes itboth requires and makes possible in the appropriatescope and sequence of topics covered in the schoolcurriculum. Experts argue that microcomputers per-mit less emphasis (and time) on certain topics cur-rently covered in the curriculum, and allow theearlier introduction of new ideas and new topicswhich heretofore have not been thought possibleto introduce. Experts argue that there can be muchless emphasis on arithmetic computation and onrote memorization. Plane geometry can be intro-duced much earlier and its important concepts canbe taught in far less time. The idea of proof bytheorem, which is often linked with geometry, canbe introduced in another context, making geometryitself more accessible. Numerical techniques thatare used to solve differential equations can be intro-duced as soon as students have completed theequivalent of a first-year course in algebra, longbefore they know what a derivative is.

In the space created by these changes, a numberof additional topics can be covered. The concep-tual basis of much of high school science can beintroduced starting in the fourth grade withmicrocomputer-based laboratories. High schoolstudents can solve college-level problems usingnumerical techniques. Students can be introducedthrough the computer to psychology, physiology,perception, nutrition, health, oceanography,geophysics, and many other topics.

These proposed changes in science and mathematicscurricula can take place without the computer, butit is unlikely that the impact of such curriculumrevitalization will be fully realized without supportfrom new learning technologies. It is less clear howthe existing curriculum is to be transformed overtime to realize the scenario depicted by the futurists,but pockets of innovation are springing up through-

22

out the country, providing some insights. Thefollowing program descriptions focus on some ofthese pockets.

One source of information about exemplary educa-tional programs employing computer technology isthe National Diffusion Network. The NDN pro-vides resources to exemplary projects so that theymay help other school districts adopt these new prac-tices. The NDN has several technology programsin mathematics.

Computer Assisted Instruction MerrimackEducation Center

Merrimack Education CenterTechnology Lighthouse101 Mill RoadChelmsford, MA 01824(617) 256-3985This program uses CAI software developed bythe Computer Curriculum Corporation to sup-plement basic skills instruction in readirg,mathematics, and language arts at grades 6-9.

Utilizing Computer-Assisted Instruction inTeaching Secondary Mathematics

Asbury Park Board of Education1506 Park AvenueAsbury Park, NJ 07712(201) 774-0888This program uses CAI software to improvestudent achievement in mathematics.Computer-based instruction is used in teachingalgebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, andapplied mathematics.

Individualized Prescriptive Arithmetic SkillsSystem (IPASS)

Pawtucket School DepartmentPark PlacePawtucket, RI 02860(401) 728-2120IPASS employs computers and specially de-signed software as an integral part of both in-struction and student performance manage-ment in a compensatory education setting atgrades 5 and 6.

In addition to these nationally validated computerinstruction programs, the following projects canserve as sources of materials and ideas.

Microcomputer Curriculum ProjectPrice Laboratory SchoolUniversity of Northern IowaCedar Falls, IA 50613(319) 273-2548This non-profit project provides l. urriulum integrated mathematics soft ware in a wide rangeof topics for grades 5-12.

41

TABS-MATH 'Ohio State University1945 N. High StreetColumbus, OH 43210(614) 422-3449

This project is developing software for elemen-tary grade mathematics in such areas as intuitivegeometry, probability, statistics, and estima-tion. Supplementary curriculum materials alsoare being developed.

A source of descriptions of additional projectsdeveloping and using science and mathematics soft-ware is:

23

Microcomputer Directory: Applications inEducational Settings

Monroe C. Gutman LibraryHarvard University Graduate School of

EducationAppian WayCambridge, MA 02139

National Diffusion Network1200-19th Street, NWWashington, DC 20208(202) 653-7000

(12

OFECTIVENESS: WHATTHE RESEARCH SAYS

Little is known About the appropriate educationallevels for the introduction _of some of the ideasdiscussed above about using the computer. Someanecdotal evidence indicates that well designed soft-% are has the ability to make some very abstract ideasquite concrete and accessible at much earlier stagesof intellectual development than was ever previously thought possible.

While there are a large number of software titlesbeing produced, there is a need for much more soft-ware, particularly programs that focus on problem-solving skills and allow students to undertake theirown investigations. There is an urgent need forresearch on computer-medialcd science and mathlearning. Much of the available software does nothave a theoretical basis. It is difficult to knowwhether the software is even effective, and muchmore difficult to know what learner characteristicsare necessary for its effectiveness. Research is neededon exactly how radical a departure from the tradi-tional math and science curricula is possible withmicrocomputers.

Unfortunately, only a minority of the softwareavailable today is truly revolutionary, in the sensethat it permits students to learn substantially more,earlier, with greater ease, and in far different waysthan other approaches. It may even be unreasonableto expect a technology to be revolutionary, as thispins hope on a technological "fix" and ignores thecontinuing problems schools face.

24

Research tends to indicate that drill and practiceand tutorial software does lead to faster and, par-ticularly in remedial applications, better learning.The positiv e impact, however, is not uniform acrossstudent types, as is true of all instruction material,there is a strong student-software interaction whichdetermines effectiveness. Much of the research thatsupports these conclusions is based upon mainframecomputers communicating with teletypes, a modewhich is much less attractive than the current genera-tion of microcomputer-based software that usesgraphics, animation, and quick interaction. Thus,we expect that explicit instructional materialsprepared today with the best software would per-form even better in terms of reduced time on taskand increased achievement.

Software of this sort can address process-orientedgoals, such as problem-solving and scientific think-ing, as well as giving students an increasedunderstanding of math and science topics. It is dif-ficult to definitively establish the effectiveness ofthis kind of software because it is both hard to com-pare with other approaches, and hard to measureprocess goals. However, there is some evidence andconsiderable expert opinion that attest to the valueof well designed software of this kind. As indicatedpreviously, however, the quality of the software isonly one factor. If the curriculum is poorly designed,good quality software will have limited effectivenessin bringing about the kind of learning that the na-tional curriculum reports are recommending.

43

*

e

SUMMARY

The impetus to revitalize science and mathematicsteaching in elementary and secondary schools is in-creasing. Not only is there public interest and sup-port, educators agree that changes need to be made.The content of those changes, however, is the subjectof considerable discussion and some disagreement.The consensus is that new learning technologies,particularly microcomputers, are an undisputed partof such a revitalization. In "Science Education: TheSearch for a New Vision," Paul De Hart Hurd tellsus that science and technology are usually addressedas two distinct fields, while in industry it is their"marriage" which has resulted in the technologicalsociety that we have today. The society of tomor-row will be more technologically integrated than

25

today, in ways that we cannot even predict, but waysthat today's students will design.

To accomplish their work, students will needknowledge that the computer can provide throughdrill and practice, tutorial and simulation software.More important, however, the computer will be thetool through which the future is developed and lived.Science and mathematics instruction can be revital-ized by the use of the computer, but only if therevitalization begins with a reconceptualization ofwhat science and mathematics students must masterin order to pursue further learning and careers inan increasingly technological world.

44

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Science and Mathematics Curricula

Campbell, Patricia and Johnson, Martin. "Computation is Not Enough." Principal, Volume 63, Num-ber 2, November, 1983.

Derringer, Dorothy. "Building Better Math Education." Classroom Computer News, Volume ,., Num-ber 2, November/December, 1981.

Devaney, Kathleen. "Math Beyond Computation." Educational Leadership, Volume 41, Number 4,December, 1983/January, :984.

Educating Americans for the 21st Century. A Report to the American People and the National ScienceBoard by the National CommissiGn on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology.September, 1983.

Gall, Meredith. "Instructional Pelicy Issues in Mathematics Education." Educational Leadership, Vol-ume 41, Number 4, December, 1983/January, 1984.

Hurd, Paul De Hart. "Science Education. The Search for a New Vision." Educational Leadership. Vol-ume 41, Number 4, December, 1983/January, 1984.

"Mathematical and Scientific Literacy for the High Tech Society." Educational Leadership, Volume 41,Number 4, December, :983/January, 1984. The issue is devoted to science and mathematics cur-ricula. Selected articles from this issue are cited elsewhere in this bibliography.

Willoughby, Stephen S. "Mathematics for 21st Century Citizens." Educational Leadership, Volume 41,Number 4, December, 1983/January, 1984.

Software/Hardware Reviews

Carter, Ricky. "The Beginner's Guide to LOGO." Classroom Computer News, Volume 3, Number 5,April, 1983.

26 45

e

vo

Dyrli, Odvard Egil. "Science Software in High-Button Shols." Classroom Computer Learning, Vol-ume 4, Number; 7, February, 1984.

Ford, Bruce, "Pixels and Pendulums." Classroom Computer News, Volume 3, Number 4, March, 1983.

Graef, Jean L. "The Computer Connection: Four Approaches to Microcomputer Laboratory Interfac-ing," The Science Teacher, Volume 50, Number 4, April, 1983.

O'Brien, Thomas. "Software of the Second-and-a-Half Kind." Classroom Computer Learning, Vol-ume 4, Number 2, September, 1983.

Tinker, Robert F. "New Dimensions in Math and Science Software." Classroom Computer News, Vol-ume 3, Number 4, March, 1983.

Wold, Allen. "What is a Programming Language?" Classroom Computer News, Volume 3, Number 5,April, 1983.

Software Applications

Becker, Larry. "The Timex/Sinclair As An Intelligent Lab Station Terminal." Hands On! Volume 6,Number 2, Summer, 1983.

Braun, Ludwig. "Microcomputers and Video Disc Systems: Magic Lamps for Educator. "Calculators/Computers Magazine, Volume 2, Number 1, January, 1978.

Carr, Claire and Everett Carr. "Teaching Astronomy with Computers." Sky and Telescope, February, 1980.

Dugdale, Sharon. "There's a Green Glob in Your Classroom." Classroom Computer News, Volume 3,Number 4, March, 1983.

Emmett, Ariel le. "Science Software Like Having an Einstein in the House." Personal Software, April,1984.

Farringer, L. Dwight. "The VIC-20 For Laboratory Interfacing." Hands On! Volume 6, Number 2, Sum-mer, 1983.

Graef, Jean L. Selecting and Using Microcomputers in Science Instruction, Waltham, MA. CambridgeDevelopment Laboratory, 1983.

Koetke, Walter. "Computers and The Mathematically Gifted." The Mathematics Teacher, Volume 76,Number 4, April, 1983.

O'Brien, Thomas. "Wasting New Technology on the Same Old Curriculum." Classroom Computer Learn-ing, Volume 4, Number 4, November/December, 1983.

Roberts, Nancy. "Introducing Computer Sim 4lation into the High School. An Applied Mathematics Cur-riculum." The Mathematics Teacher, Volume 74, Number 8, November, 1981.

Rossman, Michael. "How To Use the Computer in Science Class (And How Not To)." Classroom Com-puter Computer Learning, Volume 4, Number 7, February, 1984.

Tinker, Robert F. "The Decline and Fall of the High School Science Lab." Electronic Learning, Vol-ume 3, Number 5, February, 1984.

27 46