New Technologies in Pre-K to Grade 3 Needs … // New Technologies in Pre-K to Grade 3 Needs Assessment // HIGHLIGHTS page1 HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FINDINGS Methods for Communicating with

September 2011

New Technologies in Pre-K to Grade 3 Needs Assessment

Submitted to: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)

The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)

Submitted by: Betsy McCarthy, Ph.D.

Danielle YumolJohn Rice, Ph.D.

Jonathan Nakamoto, Ph.D. Armando Tafoya

Sara AtienzaLisa Michel

Sharon HerpinChris Harrison, Ed.D.Jennifer Mullin, Ph.D.

CONTENTS

Highlights of the Findings ............................................................................................... 1

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... 2Research Method ......................................................................................................................... 2

Needs Assessment 1: Methods for Communicating with Parents of PK-3 Children ...................................................................................................................... 3

Needs Assessment 2: Access to and Capacity for Interactive Whiteboard Technology in PK-3 Schools and Programs ............................................................. 3

Needs Assessment 3: Access to and Capacity for Other Technologies in PK–3 Schools and Programs ......................................................................................... 3

Findings ...........................................................................................................................................4

Findings About Methods for Communicating with Parents of PK-3 Children .................................................................................................................................4

Findings About Access to and Capacity for Interactive Whiteboard Technology in PK-3 Schools and Programs ............................................................. 5

Findings About Access to and Capacity for Other Technologies in PK-3 Schools and Programs ..........................................................................................6

Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 7

Interest in Using More Technology in PK-3 Classrooms ..................................... 8

Potential Areas for Content Development .............................................................. 8

Areas of Challenge ............................................................................................................9

Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 10

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 11Overview of the Study ...............................................................................................................11

Needs Assessment 1: Methods for Communicating with Parents of PK-3 Children .....................................................................................................................12

Needs Assessment 2: Access to and Capacity for Interactive Whiteboard Technology in PK-3 Schools and Programs ...................................12

Needs Assessment 3: Access to and Capacity for Other Technologies in PK-3 Schools and Programs ....................................................................................12

Method .............................................................................................................................14Recruitment.................................................................................................................................. 14

Data Collection Instruments and Methods ....................................................................... 16

Administrator Survey Data .......................................................................................... 16

Administrator Interviews ...............................................................................................17

Parent Survey Data ..........................................................................................................17

On-site Parent Interviews ..............................................................................................17

Teacher Survey Data .......................................................................................................17

Teacher Focus Groups ....................................................................................................18

Study Design and Analysis ..................................................................................................... 19

Findings ..........................................................................................................................20Methods for Working with Parents of PK-3 Children .................................................. 20

What types of communication technologies do parents in underserved communities use in their homes? Do they have access to computers, Internet, smartphones, iPhones, iPads, webcams, etc.? ................................... 20

What types of communication technologies are used in schools and programs for underserved students to inform parents about their children’s learning? Are these technologies used to inform parents about their children’s learning in literacy and math? .........................................22

What types of communication technologies are preferred by parents of underserved students in order to inform them about their children’s learning? .........................................................................................................26

How comfortable are parents of underserved students with webcams in their home, capturing an image of their child? ...............................................27

Summary ...........................................................................................................................27

Access to and Capacity for Interactive Whiteboard Technology in PK-3 Schools and Programs .............................................................................................................28

What are the barriers, facilitators, and opportunities for interactive whiteboard technology in public schools and after-school programs within underserved communiities? ..........................................................................28

What is the penetration of interactive whiteboard technology in public schools and after-school programs with underserved students? .. 30

What kind of products are currently used with the interactive whiteboard technology in schools and after-school programs with underserved students? ............................................................................................... 30

What types of products would be useful for PBS to develop to use with interactive whiteboard technology in schools and after-school programs with underserved students? ..................................................................32

Summary ............................................................................................................................33

Access to and Capacity for Other Technologies in PK-3 Schools and Programs ............................................................................................................................. 34

What technologies do classrooms and programs in underserved schools have access to? Do they have access to computers, Internet, iPads, iPhones, or other interactive educational technologies? .................... 34

How do these classrooms and programs acquire or fund these technologies? Do they receive grants or donations? If so, from what source(s)? ...........................................................................................................................38

Are the computers and other technologies used by teachers and students adequate and/or in good working condition? ..................................39

In these schools and programs, is there a tolerance for students using interactive technologies such as smartphones, iPods, and/or iPads? ...................................................................................................................42

Are there protocols for students regarding accessing wireless Internet and/or video streaming? ............................................................................ 44

Do these sites use webcams? Do these sites consider webcams an intrusion of privacy? ...................................................................................................... 44

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 45

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................46Interest in Using More Technology in PK-3 Classrooms ............................................ 46

Potential Areas for Content Development ........................................................................47

Products for Interactive Whiteboards and Classroom Computers ...............47

Products with Webcam Features .............................................................................47

Products that Utilize Progress Tracking .................................................................47

Communicating with Parents to Support Student Learning ......................... 48

Areas of Challenge ................................................................................................................... 48

Reaching the Lowest-Income Parents and Schools ........................................... 48

Introducing Digital Products in the Preschool Environment .......................... 48

Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 49

L IST OF EXH IB ITSExhibit 1: Participating District Demographic Information .................................................15

Exhibit 2: Data Collection Methods Used ................................................................................ 16

Exhibit 3: Overview of Data Collection ......................................................................................18

Exhibit 4: Percentage of Parents Reporting Access to Communication Technologies in the Home ..............................................................................................................21

Exhibit 5: Percentage of Parents who Reported Schools and Out-of-School Time Groups Used Selected Methods to Communicate with Them about Their Children’s Learning ..........................................................................................................................23

Exhibit 6: Administrator and Teacher Ratings of the Effectiveness of Methods Teachers Used to Communicate with Parents about Students’ Learning ....................24

Exhibit 7: Percentage of Parents who Preferred Selected Methods to Receive Information about Their Children’s Learning ..........................................................................26

Exhibit 8: Parents’ Comfort Level with Their Children Using Webcams at Home ....27

Exhibit 9: Availability of Interactive Whiteboard Technology in Schools as Reported by Teachers and Administrators .............................................................................28

Exhibit 10: Teacher and Administrator Reported Barriers to Interactive Whiteboard Technology ................................................................................................................29

Exhibit 11: Administrator Reported Types of Products Currently Used with Interactive Whiteboard Technology ...........................................................................................31

Exhibit 12: Teacher Reported Usefulness of Technology Products for the Classroom ...................................................................................................................................32

Exhibit 13: Availability of Technology Tools in Schools as Reported by Teachers and Administrators ..........................................................................................................................35

Exhibit 14: Teachers’ Use of Technology to Deliver Literacy and Mathematics Curricula as Reported by Teachers and Administrators .....................................................38

Exhibit 15: Administrator Reports of the Sources of Funds Used for Technology Purchases ............................................................................................................................................39

Exhibit 16: Reliability of Technology Used in Classrooms as Reported by Teachers and Administrators ......................................................................................................40

Exhibit 17: Condition of the Computers in Selected Areas of Schools as Reported by Teachers and Administrators .............................................................................42

Exhibit 18: Allowed Access of Students to Technology Tools in the Schools as Reported by Administrators .................................................................................................. 43

Exhibit 19: Guidelines and/or Procedures and Restrictions on Video Streaming as Reported by Administrators .................................................................................................. 44

Exhibit 20: Reasons Why Teachers Do Not Have Access to Webcams as Reported by Teachers and Administrators ............................................................................ 45

page1WestEd // New Technologies in Pre-K to Grade 3 Needs Assessment // HIGHLIGHTSWestEd // New Technologies in Pre-K to Grade 3 Needs Assessment // HIGHLIGHTS

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FINDINGSMethods for Communicating with Parents of PK-3 Children: » About half of parents surveyed reported access to desktop computers and laptops in

their homes, as well as access to the Internet (including high-speed and wireless connec-tions) and text messaging.

» Less than half of parents surveyed reported access in their homes to smartphones, webcams, iPod Touches, or iPads.

» Email, websites, and online gradebooks were reported by teachers and parents to be fairly effective in communicating with parents about student learning.

» Parents reported not being comfortable with their children using webcams in their homes. However, if parents were informed that webcams would be used for educational purposes, they would be more amenable to their use in the home.

Access to and Capacity for Interactive Whiteboard (IWB) Technology in PK-3 Schools and

Programs: » Though participants reported limited access to IWBs, a majority of participants reported

plans to obtain IWBs in the near future.

» For all groups surveyed, there is a strong interest in standards-aligned curricular prod-ucts designed for the IWB.

» Barriers to IWB use include: lack of teacher expertise with the technology, lack of tech-nical support from the school, poor Internet connectivity, and limited curricular materials and tools for children from preschool to 3rd grade.

» Preschool teachers were much less likely to have access to IWB technology than non-preschool teachers.

Access to and Capacity for Other Technologies in PK-3 Schools and Programs: » Laptop and desktop computers and high-speed Internet are the most readily available

technologies in participating schools.

» Technologies such as iPads, webcams, and tablet PCs are often not available to schools due to fiscal constraints.

» Wireless technology is often unreliable or not available in study classrooms.

» Teachers reported that the majority of the technology in their classrooms was only in fair condition and that the equipment was often unreliable.

» Preschool classrooms have much lower access to nearly all technologies than non-preschool classrooms. Less than one quarter of preschool classrooms have laptop or desktop computers and/or high-speed Internet access. Only 6% of preschool classroom have wireless Internet access.

page2WestEd // New Technologies in Pre-K to Grade 3 Needs Assessment // EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis report describes three comprehensive needs assessments that were conducted to deter-

mine (1) the readiness of underserved preschools, K-3 classrooms, and out-of-school time

programs to implement interactive educational technologies on a variety of platforms, and

(2) the readiness of these programs to communicate with parents and guardians about their

children’s academic progress using technology. The study is part of WestEd’s larger Ready to

Learn evaluation activities for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and the Public

Broadcasting Service (PBS). Funded by the U.S. Department of Education, the CPB/PBS Ready

to Learn grant supports the development of educational digital media targeted at preschool

and early elementary school children and their families. Its overarching goal is to promote early

learning and school readiness, with a particular interest in reaching children from low-income

families. Data were collected from parents, teachers, and non-teaching district and school staff

(e.g., principals, IT coordinators, and curriculum and instruction specialists) throughout the

United States using surveys, semi-structured interviews, and focus groups. Data were col-

lected in order to measure the capacity and interests of participants with regard to educational

technologies such as computers, interactive whiteboards (IWB), iPads, and iPods, as well as

digital content for these devices. Data were analyzed to better understand the capacity of

both schools and out-of-school-time programs to support these technologies. The results of

the needs assessments are intended to inform the work of CPB and PBS as they plan product

creation, including digital media for low-income schools and families. The focus areas of the

needs assessments are: 1) methods for communicating with parents of PK-3 children, 2) access

to and capacity for interactive whiteboard technology in PK-3 education settings, and 3) access

to and capacity for other technologies in PK-3 education settings. The study took place from

May to September 2011.

RESEARCH METHODResearchers implemented a mixed methods design for each of the three needs assessments.

Participant surveys, interview protocols, and focus group protocols were created based on

research questions for each needs assessment. Specific research questions for each needs

assessment are listed below.


NEEDS ASSESSMENT 1 : METHODS FOR COMMUNICATING WITH

PARENTS OF PK-3 CHILDREN

1. What types of communication technologies do parents in underserved communities use in their homes? Do they have access to computers, Internet, smartphones, iPhones, iPads, webcams, etc.?

2. What types of communication technologies are used in schools and programs for under-served students to inform parents about their children’s learning? Are these technologies used to inform parents about their children’s learning in literacy and mathematics?

3. What types of communication technologies are preferred by parents of underserved students in order to inform them about their children’s learning?

4. How comfortable are parents of underserved students with webcams in their home, capturing an image of their child?

NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2: ACCESS TO AND CAPACITY FOR INTERACTIVE

WHITEBOARD TECHNOLOGY IN PK-3 SCHOOLS AND PROGRAMS

1. What are the barriers, facilitators and opportunities for interactive whiteboard tech-nology in preschools, elementary schools and after-school programs with underserved students?

2. What is penetration of interactive whiteboard technology in preschools, elementary schools and after-school programs with underserved students?

3. What kinds of products are currently used with the interactive whiteboard technology in preschools, elementary schools and after-school programs with underserved students?

4. What types of products would be useful for PBS to develop to use with the interactive whiteboard technology in preschools, elementary schools and after-school programs with underserved students?

NEEDS ASSESSMENT 3 : ACCESS TO AND CAPACITY FOR OTHER

TECHNOLOGIES IN PK-3 SCHOOLS AND PROGRAMS

1. To what technologies do classrooms and programs in underserved schools have access? Do they have access to computers, Internet, interactive whiteboards, iPads, iPhones, or other interactive educational technologies?

2. How do these classrooms and programs acquire or fund these technologies? Do they receive grants or donations? If so, from what source(s)?

3. Do teachers and students have ample access to computers and other technologies? Are these devices and technologies adequate and/or in good working condition?

4. Are some classrooms skipping over computers and moving directly to iPods or iPads?

5. In these schools and programs, is there a tolerance for students using interactive tech-nologies such as smartphones, iPods, and/or iPads?


6. Do these sites allow students to access wireless Internet and/or video streaming? If so, is there a protocol for students accessing these technologies?

7. Do these sites use webcams? Do these sites consider webcams an intrusion of privacy?

Participants in the study included 65 teachers, 75 administrators and district staff, and over 400

parents from small, medium, and large school districts with preschools, elementary schools, and

out-of-school-time programs that provided instruction for PK-3 students. Participants were from

public and charter schools in rural, suburban, and urban areas in the following states: Arizona,

Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island,

Tennessee, and Utah.1

Data collection included: 1) a parent survey addressing technology access and use, current

methods of communication with schools, and preferred methods of communication; 2) a teacher

survey addressing availability and reliability of technology in the classroom, school guidelines

regarding technology, barriers to use of technology in the classroom, and communication with

parents; 3) an administrator survey (modeled on the teacher survey and addressing similar

issues); 4) teacher focus groups addressing use of technology in the classroom, barriers, and

resources; 5) administrator interviews addressing access to technology, district policies, and

funding; and 6) informal parent interviews focused on communication with school and after-

school programs, as well as access to and use of technology in the home.

F IND INGSThe findings include data from the parent, administrator, and teacher surveys, as well as data

from participant interviews and focus groups. Highlighted findings are presented below, in

relationship to the study’s research questions.

F INDINGS ABOUT METHODS FOR COMMUNICATING WITH PARENTS

OF PK-3 CHILDREN

1. What types of communication technologies do parents in underserved communities use in their homes? Do they have access to computers, Internet, smartphones, iPhones, iPads, webcams, etc.?

— Cell phones and phones with the ability to text message are by far the most popular technologies present in the home.

— Only about half of the parents surveyed reported access to desktop and laptop computers in their homes as well as access to the Internet (including high speed and wireless).

1 Though the primary purpose of these needs assessments are to inform PBS and CBP as they plan product creation, the nationwide sample allows the reader to make some assumption that trends identified here may be generalizable.


— Less than one-third of parents surveyed reported they had access in the home to smartphones and webcams, and even fewer parents reported they had access to iPod Touches, or iPads.

2. What types of communication technologies are used in schools and programs for under-served students to inform parents about their children’s learning? Are these technologies used to inform parents about their children’s learning in literacy and math?

— Non-technologically based methods of communication such as flyers sent home, the U.S. mail, and voicemail are still the most popularly used methods for schools and programs with underserved students to inform parents about their children’s learning.

— Nearly one-third (33%) of parents indicated that schools used email to inform them about their children’s learning, and 25% of parents reported that schools used online gradebooks.

— Email, websites, and online gradebooks were reported by teachers and parents to be fairly effective in communicating with parents about student learning.

— About half (45%-53%) of both teachers and administrators surveyed reported that texting is not used as a means for communicating about student learning.

— Educators reported that use of texting to communicate with parents about student progress is not particularly effective.


— Flyers sent home with their children (62%) and email (60%) were the two most commonly preferred methods reported by parents to receive updates on their children’s learning progress.

— Nearly one-third (32%) of the parents reported that they wanted to receive updates on their children’s learning via an online gradebook.


— Parents reported not being comfortable with their children using webcams in the home. However, if parents were told webcams would be used for educational purposes, they were more amenable to their use.

F INDINGS ABOUT ACCESS TO AND CAPACITY FOR INTERACTIVE


1. What are the barriers, facilitators and opportunities for interactive whiteboard tech-nology in public schools and after-school programs with underserved students?

— Barriers to interactive whiteboard use include lack of teacher expertise in using whiteboards, lack of technical support, poor Internet connectivity, and limited curricular materials and tools for children from preschool to 3rd grade.

— Though participants reported limited access to interactive whiteboards, a majority of participants reported plans to obtain boards in the near future.


2. What is penetration of interactive whiteboard technology in preschools, public schools, and after-school programs with underserved students?

— Preschool teachers were much less likely to have access to interactive white-board technology (67% did not have access) than non-preschool teachers (27% did not have access).

— 85% of administrators indicated that whiteboard technology was used by at least one of the teachers in their district or school.

3. What kinds of products are currently used with the interactive whiteboard technology in schools and after-school programs with underserved students?

— Administrators reported that the most commonly used products with the interac-tive whiteboard technology were various software programs such as Microsoft Office, Treasures, AVERPEN, Utips, and Spelling City, followed closely by Internet websites, such as streaming videos from Discovery Education.

— Teachers reported that they used programs on the interactive whiteboards that were tied to curricula, such as Plato, Read180, and Accelerated Reader.

— Preschool teachers’ survey responses differed markedly from those of non-pre-school teachers. Preschool teachers were less likely to rate educational products for interactive whiteboards as useful and were much more likely to mark “don’t know” when asked about the usefulness of educational products for interactive whiteboards.

4. What types of products would be useful for PBS to develop to use with the interactive whiteboard technology in schools and after-school programs with underserved students?

— For all groups surveyed, there is a strong interest in curricular products for the interactive whiteboard that are standards-aligned.

F INDINGS ABOUT ACCESS TO AND CAPACITY FOR OTHER



— Laptop and desktop computers and high speed Internet are the most readily available technologies in study schools.

— Technologies such as iPads, webcams, and tablet PCs are often not available to schools due to fiscal constraints.


— Title I (Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged) was the most commonly reported source of funding for these technologies, mentioned by more than 10% of administrators. Small grants (usually less than $5000) from local organizations were also noted by about 10% of administrators. Ten percent


of teachers noted that they often supplement technology funds with their own money or personal fundraising efforts.

— Other funding sources reported by at least 5% of administrators were: 21st Century Community Learning Center Grants, School Improvement Grants, grants from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and larger foundations such as the Skillman Foundation and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation.

3. Do teachers and students have ample access to computers and other technologies? Are these devices and technologies adequate and/or in good working condition?

— Teachers reported that the majority of the technology in their classrooms was only in fair condition and that the equipment was often unreliable.

— Preschool classrooms have much lower access to nearly all technologies than non-preschool classrooms. Less than one-quarter of preschool classrooms have laptop or desktop computers and/or high speed Internet access. Only 6% have wireless Internet access.


— Administrators most commonly reported that iPods, and/or iPads were not accessible to students.


— There is some evidence that there is a tolerance for students using interactive technologies for educational purposes.


— Wireless technology is often unreliable or not available in study classrooms.

— 33% of administrators reported that there were protocols for students accessing video streaming.


— 45% of administrators reported that teachers in their schools and districts had access to webcams in their classrooms.

— Security or privacy concerns were the second most commonly identified reason (after lack of funds) for webcams not being considered an important or useful teaching tool.

CONCLUSIONSThe results of the needs assessments suggest that there is a strong interest in using technology

in PK-3 classrooms. Additionally, results identify potential areas for effectively developing

educational digital content for low-income schools and families. At the same time, there are still

enormous challenges to reaching parents, teachers, and students in underserved communities.


INTEREST IN USING MORE TECHNOLOGY IN PK-3 CLASSROOMS

Findings show that there is a strong interest for more use of technology in PK-3 classrooms.

Teachers and administrators reported that digital curricula are engaging and effective.

Administrators reported district and school plans to purchase more technology in the near

future, and indicated the need for PK-3 digital curriculum and tools. There is a strong desire for

these products, and the current study suggests that this desire will continue to grow.

POTENTIAL AREAS FOR CONTENT DEVELOPMENT

The results suggest that there are particular areas of opportunity that can be targeted by PBS

for product development. These include: products for the interactive whiteboard and classroom

computers, products with webcam features, products that utilize progress tracking, and strate-

gies for using technology to communicate with parents of PK-3 children.

Products for Interactive Whiteboard and Classroom Computers

Teachers and administrators were very interested in standards-aligned content for the interac-

tive whiteboard. These respondents indicated that there is a strong need for PK-3 curricular

content and tools for interactive whiteboards. Though not a particular focus of the needs assess-

ments, educators also mentioned that many of the products for the interactive whiteboard (e.g.,

Plato, Read180) also had components for classroom computers. They mentioned that they liked

having complementary content for each device. In addition, 76% of administrators mentioned

that their districts and schools have plans to purchase interactive whiteboards in the near future.

These findings suggest that products created for the interactive whiteboard would be well

received in low-income schools.

Products with Webcam Features

Though many schools and districts have some restrictions on webcam use and parents indicated

some reservations about their use, there is a strong interest in the use of webcams for learning

academic content. Findings indicate that as long as webcams are used for educational purposes,

schools and families are open to using them. About half of elementary schools and one-third of

families indicated they had access to webcams. As technology products are updated in coming

years, these percentages are expected to rise. Products with webcam features would most likely

be used in many low-income schools and homes in future years.

Products That Uti l ize Progress Tracking

Though the topic of progress tracking was not specifically targeted in the study, it did come

up in numerous focus groups and interviews. Elementary school teachers and administrators

mentioned that they had some experience with progress tracking in other digital products, and

they felt the concept held great promise. Many elementary school teachers and administrators


understand that one benefit of digital curricula and tools is that valuable data can be collected

from students while products are being used. Many teachers and administrators had used prod-

ucts in which individual student data had been extracted and they reported that this feature was

useful. Products with progress tracking may be welcomed at some schools.

Communicating with Parents to Support Student Learning

Though the study found that low-income parents often had limited access to technology, many

are finding ways to communicate with their schools using technology. Teachers reported that

they found online gradebooks and teacher-created class websites to be effective ways to com-

municate with parents. Teachers report that though parents may not have computers or access

to the Internet in their home, parents might visit the library or use school computers to check

these webpages. Some parents reported having access to the Internet via their phone rather

than a home computer. In focus groups, teachers reported that many parents used “pay as you

go” cell phones. Though these phones accepted text messages, parents often have to pay extra

for them. Therefore, teachers said that sending text messages was not always the best way to

communicate with the parents of their students. One point of entry for parent digital content

that supports student learning may be web-based content that parents can access via teacher

webpages, online gradebooks or mobile applications. Another strategy for reaching parents

may involve giving parents multiple options for accessing content, including web-based and

texting options.

AREAS OF CHALLENGE

The needs assessment study addressed needs in three areas: methods for communicating with

parents of PK-3 children, access to and capacity for interactive whiteboard technology in PK-3

education settings, and access to and capacity for other technologies in PK-3 education set-

tings. The findings suggest that tremendous challenges continue to exist in these three areas.

Particular challenges at the elementary school level are related to the capacity of parents and

schools to access digital media. Challenges at the preschool level involve access as well as ques-

tions about teacher capacity to effectively integrate digital media into instruction.

Reaching the Lowest- Income Parents and Schools

Equipment and connectivity continue to be a tremendous hurdle to technology use in low-

income schools and homes. About half the homes included in the study did not have access

to computers or high speed Internet. Elementary schools have more access to computers and

connection to the Internet, but their computers are often in poor condition and unreliable. In

addition, most low-income classrooms do not have access to interactive whiteboards, iPods or

iPads. In the near term, a large proportion of low-income schools and families will struggle to

access digital media.


Introducing Digita l Products in the Preschool Environment

The preschool age group currently poses particular challenges for producers seeking to provide

digital content for underserved students. Preschools in the study reported extremely low access

to technology, including computers and Internet access. Very few preschools had access to

technology other than computers. In addition, focus group data suggest that preschool teachers

are not familiar with the benefits of technology such as interactive whiteboards and iPads,

highlighting the need for ongoing professional development in this area. Preschool teachers also

indicated that they were less comfortable using various technologies compared to their elemen-

tary school colleagues.

RECOMMENDAT IONSThe following recommendations stem from the studies’ findings.

» Continue to study how low-income families access and use digital media.

» Pilot test methods of media delivery to low-income parents and high-need schools to ensure that content and delivery are amenable to the target populations.

» Explore methods to reach low-income classrooms that do not have reliable Internet connectivity.

» Continue to explore which types of interactive whiteboard curricula and tools are most desired by PK-3 teachers.

» Create guidelines for webcam use that can be used by schools and parents to help allay safety concerns associated with webcam use.

» Explore the use of online gradebooks to communicate with parents about their children’s learning.

» Pilot test early progress tracking models in low-income schools.

» Pilot test early models of communicating with low-income parents about their students’ learning. Consider using models that give parents multiple pathways to access informa-tion (e.g., email, online gradebooks and texting).

page11WestEd // New Technologies in Pre-K to Grade 3 Needs Assessment // INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

OVERVIEW OF THE STUDYThis report describes three comprehensive needs assessments that were conducted to deter-

mine (1) the readiness of underserved preschools, K-3 classrooms, and out-of-school time

programs to implement interactive educational technologies on a variety of platforms, and

(2) the readiness of these programs to communicate with parents and guardians about their

children’s academic progress using technology. The study is part of WestEd’s larger Ready to

Learn evaluation activities for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and the Public

Broadcasting Service (PBS). Funded by the U.S. Department of Education, the CPB/PBS Ready

to Learn grant supports the development of educational digital media targeted at preschool

and early elementary school children and their families. Its overarching goal is to promote early

learning and school readiness, with a particular interest in reaching children from low-income

families. Data were collected from parents, teachers,2 and non-teaching district and school

staff (e.g., principals, IT coordinators, and curriculum and instruction specialists)3 throughout

the United States using surveys, semi-structured interviews, and focus groups. Data were col-

lected in order to measure the capacity and interests of participants with regard to educational

technologies such as computers, interactive whiteboards (IWB), iPads, and iPods, as well as

digital content for these devices. Data were analyzed to better understand the capacity of

both schools and out-of-school-time programs to support these technologies. The results of

the needs assessments are intended to inform the work of CPB and PBS as they plan product

creation, including digital media for low-income schools and families. The focus areas of the

needs assessments are: 1) methods for communicating with parents of PK-3 children, 2) access

to and capacity for interactive whiteboard technology in PK-3 education settings, and 3) access

to and capacity for other technologies in PK-3 education settings. The study took place from

May to September 2011.

The study addressed research questions for each needs assessment.

2 Throughout this report, ‘teachers’ will refer to all teachers included in the study. Where there are discernible differences in the responses of teachers at the preschool level, we will refer to ‘preschool teachers’ and ‘non-preschool teachers’.

3 Throughout this report, this group of participants will be referred to as ‘administrators’.


NEEDS ASSESSMENT 1 : METHODS FOR COMMUNICATING WITH

PARENTS OF PK-3 CHILDREN

1. What types of communication technologies do parents in underserved communities use in their homes? Do they have access to computers, Internet, smartphones, iPhones, iPads, webcams, etc?

2. What types of communication technologies are used in schools and programs for under-served students to inform parents about their children’s learning? Are these technologies used to inform parents about their children’s learning in literacy and math?



NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2: ACCESS TO AND CAPACITY FOR INTERACTIVE


1. What are the barriers, facilitators and opportunities for interactive whiteboard tech-nology in preschools, elementary schools and after-school programs with underserved students?

2. What is penetration of interactive whiteboard technology in preschools, elementary schools and after-school programs with underserved students?

3. What kinds of products are currently used with the interactive whiteboard technology in preschools, elementary schools and after-school programs with underserved students?

4. What types of products would be useful for PBS to develop to use with the interactive whiteboard technology in preschools, elementary schools and after-school programs with underserved students?

NEEDS ASSESSMENT 3 : ACCESS TO AND CAPACITY FOR OTHER




3. Do teachers and students have ample access computers and other technologies? Are these devices and technologies adequate and/or in good working condition?






Participants in the study included 65 teachers, 75 administrators and district staff, and over

400 parents and were from small, medium, and large school districts, elementary schools,

preschools, and out-of-school-time programs. Data collection included: 1) a parent survey

addressing technology in the home, comfort with technology, current methods of communica-

tion with schools, and preferred methods of communication; 2) a teacher survey addressing

availability and reliability of technology in the classroom, school guidelines regarding tech-

nology, barriers to use of technology in the classroom, and communication with parents; 3) an

administrator survey (modeled on the teacher survey and addressing similar issues); 4) teacher

focus groups addressing use of technology in the classroom, barriers, and resources; 5) adminis-

trator interviews concerning access to technology, district policies, and funding; and 6) informal

parent interviews focused on communication with school and after-school programs, as well as

technology in the home.

page14WestEd // New Technologies in Pre-K to Grade 3 Needs Assessment // METHOD

METHODIn this section, we describe recruitment, study participation, data collection instruments, and

study design.

RECRU ITMENTThe recruitment process for the study took place from May to July 2011. WestEd researchers

contacted over 1800 district leaders, principals, teachers, and school staff across the United

States and asked them to either complete an online intake survey or pass the information along

to candidates appropriate for the study.4 District administrators, parents, school principals,

teachers, and non-teaching staff were chosen from WestEd’s extensive database of state, dis-

trict, and school contacts and were targeted for their work in schools that address the needs of

underserved students (including students of color, English language learners, and students from

low-income communities) in Pre-K through 3rd grade. A website was established to communi-

cate pertinent information to prospective participants of the study.

Over 400 teachers, district administrators, principals, program coordinators, and non-teaching

staff responded to WestEd’s invitation to participate in the study by completing an online pre-

screening survey. Prospective participants were screened for: access to parents of PK-3 stu-

dents, technological expertise, position type, awareness of educational needs of students, and

availability for a phone interview and/or focus group.

A total of 190 teachers and administrators from the pre-screening survey were selected as

participants for the needs assessment project. This sample of respondents included about

74% working with elementary schools, 26% working with preschools, and 9% working with

out-of-school-time programs. Almost half of the respondents to the pre-screening survey were

teachers. A little more than half of the pre-screening survey respondents included district

administrators (e.g., IT directors, early learning program directors, superintendents) and/or

non-teaching staff members (e.g., principals, vice-principals, after-school program directors/

coordinators, IT coordinators). Out of 190 respondents selected to participate in the project,

135 continued their participation in terms of completing surveys and/or participating in inter-

views or focus groups.

4 Study design and instruments were reviewed by WestEd’s IRB and determined that the research did not meet the federal regulatory definition of “research” (45 CFR 46.102[d]) and did not require formal IRB review.


Sites eligible to participate in this project were from small, medium, and large school districts,

elementary schools (including out-of-school-time programs), and preschools that provided

instruction to PK-3 students. Participants were from public and charter schools and districts

in rural, suburban and urban areas across the following states: Arizona, Arkansas, California,

Connecticut, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Utah.5

Teachers selected to participate in this project received a packet in the mail which included a

cover letter, 12 parent surveys with parent cover letters (in Spanish and English), address forms

for participating parents to receive an optional $15 Amazon gift card, and a stipend request form

(in the amount of $200) for the teacher. Teachers were also sent a notification email explaining

their participant tasks (which included identifying at least six parents to take the paper-based

parent survey) along with a web-link to complete the online teacher survey. In addition,

researchers visited two schools in low-income districts to collect parent surveys at the schools’

back-to-school nights. In all, 410 parents from low-income communities completed surveys.

District administrators and non-teaching staff received an email explaining their participant tasks

along with a web-link to complete the online administrator survey. Administrators and non-

teaching staff received a stipend (in the amount of $100) after completing their participant tasks.

Study districts were located throughout the United States and had diverse populations. Exhibit 1

illustrates a summary of location types and demographics of participating districts.

Exhibit 1: Participating District Demographic Information

Sites by Location Type(% of sites)

District Demographics (average %)

Urban 38% Ethnic/Racial Composition:

Suburban 6% Hispanic or Latino 24%

Rural 56% White 30%

Asian 2%

Black or African American 38%

American Indian/Alaskan 6%

Title I 93%

Participants in Free or Reduced-Price Lunch 65%

English Learners 16%

Note: n = 32.

5 Though the primary purpose of these needs assessments are to inform PBS and CBP as they plan product creation, the nationwide sample allows the reader to make some assumption that trends identified here may be generalizable.


DATA COLLECT ION INSTRUMENTS AND METHODSData collection efforts focused on three groups of informants: parents, teachers, and non-

teaching staff and administrators. The third group primarily included superintendents, principals,

IT staff, out-of-school-time program coordinators, and curriculum coordinators. Researchers

gathered data from participants through surveys, interviews, and focus groups. Exhibit 2 shows

what data collection methods were used with each group.

Exhibit 2: Data Collection Methods Used

Respondent Type SurveyFocus Group Interview

Parents n = 410 N/A n = 38

Teachers n = 62 n = 20 N/A

Non-teaching Staff/Administrators n = 75 N/A n = 14

Surveys, focus group protocols, and interview protocols were developed to address each of

the research questions for all three needs assessments. The parent survey and interview pro-

tocol contained items that addressed all of the research questions for the needs assessment on

methods of communicating with parents. The teacher survey and focus group protocol con-

tained items that addressed all of the research questions for the needs assessments on interac-

tive whiteboard technology and access to other technologies. Teacher protocols also included

items that addressed research questions about how schools and programs communicate with

parents. The non-teaching staff/administrator survey and interview protocol together contained

items that addressed all of the research questions for the needs assessments on communicating

with parents, interactive whiteboard technology and access to other technologies. Depending

on a respondent’s role, respondents to the non-teaching staff/administrator survey and non-

teaching staff/administrator interviewees provided responses on either the school, district, or

school and district levels.

ADMIN ISTRATOR SURVEY DATA

The administrator survey was administered online in August 2011. The survey addressed avail-

ability and reliability of technology tools in the classroom, policies and procedures for using

technology in schools, communicating with parents, and barriers to using technology in schools.

Seventy-three unique administrators completed the survey.


ADMIN ISTRATOR INTERVIEWS

Administrator interviews were conducted via telephone in August 2011. Each session lasted

approximately 45 minutes. The interview protocol consisted of questions on general technology

use in schools, interactive whiteboard use, district procedures for acquiring and deploying new

technology, and communicating with parents. This protocol was carefully aligned to the research

questions and the administrator survey, and was designed to complement the survey data with

more in-depth qualitative descriptions.

PARENT SURVEY DATA

The parent survey was administered in two phases to ensure a focus on the needs of low-income

families. Phase I consisted of asking teacher participants to select six parents from their class-

rooms to complete the survey on paper. The survey was available in both English and Spanish.

Phase I took place during June – July 2011. Three hundred fifty-six completed surveys were

collected during Phase I. Phase II consisted of distributing the survey at back-to-school nights

at two low-income schools in California. Teams of researchers went to two different elementary

schools and encouraged parents to complete the survey on paper while their children were

invited to play games from PBS on iPads and iPhones. Fifty-four completed surveys were col-

lected during Phase II. Thirteen percent of parents opted to complete their surveys in Spanish.

Parent surveys addressed what technologies parents had access to in the home as well as what

technologies parents felt comfortable using. In addition, parents were asked to indicate their

preferred method of communication about their children’s learning, and whether schools or

community groups currently communicate with them via technology.

ON-SITE PARENT INTERVIEWS

Additional qualitative data were collected during the Phase II administration of the parent

survey. Researchers attended back-to-school nights at two low-income schools and were avail-

able to assist parents in completing the survey. In addition, researchers informally interviewed

parents to gain additional insight on the uses of technology in the home and barriers to access.

TEACHER SURVEY DATA

The teacher survey was administered online in August 2011. The survey addressed availability

and reliability of technology tools in the classroom, policies and procedures for using technology

in the classroom, effective methods of communicating with parents, and barriers to using tech-

nology in the classroom.


TEACHER FOCUS GROUPS

Teacher focus groups were conducted via telephone in August 2011. Four focus groups were

convened, with a total of 20 participants. Each focus group lasted approximately one hour. The

focus group protocol consisted of questions on general technology use in schools, interactive

whiteboard use, and communicating with parents. This protocol was carefully aligned to the

research questions and the teacher survey, and was designed to complement the survey data

with more in-depth qualitative descriptions.

Exhibit 3 shows time frames for data collection for the needs assessments.

Exhibit 3: Overview of Data Collection

AUGUST 2011

Administrator Interviews

JULY – AUGUST 2011

Administrator SurveyParent SurveyTeacher Survey

SEPTEMBER 2011

On-site Parent Survey and InterviewsAdministrator

JUNE – JULY 2011

Participant Recruitment


STUDY DES IGN AND ANALYSISThe study implemented a mixed methods design, utilizing quantitative data (quantitative items

on surveys) and qualitative data (focus groups, interviews, and open-response items on surveys)

to address the research questions. Quantitative data were tabulated to create tables showing

percentage of responses for each survey item. Qualitative data analysis of interviews, focus

groups, and open-ended answers on the surveys used a two-step process. First, individual

transcripts of the interviews and focus groups, as well as open-ended items on the surveys, were

analyzed for themes. The themes were associated with at least one of the research questions

and used for the second step in the analysis. In the second step, the data were examined as part

of a cross-site analysis to determine the consistency of the identified themes across sites and to

corroborate findings salient to the study.

page20WestEd // New Technologies in Pre-K to Grade 3 Needs Assessment // FINDINGS

FINDINGS

METHODS FOR WORKING WITH PARENTS OF PK-3 CH ILDREN The findings are divided into three main sections. The first section of findings pertains to schools

using technology to communicate with parents of children in preschool to 3rd grade.6 The

second set of findings is concerned with access to capacity for interactive whiteboard tech-

nology in schools and programs that serve students in preschool through 3rd grade. Findings

about access to and capacity for technologies other than interactive whiteboards in programs

and schools that serve children in preschool to 3rd grade are discussed in the third and final sec-

tion. All findings include data from the parent, administrator, or teacher surveys. Findings also

include data from participant interviews and focus groups.

WHAT TYPES OF COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES DO PARENTS

IN UNDERSERVED COMMUNIT IES USE IN THEIR HOMES? DO THEY

HAVE ACCESS TO COMPUTERS, INTERNET, SMARTPHONES, IPHONES,

IPADS, WEBCAMS, ETC.?

The types of communication technologies that parents in underserved communities used in

their homes are shown in Exhibit 4. Cell phones and phones with the ability to text message

were by far the most popular technologies present in the home. More than half of the parents

surveyed also reported that they had computers and access to high speed Internet. In contrast,

devices such as webcams, iPod Touches, and iPads were used by less than one-third of the

survey respondents. A small number of respondents reported having access to other technology

devices in their homes, which most often included gaming consoles, such as the Wii and Xbox

360, but MP3 players and e-readers (e.g., the Kindle) were also mentioned. The average number

of communication technologies identified by the parents was 5.8 (SD = 2.7) and the number

identified overall ranged from zero to 11.

6 The pattern of responses to study questions was similar for parents of preschool-aged children and parents of K-3 children. Therefore, results are collapsed across those two groups.


Exhibit 4: Percentage of Parents Reporting Access to Communication Technologies in the Home

Communication Technology % n

Cell phone 90% 371

Text messaging 82% 338

High speed Internet 60% 247

Desktop computer 55% 227

Laptop computer 52% 214

Wireless Internet 52% 214

Internet on cell phone 48% 198

Smartphone 32% 132

Webcam 29% 120

iPod Touch 18% 74

iPad 9% 37

Other 7% 29

Note: n = 410.

Parent and student access to communication devices was also discussed during the administrator

interviews and teacher focus groups, but only some of their beliefs corresponded to what was

reported by parents. For example, the consensus among administrators and teachers was that the

families in underserved communities had greater access to cellular phones compared to Internet

service in the home, which is reflected in the parent survey. However, few administrators believed

that parents in their communities had Internet-connected devices or Internet in the home despite

the fact that 60% and 52% of parents reported access to high speed Internet and wireless Internet

respectively. One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that some parents with limited

access to technology declined to take the parent survey. Researchers noticed this trend during

the data collection visits to low-income schools. Researchers found that when they asked parents

to complete a paper survey about technology, some parents (approximately 30%) would look

over the survey and indicate that they did not have any of the technology listed. As one parent

said, “We don’t have any of that.” These parents would hand the uncompleted survey back to the

researchers. Researchers noted that many of these parents preferred to speak Spanish. Spanish-

speaking researchers would often probe via informal interviews with these parents. Researchers

noted that there was a general sense of anxiety about not having access to the types of technology

asked about in the survey. A few parents inquired briefly about the cost of devices, such as the


iPad, and reacted with a laugh or a grimace. Survey data from Spanish-preference parents at the

two low-income schools visited by researchers show that this population may have less access to

technology than other parent respondents. Only 69% reported having access to cell phones (com-

pared to the overall sample’s 90%), 56% use text messaging (compared to 82%), 44% said they had

access to high speed Internet (compared to 60%), 19% report having access to wireless Internet

(compared to 52%), and 19% have laptops (compared to 52%). This evidence suggests that there

may be some bias in the parent survey data toward parents who have and use technology.

WHAT TYPES OF COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES ARE USED

IN SCHOOLS AND PROGRAMS FOR UNDERSERVED STUDENTS

TO INFORM PARENTS ABOUT THEIR CHILDREN’S LEARNING? ARE

THESE TECHNOLOGIES USED TO INFORM PARENTS ABOUT THEIR

CHILDREN’S LEARNING IN L ITERACY AND MATH?

The percentage of parents who reported that schools and out-of-school time groups used email,

text messaging, online gradebooks, voicemail, U.S. mail, and flyers sent home with children to

communicate with them about their children’s learning in reading/literacy and mathematics is

shown in Exhibit 5. Sending flyers home with children was the most commonly used way for

schools and out-of-school-time groups to inform parents about their children’s learning. In addi-

tion, 30-45% of parents reported that schools used U.S. mail and voicemail to communicate

with them about their children’s learning. In terms of Internet-based methods of communication,

nearly one third of parents indicated that schools used email to inform them about their children’s

learning. Furthermore, almost one quarter of the respondents reported that schools used online

gradebooks. Overall, the out-of-school-time groups used fewer methods to communicate with par-

ents about their children’s learning, which is likely a result of the non-academic focus of many of

the out-of-school-time groups. Nevertheless, 15-35% of parents indicated that out-of-school-time

groups used U.S. mail, email, and voicemail to communicate regarding their children’s learning.


Exhibit 5: Percentage of Parents who Reported Schools and Out-of-School Time Groups Used Selected Methods to Communicate with Them about Their Children’s Learning

EmailText

MessageOnline

Gradebook Voicemail U.S. Mail

Flyers Sent

Home with Child

SchoolsReading/literacy 33% 5% 23% 35% 45% 86%

Mathematics 32% 4% 23% 30% 41% 81%

Out-of-school-time groups

Reading/literacy 22% 6% 2% 17% 35% 58%

Mathematics 18% 4% 3% 15% 29% 52%

Note: n = 410.

The administrator and teacher ratings of the effectiveness of the methods teachers used to

communicate with parents about students’ learning progress are shown in Exhibit 6. Sending

flyers home with children was rated as moderately effective by the administrators. According

to administrators, phone/voicemail was the most effective method. Specifically, 53% of the

administrators rated phone/voicemail as “most effective.” Teachers also indicated that phone/

voicemail was one of the more effective methods they used. Internet-based methods of com-

munication, such as email messages and online gradebooks, were rated as moderately effective.

However, 24% of preschool teachers and 28% of non-preschool teachers did not use email mes-

sages, and 30% of administrators reported that teachers did not employ online gradebooks. In

addition, sizable portions of teachers did not use social networks, electronic newsletters, or text

messaging to communicate with parents about students’ learning.


Exhibit 6: Administrator and Teacher Ratings of the Effectiveness of Methods Teachers Used to Communicate with Parents about Students’ Learning

Not Effective

Moderately Effective

Most Effective Do Not Use

Email message

Administrator 1% 70% 18% 10%

Preschool Teachers 5% 38% 33% 24%

Non-Preschool Teachers 8% 40% 25% 28%

U.S. mail




Phone/Voicemail




Text messaging




Electronic newsletter




Social Network (Facebook, Twitter)




Online Gradebook


Preschool Teachers N/A N/A N/A N/A

Non-Preschool Teachers N/A N/A N/A N/A

Flyers sent home with child


Preschool Teachers N/A N/A N/A N/A

Non-Preschool Teachers N/A N/A N/A N/A

Note: Administrators, n = 72. Preschool Teachers, n = 22 and Non-Preschool Teachers, n = 40. Rows may not add to exactly 100% due to rounding.


The survey findings with regard to the communication technologies most used by schools and

programs were largely corroborated by the administrator interviews and teacher focus groups.

Administrators and teachers reported that schools and school districts utilized the traditional

method of newsletters and flyers to communicate with parents. A majority of administrators

and teachers also indicated that schools and districts employed recorded and automated phone

messages (i.e. robocalls) to disseminate general information to parents including announce-

ments of school closures, upcoming school events, or other important messages. However,

a few schools and districts also employed newer methods of communication. For example, a

small number of administrators indicated that their schools utilized websites to disseminate

information. Also, a small number of teachers said they had created their own websites whereby

they communicated classroom-specific information to parents. One administrator noted that

the schools in that district used the school’s Facebook, Twitter, and blog pages to disseminate

school-level information to parents.

Approximately half of the teachers and administrators reported that teachers did not use text

messaging to communicate with parents about their students’ learning (see Exhibit 6 above).

When teachers did use text messaging to communicate with parents, it was typically rated as

moderately effective. Specifically, 29% of preschool teachers, 20% of non-preschool teachers,

and 37% of administrators indicated that teachers’ use of text messaging was moderately effec-

tive. Only 7% of administrators and 24% of teachers in preschools, and 10% of non-preschool

teachers rated text messaging as “most effective.” Through interviews and focus groups, admin-

istrators indicated that while text messaging was an additional tool for more direct communica-

tions with parents, it was not a practical means to inform parents about students’ academic

performance. Administrators and teachers both noted that a small number of teachers were

known to use text messaging as a means of communicating with parents, particularly for chil-

dren requiring support at home. However, according to administrators and teachers, no school

or district utilized text messaging to parents as a systemic means of communication.

WHAT TYPES OF COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES ARE PREFERRED

BY PARENTS OF UNDERSERVED STUDENTS IN ORDER TO INFORM

THEM ABOUT THEIR CHILDREN’S LEARNING?

The communication technologies favored by parents to receive information about their chil-

dren’s learning are displayed in Exhibit 7. Flyers sent home with their children (62%) and email

(60%) were the two most commonly preferred methods to receive updates on their children’s

learning progress. Nearly one-third (32%) of the parents also reported that they wanted to

receive updates on their children’s learning via an online gradebook. For the other domains

listed in Exhibit 7 (e.g., tips on how to help their children learn and ratings of educational movies

and games), flyers sent home and emails were the most commonly preferred methods to receive

information. In addition, roughly one third of parents indicated that they wanted to receive infor-

mation in the other domains through websites. Online gradebooks received sizable preference

only for updates on children’s learning progress (32%).


Exhibit 7: Percentage of Parents who Preferred Selected Methods to Receive Information about Their Children’s Learning

EmailText

MessageOnline

Gradebook Website Voicemail U.S. Mail

Flyers Sent

Home with Child

Updates on your child’s learning progress

60% 26% 32% 23% 29% 43% 62%

Tips on how to help your child learn

58% 18% 13% 35% 22% 39% 65%

Information about interactive media and video

57% 16% 8% 36% 18% 30% 53%

Links to web pages, downloads, education-related news updates, etc.

61% 17% 9% 36% 15% 28% 48%

Rating of educational movies and games

58% 17% 8% 37% 16% 29% 47%

Reviews of educational electronic toys and devices

56% 15% 8% 34% 15% 29% 46%

Note: n = 410.

HOW COMFORTABLE ARE PARENTS OF UNDERSERVED STUDENTS

WITH WEBCAMS IN THEIR HOME, CAPTURING AN IMAGE OF

THEIR CHILD?

Overall, parents did not report a high level of comfort with their children using webcams at

home (see Exhibit 8). Specifically, 72% of the respondents indicated they were “not comfort-

able at all” or only “a little comfortable” with their children using webcams. It should be noted,

however, that the survey question did not specify the purpose for which the webcams would be

used. Parent interview data suggests that parents may be more comfortable with their children

using webcams at home if it is specified that the webcams would be used for educational pur-

poses or to interact with other students.


Exhibit 8: Parents’ Comfort Level with Their Children Using Webcams at Home

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Very Comfortable

Comfortable A Little Comfortable

Not Comfortable at All

Per

cent

age

Note: n = 410.

SUMMARY

About half of the parents surveyed in underserved communities reported access to desktop

and laptop computers in their homes as well as access to the Internet (including high speed and

wireless) and text messaging. Less than half of parents surveyed reported they had access in

the home to smartphones, webcams, iPod Touches, or iPads. Analysis of parent interview data

suggests that some low-income parents have even less access to technology than parents in the

survey sample. Parents also reported that schools and out-of-school-time groups largely use

paper flyers and U.S. mail to communicate with them about their children’s learning progress

and that these were their most preferred ways to be informed about their children’s learning.

However, the majority of both teachers and administrators reported that paper flyers and U.S.

mail were only moderately effective means through which to report about student learning to

parents in underserved communities. The most effective means were reported to be phone

or voicemail. Further, despite the access to text messaging by parents in underserved com-

munities, about half of the teachers and administrators surveyed reported that it is not used

as a means for communicating about student learning. When it is used to communicate about

student progress, teachers and administrators report that it is not particularly effective. Email,

websites, and online gradebooks were reported by teachers and parents to be fairly effective in

communicating with parents about student learning. Finally, parents of students in underserved

communities, by and large, are not comfortable with their children using webcams in the home.

However, if parents are told webcams will be used for educational purposes, they are more

amenable to use.


ACCESS TO AND CAPACITY FOR INTERACT IVE WHITEBOARD TECHNOLOGY IN PK-3 SCHOOLS AND PROGRAMS

WHAT ARE THE BARRIERS, FACIL ITATORS, AND OPPORTUNIT IES FOR

INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARD TECHNOLOGY IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND

AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS WITH IN UNDERSERVED COMMUNI IT IES?

Access to interactive whiteboard technology was clearly limited at the preschool level. More

than two-thirds of the preschool teachers surveyed (67%) reported that interactive whiteboard

technology was not available to them, as opposed to only 27% of non-preschool teachers.

Exhibit 9: Availability of Interactive Whiteboard Technology in Schools as Reported by Teachers and Administrators

Technology RespondentNot available

Available monthly or weekly

Available daily or as needed

Interactive whiteboard technology (e.g., SMART Boards)

Preschool Teachers 67% 11% 22%

Non-Preschool Teachers 27% 9% 64%

Administrators 18% 6% 77%

Note: Preschool Teachers (n = 22) and Non-Preschool Teachers (n = 40) reported on the availability in their classrooms and administrators (n = 72) reported on the availability in their district, school, and/or preschool sites. Rows may not add to exactly 100% due to rounding.

With regard to barriers to interactive whiteboard technology (Exhibit 10), 25% of teachers

reported that training for using this technology was not available, while 16% reported that the

training they did receive was inadequate. Two barriers mentioned by 30% of teacher respon-

dents were that technology problems were not addressed in a timely manner and that the

district/school firewall blocked too many resources.

Only 9% of administrators reported that there was no training available to teachers on how to use

the interactive whiteboards (Exhibit 10). However, 43% of administrators noted that the available

training was not adequate (compared to only 16% of the teachers). Also, 22% of administrators

reported that technology problems were not addressed in a timely manner, and 18% reported

that the curriculum resources for the interactive whiteboard technology were not adequate. Only

14% of administrators reported that district/school firewalls blocked too many resources.


Exhibit 10: Teacher and Administrator Reported Barriers to Interactive Whiteboard Technology

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

AdministratorsTeachers

Firewall

Blocks

Curriculum

Resources

Not Adequate

Technology

Issues Not

Addressed

Training Not

Adequate

Training Not

Available

Per

cent

age

Note: n = 62 for teachers, and n = 65 for administrators.

Administrators and teachers were also asked about the usefulness of various resources to

help teachers better use interactive whiteboard technology. The response options were on a

four-point scale from 1 = Not Useful to 4 = Very Useful. Having regular access to the interactive

whiteboard technology was considered useful (i.e., a rating of 3 or 4) by 91% of the administra-

tors while having effective training on using the interactive whiteboards was rated as useful by

95% of administrators. Administrators commonly cited access to curricular materials for use with

the interactive whiteboards (95%), a library of lesson plans (91%), and reliable technical support

(84%) as useful resources that would help teachers better use interactive whiteboards. Teacher

responses, for the most part, varied little from those of administrators. However, there was a

discrepancy between teacher and administrator survey responses concerning the helpfulness of

improved Internet connectivity. Ninety-one percent of teachers reported that it would be useful

(i.e., gave a rating of 3 or 4), whereas only 71% of administrators reported that it would be useful.

A primary facilitator for the use of interactive whiteboard technology, as reported in adminis-

trator interviews and teacher focus groups, was the initial professional development and training

provided by the districts. These trainings served to orient teachers to the technology and to

support its integration into teaching practices. According to administrators and teachers, the

interactive features of the whiteboards themselves facilitated their integration into teaching prac-

tices because reportedly students found the boards to be fun and engaging. In contrast, chief

among the reported barriers to interactive whiteboard use was the lack of available on-going

professional development and support once the technology was introduced into the classroom.

Unavailable resources included not only a dearth of qualified staff to assist in the set-up and


maintenance of the equipment, but also a lack of resources to continue the use of the interactive

whiteboards in the classroom, such as sample lessons aligned with the district curricula.

WHAT IS THE PENETRATION OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARD

TECHNOLOGY IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS

WITH UNDERSERVED STUDENTS?

Eighty-five percent (n = 61) of administrators indicated that whiteboard technology was used by

at least one of the teachers in their district or school. However, the availability of the technology

did not extend to preschool or after-school programs. Twenty-nine percent (n = 21) of adminis-

trators indicated after-school and preschool programs had access to any interactive whiteboard

technology. Seventy-six percent (n = 55) of administrators thought that their district, school, or

preschool would acquire new or more interactive whiteboards in the next five years.

Teachers who reported using interactive whiteboard technology (n = 55, 56%) said they used it

for a variety of purposes in the classroom. More than half of teachers reported using the interac-

tive whiteboards to teach a traditional curriculum to students (58%), create interactive activi-

ties (57%), display online content to the class (56%), access web-based interactive activities

or games (56%), and show visualization of difficult concepts or demonstrate skills (55%). Less

common uses of interactive whiteboards included to save, print, and share notes taken during

class time (22%) or to communicate with others using programs such as Skype (8%).

WHAT KIND OF PRODUCTS ARE CURRENTLY USED WITH THE

INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARD TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS AND

AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS WITH UNDERSERVED STUDENTS?

Administrators were asked about the kinds of products currently used with interactive white-

boards in their districts, schools, or preschools. Based on these administrator responses, several

products emerged as more commonly used by teachers. The most common were various soft-

ware programs, mentioned by 33% of administrators (Exhibit 11). These included programs such

as Microsoft Office, Treasures, AVERPEN, Utips, and Spelling City. The next most commonly

cited use was with Internet websites (30%), such as streaming videos from Discovery Education.

Other products used with interactive whiteboard technology mentioned by more than two

respondents included use of response systems with students (17%), use of document cameras

(13%), and use of software (13%) that is included with the interactive whiteboards.

Interviews further revealed limited knowledge among administrators regarding the features and

functionality of their interactive whiteboards. Many administrators reported an awareness of the

interactive and engaging interface, but lacked detailed knowledge of the feature list. A small

number of administrators were able to delineate general features such as wireless connectivity,

multi-response process, and printing.


Exhibit 11: Administrator Reported Types of Products Currently Used with Interactive Whiteboard Technology

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

SmartBoard Software

Document Camera

Response Systems

Internet Websites

Software Programs

Per

cent

age

Note: n = 30.

During the focus group discussion, teachers noted they used programs on the interactive white-

boards that were tied to curricula such as Plato, Read180, and Accelerated Reader. According

to teachers, the programs in place had been selected due to their alignment with their districts’

language arts and mathematics curricula.

Teachers, in contrast to administrators, were able to articulate specific features of the interactive

whiteboards. Teachers mentioned the ability to display multiple charts and graphs simultane-

ously, and the lack of shadows when standing in front of the display. Teachers also mentioned

the multi-response capabilities that allow for more than one student to interact with the interac-

tive whiteboard simultaneously.

WHAT TYPES OF PRODUCTS WOULD BE USEFUL FOR PBS TO

DEVELOP TO USE WITH INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARD TECHNOLOGY

IN SCHOOLS AND AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS WITH UNDERSERVED

STUDENTS?

Teachers were asked about the types of educational technology products that they would find

useful in the classroom. Exhibit 12 shows that elementary and out-of-school-time teachers indi-

cated that they would find all four of the types of technology products “very useful.” Preschool

teachers rated these products slightly lower than their colleagues serving older children.


Exhibit 12: Teacher Reported Usefulness of Technology Products for the Classroom

Types of Technology Products Respondent

Not Useful Useful

Very Useful

Not Sure

Library of interactive lesson plans



Interactive student activities related to the literacy curriculum



Interactive student activities related to the mathematics curriculum



Video resources that can be downloaded for free



Note: Preschool Teachers (n = 22) and Non-Preschool Teachers (n = 40). Rows may not add to exactly 100% due to rounding.

In addition, general comments about opportunities for using technology in the classroom during

administrator interviews and teacher focus groups indicated the desire for programs that closely

aligned with the district curricula, could be customized to individual student needs, and allowed

for tracking of students’ academic progress.

Teachers were asked if they believed it was important for PBS to develop educational prod-

ucts for classroom use that utilized the interactive whiteboard technology. The overwhelming

majority, 92% (n = 54), believed it was important for PBS to develop such products. In addition,

during the focus groups teachers noted a number of shortcomings in the programs used with

interactive whiteboards that present opportunities for new programs. A number of teachers

stated that current programs, for example, were directed too infrequently at younger students.

They stated that programs for students in kindergarten through 3rd grade should reinforce the

skills students were expected to acquire in these early grades and should be aligned with the

district curricula. Teachers also noted that current programs were not geared toward children

with special needs. Lastly, teachers reported that many programs for interactive whiteboards do

not support independent work for students.

Administrators were asked an open-ended question about the usefulness of different types of

products with whiteboards. Four basic types of products that they considered most useful were

activities, lessons, resources, and demonstrations. Activities, mentioned by 29% of administra-

tors, included hands-on games or interactive educational materials for students to use directly.

Lessons, mentioned by 25% of administrators, generally involved English language arts or

mathematics curricula that were aligned to standards, either state-specific standards or the

Common Core standards. Resources, mentioned by 21% of administrators, included materials


teachers could use with students, such as sight words, how to form letters, or story mapping.

Demonstrations, mentioned by 6% of administrators, were ways to engage students in lessons,

such as using real-life mathematics and science situations.

There was much less consistency across administrator responses related to what products

teachers would find most valuable to use in the classroom. While some administrators repeated

their previous answers regarding lessons or activities, others focused more on content areas,

such as English language arts, mathematics, or science. Some administrators further broke the

content areas down into specific topics such as vocabulary, reading, phonics, language acquisi-

tion, measurement, or number sense. Other administrators mentioned the need for games and

interactive materials that engage students, or programs that differentiated instruction.

SUMMARY

Though participants reported limited access to interactive whiteboards, a majority of partici-

pants reported plans to obtain interactive whiteboards in the near future. These findings suggest

a strong interest in the use of interactive whiteboards in schools and districts. Barriers to inter-

active whiteboard use include lack of teacher expertise in using interactive whiteboards, lack of

technical support, poor Internet connectivity, and limited curricular materials and tools for chil-

dren from preschool to 3rd grade. One notable trend in the findings is that preschool teachers’

responses differed markedly from non-preschool teachers (elementary and out-of-school-time

educators). Exhibit 9 (above) shows that preschool teachers were much less likely to have access

to interactive whiteboard technology than non-preschool teachers. These data, along with data

from preschool teacher interviews, suggest that barriers to interactive whiteboard technologies

are somewhat magnified at the preschool level. In addition to lack of teacher expertise and tech-

nical support, poor classroom Internet connectivity, and limited access to curricular materials,

preschool teachers may not be familiar with the benefits of the interactive whiteboard.


ACCESS TO AND CAPACITY FOR OTHER TECHNOLOGIES IN PK-3 SCHOOLS AND PROGRAMS

WHAT TECHNOLOGIES DO CLASSROOMS AND PROGRAMS IN

UNDERSERVED SCHOOLS HAVE ACCESS TO? DO THEY HAVE

ACCESS TO COMPUTERS, INTERNET, IPADS, IPHONES, OR OTHER

INTERACTIVE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES?

Teachers and administrators7 reported on the availability of technology in their schools (see

Exhibit 13). The data revealed that students either generally had the various technologies listed

in Exhibit 13 available to them daily or as needed, or did not have them available at all. A very

small percentage of the teachers and administrators reported that the technologies were avail-

able monthly or weekly. All or nearly all of the non-preschool (elementary and out-of-school-

time) teachers and administrators indicated that high-speed Internet and desktop computers

were available daily or as needed in their schools. In addition, the majority of respondents

serving elementary out-of-school-time students noted that wireless Internet, whiteboards,

laptops, and document cameras were available daily or as needed. Approximately half of the

teachers and administrators reported that webcams were available daily or as needed. In

contrast, the majority of the teachers and administrators reported that iPads, tablet PCs, iPod

Touches, electronic readers, and MP3 players generally were not available to their students.

Preschool teachers noted much lower access to technology. Only 22% reported access to high

speed Internet, 6% had wireless, 19% had webcams, and 22% had interactive whiteboards,

laptops, and/or desktop computers.

7 Administrators were not separated into preschool and non-preschool groups due to the majority of them having overlapping responsibilities.


Exhibit 13: Availability of Technology Tools in Schools as Reported by Teachers and Administrators

Technology RespondentNot

available

Available monthly

or weekly

Available daily or as

needed

High speed Internet




Wireless Internet




Webcam




Smartphone




iPad




Tablet PC (other than iPad)








iPod Touch






available

Available monthly

or weekly

Available daily or as

needed

Laptop




Desktop computer




Video projector




Document camera (e.g., ELMO Teacher’s Tool, Lumen’s Ladybug)




Electronic reader (e.g., Nook, Kindle, etc.)

Preschool Teachers N/A N/A N/A



MP3 player




Video streaming


Non-Preschool Teachers N/A N/A N/A


Note: Preschool Teachers (n = 22) and Non-Preschool Teachers (n = 40) reported on the availability in their classrooms and administrators (n = 72) reported on the availability in their district, school, and/or preschool sites. Rows may not add to exactly 100% due to rounding.

During interviews and focus groups, administrators and non-preschool teachers serving elemen-

tary and out-of-school-time students reported having a number of technologies in the class-

room; foremost among these are laptop and desktop computers. Approximately a quarter of

respondents reported the use of computers “on wheels,” or movable carts with computers that


allowed for multiple classrooms to share a set of laptop computers. Many of these computers

on wheels were reported to utilize a central Internet access point, or hub, for wireless Internet

connectivity. A majority of teachers also reported access to fixed-location computers in the

classroom and/or computer labs. Additional technologies frequently reported by non-preschool

teachers and administrators include document cameras, projectors, and ELMOs (Electronic

Light-Modulated Overhead). In contrast, preschool teachers reported little access to technology.

Some reported having Little Tykes computers, or similar desktops with limited access to the

Internet. Some reported having access to laptops for teacher use, or access to an interactive

whiteboard at a neighboring school.

According to administrators, other technologies that were less common included iPads, clickers

for the interactive whiteboards, smartphones, and webcams. iPads and other tablets were

reported to present fiscal challenges because of the relative newness of the technology and

because discounts were difficult for schools and districts to obtain. In addition, administrators

reported that other technologies, such as the smartphones and webcams, presented limited

functionality for use in the classroom.

Administrators and teachers interviewed also reported that schools and districts were experi-

menting with using iPads at different grade levels. However, the expense of each device proved

prohibitive. Administrators indicated that less expensive, but still functional, alternatives such

as electronic readers and Android-based devices were more appealing to school districts with

restricted budgets. Similarly, teachers reported that inability to customize learning experiences

for students on iPads or other tablets, and inability to track students’ academic progress, were

disincentives to the adoption of tablet technology.

As shown in Exhibit 14, the majority of non-preschool teachers (79-82%) and administrators

(80-86%) reported that the teachers used technology to deliver literacy and mathematics

curricula. A significantly lower percentage of preschool teachers (55-59%) used technology to

deliver literacy and mathematics content. The teachers and administrators identified a number of

programs that they used technology to deliver. These programs included the Treasures Reading

Program, Everyday Mathematics, Houghton Mifflin Language Arts and Mathematics, and Scott

Foresman-Addison Wesley enVisionMATH. The teachers and administrators also reported using

technology to access a variety of websites, such as the Discovery Education website, starfall.com,

and educationcity.com.


Exhibit 14: Teachers’ Use of Technology to Deliver Literacy and Mathematics Curricula as Reported by Teachers and Administrators

Reason

Preschool Teachers (n = 22)

Non-Preschool Teachers (n = 40)

Administrators (n = 71)

Yes No Yes No Yes NoDon’t Know

Use technology to deliver mathematics curricula

55% 46% 82% 18% 86% 4% 10%

Use technology to deliver literacy curricula

59% 41% 79% 21% 80% 4% 16%

Note: Rows may not add to exactly 100% due to rounding.

Finally, administrators and teachers agreed that teachers varied in their comfort in teaching

with technology. Although the districts provided training and resources to support the use of

district-provided technology, including interactive whiteboards, ELMOs, computers and scan-

ners, many teachers were reluctant to integrate these technologies into their teaching practices.

Compounding teachers’ reluctance to use the technologies was the school’s or district’s inability

to provide support or repairs in a timely manner. It was not clear from the administrator or

teacher interviews whether districts were implementing measures to address these challenges.

HOW DO THESE CLASSROOMS AND PROGRAMS ACQUIRE OR

FUND THESE TECHNOLOGIES? DO THEY RECEIVE GRANTS OR

DONATIONS? IF SO, FROM WHAT SOURCE(S)?

Administrators reported on the sources of funds that their districts and schools used for tech-

nology purchases (see Exhibit 15). Over 80% of the administrators reported that their districts

and schools used the schools’ budgets, the districts’ budgets, and grants to fund technology

purchases. In addition, 56% of the administrators indicated that donations funded the tech-

nology purchases made by their districts and schools. The administrators identified sources

of funding for the technology purchases. Title I (Improving the Academic Achievement of the

Disadvantaged) was the most commonly reported source of funding. The administrators also

cited other Federal funding for their technology purchases, such as 21st Century Community

Learning Center grants, School Improvement Grants (SIG), and grants from the Bureau of

Indian Affairs. A small number of administrators noted that foundations, such as the Skillman

Foundation and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, provided funding. Finally, donations of used

computers typically came from local businesses and parents.


Exhibit 15: Administrator Reports of the Sources of Funds Used for Technology Purchases

Source Yes NoDon’t Know

School budget 82% 11% 7%

District budget 90% 6% 4%

Grants 81% 11% 8%

Donations 56% 29% 15%

Note: n = 72.

ARE THE COMPUTERS AND OTHER TECHNOLOGIES USED BY

TEACHERS AND STUDENTS ADEQUATE AND/OR IN GOOD WORKING

CONDIT ION?

The teacher and administrator reports of the reliability of the technology used in classrooms

are displayed in Exhibit 16. The majority of teachers and administrators reported that the

technologies listed in Exhibit 16 were very reliable or moderately reliable. The most reliable

technology was the document camera, which was rated as very reliable by 83% of preschool

teachers, 77% of non-preschool teachers, and 87% of administrators. Laptops and desktop

computers were identified as very reliable by 64-71% of the non-preschool teachers and

administrators. Eighty-eight percent of preschool teachers reported their laptops to be very

reliable and 71% of preschool teachers reported their desktop computers to be very reliable.

In addition, 43% of preschool teachers, 59% of non-preschool teachers, and 81% of administra-

tors reported that their high-speed Internet was very reliable. Wireless Internet was one of the

lowest rated technologies with 75% of preschool teachers, 51% of non-preschool teachers, and

41% of administrators indicating that it was moderately reliable.


Exhibit 16: Reliability of Technology Used in Classrooms as Reported by Teachers and Administrators


ReliableModerately

ReliableVery

Reliable

High-speed Internet

Preschool Teachers (n = 14) 0% 57% 43%

Non-Preschool Teachers (n = 41) 0% 41% 59%

Administrators (n = 68) 0% 19% 81%

Wireless Internet




Webcam




Smartphone

Preschool Teachers (n = 0) N/A N/A N/A



iPad




Tablet PC (other than iPad)








iPod Touch






ReliableModerately

ReliableVery

Reliable

Laptop




Desktop computer




Video projector








Electronic reader (e.g., Nook, Kindle, etc.)




MP3 player




Video streamingTeachers (n = N/A) N/A N/A N/A


Note: Only data for teachers and administrators who reported that the technology was available is included in the table.

The teacher and administrator ratings of the conditions of the computers in classrooms, com-

puter labs, libraries, and other school community spaces are shown in Exhibit 17. Over half of the

preschool teachers (59%), non-preschool teachers (50%), and administrators (64%) rated the

computers in the classrooms as being in fair condition. A larger percentage of non-preschool

teachers (48%) reported the computers in their classrooms were in excellent condition com-

pared to preschool teachers (32%). The condition of the computers in the computer labs was

somewhat better than the condition of those in the classroom, but 27% of preschool teachers

and 21% of non-preschool teachers reported not having a computer lab. In addition, a smaller


percentage of preschool teachers, non-preschool teachers, and administrators rated the condi-

tion of the computers in the library and other school community spaces as fair to excellent.

Twenty-four percent of preschool teachers, 31% of non-preschool teachers, and 17% of admin-

istrators reported not having any computers in their library. Forty-five percent of preschool

teachers, 42% of non-preschool teachers, and 22% of administrators reported not having any

computers in an additional school community space.

Exhibit 17: Condition of the Computers in Selected Areas of Schools as Reported by Teachers and Administrators

Area RespondentPoor

ConditionFair

ConditionExcellent Condition

Don’t Know

Do Not

Have

Classroom

Preschool Teachers 10% 59% 32% 0% 0%

Non-Preschool Teachers 3% 50% 48% 0% 0%

Administrators 3% 64% 29% 3% 1%

Computer lab




Library




Other school community space




Note: n = 22 for Preschool Teachers, 40 for Non-Preschool Teachers, and n = 73 for Administrators.

IN THESE SCHOOLS AND PROGRAMS, IS THERE A TOLERANCE

FOR STUDENTS USING INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGIES SUCH AS

SMARTPHONES, IPODS, AND/OR IPADS?

Administrators were asked about the extent to which students in their districts, schools, or

preschools were allowed access to various technological devices (Exhibit 18). According to

administrators, the most common devices that students were allowed access to on a daily basis

or as needed were high-speed Internet (88%), desktop computers (81%), interactive whiteboards


(74%), wireless Internet (66%), and video projectors (65%). The devices that administrators most

commonly reported as not accessible to students were smartphones (90%), electronic readers

(90%), tablet PCs (86%), MP3 players and iPod touch (both 81%).

While teachers were not asked directly about the tolerance for students’ use of smartphone,

iPods, or iPads at their schools, they were asked whether their students were allowed to use the

Internet. Nearly all of the teachers (92%) reported that students were allowed to use the Internet

at their school. In open-ended responses on the survey, a single teacher reported that students

were allowed to use iPads in the classrooms for educational purposes, two teachers reported

that smartphones or Smart Tables were allowed, and another teacher reported that iPods were

allowed. Four teachers reported that students were allowed to use video cameras or telecon-

ferences in the classroom, and another three reported that audio cassettes or CD players for

educational purposes were allowed.

Exhibit 18: Allowed Access of Students to Technology Tools in the Schools as Reported by Administrators

TechnologyNot

accessible

Accessible monthly

or weekly

Accessible daily or as

needed

High speed Internet 1% 11% 88%

Wireless Internet 28% 6% 66%

Webcam 57% 7% 36%

Smartphone 90% 0% 10%

iPad 59% 10% 32%

Tablet PC (other than iPad) 86% 2% 12%


13% 12% 74%

iPod Touch 81% 4% 14%

Laptop 38% 9% 54%

Desktop computer 7% 12% 81%

Video projector 25% 10% 65%


34% 8% 51%

Electronic reader (e.g., Nook, Kindle, etc.) 90% 1% 9%

MP3 player 81% 3% 16%

Video streaming 33% 10% 57%

Note: n = 72.


ARE THERE PROTOCOLS FOR STUDENTS REGARDING ACCESSING

WIRELESS INTERNET AND/OR VIDEO STREAMING?

Administrators reported on whether their districts and schools had guidelines and/or proce-

dures for video streaming and restrictions on video streaming (see Exhibit 19). One third of the

administrators reported that there were guidelines and/or procedures for video streaming and

44% reported that there were student restrictions on video streaming.

Exhibit 19: Guidelines and/or Procedures and Restrictions on Video Streaming as Reported by Administrators

Yes NoDon’t Know

School Doesn’t

Have this Technology

Not Allowed to

Use

Guidelines and/or procedures for video streaming

33% 21% 17% 18% 11%

Restrictions on video streaming

44% 11% 23% 22% N/A

Note: n = 73.

DO THESE SITES USE WEBCAMS? DO THESE SITES CONSIDER

WEBCAMS AN INTRUSION OF PR IVACY?

Thirty-two percent of all teachers (n = 19) had access to webcams in their classrooms and 45%

of administrators (n = 33) reported that teachers in their schools and districts had access to

webcams in their classrooms. Of the teachers with webcams, 32% (n = 6) used the webcams for

teaching and learning activities. The administrators also reported on how the teachers in their

schools and districts used webcams. According to administrators, the vast majority of the teachers

used the webcams for Skype and other video conferencing software applications, such as Google

Chat. The teachers used the video conferencing software applications to have their classes

interact with classes in other parts of the country and world. Students also used the webcams to

create video presentations and to take virtual field trips. Finally, the teachers used the webcams to

communicate with district personnel, engage in distance learning, and attend webinars.

The teachers and administrators who did not have access to webcams identified the reasons

why they did not have access (see Exhibit 20). Approximately 70% of the respondents indicated

that a lack of funds was the reason they did not have access to webcams. Security or privacy

concerns were the next most commonly identified reason followed by webcams not being


considered an important or useful teaching tool. Teachers and administrators also cited other

reasons for not using webcams, such as slow Internet connectivity and lack of teacher training.

Exhibit 20: Reasons Why Teachers Do Not Have Access to Webcams as Reported by Teachers and Administrators

ReasonTeachers Administrators

% n % n

Lack of funds 70% 23 72% 23

Not considered an important or useful teaching tool

21% 7 25% 8

Security /privacy concerns 39% 13 38% 12

Other reasons 15% 5 16% 5

Note: Total n = 33 for teachers and total n = 32 for administrators.

SUMMARY

Laptop and desktop computers and high-speed Internet are the most readily available technolo-

gies in study schools. Preschool classrooms, however, have much less access to nearly all tech-

nologies than non-preschool classrooms. Less than one quarter of preschool classrooms have

laptop or desktop computers and/or high speed Internet access. Wireless technology is often

unreliable or not available in study classrooms, and only 6% of preschool teachers reported

having wireless Internet access.

Teachers reported that the majority of the technology in their classrooms was only in fair condi-

tion and the equipment was often unreliable. Additional technologies, such as iPads, webcams,

and tablet PCs, are often not available to schools due to fiscal constraints. Districts reported

that most funding for technology comes from the school or district budgets. The next most

common vehicle for acquisition of technology was federal Title I funds.

Despite these constraints, a majority of non-preschool teachers reported using technology

to delivery literacy and mathematics instruction. Interview and focus group data showed that

teachers and administrators are also very interested in progress tracking features.

page46WestEd // New Technologies in Pre-K to Grade 3 Needs Assessment // CONCLUSION

CONCLUSIONThis report describes three comprehensive needs assessments that were conducted to deter-

mine (1) the readiness of underserved preschools, K-3 schools, and out-of-school time pro-

grams to implement interactive educational technologies on a variety of platforms, and (2) the

readiness of parents and guardians to receive communication about their children’s academic

progress using technology. Data were collected from parents, teachers, and non-teaching

district and school staff (e.g., principals, IT coordinators, and curriculum and instruction special-

ists) throughout the United States using surveys, semi-structured interviews, and focus groups.

The results of the needs assessments are intended to inform the work of CPB and PBS as they

plan product creation, including digital media for low-income schools and families. The focus

areas of the needs assessments are: 1) methods for communicating with parents of PK-3 chil-

dren, 2) access to and capacity for interactive whiteboard technology in PK-3 education set-

tings, and 3) access to and capacity for other technologies in PK-3 education settings.

The results of the needs assessments suggest that there is a strong interest in using technology

in PK-3 classrooms. Additionally, results identify potential areas for effectively developing

educational digital content for low-income schools and families. At the same time, there are still

enormous challenges to reaching parents, teachers, and students in underserved communities

with technology.

INTEREST IN US ING MORE TECHNOLOGY IN PK-3 CLASSROOMS Findings show that there is a strong interest for more use of technology in PK-3 classrooms.

Teachers and administrators reported that digital curricula are engaging and effective.

Administrators reported district and school plans to purchase more technology in the near

future, and indicated the need for PK-3 digital curriculum and tools. There is a strong desire for

these products, and the current study suggests that this desire will continue to grow.


POTENT IAL AREAS FOR CONTENT DEVELOPMENTThe results suggest that there are particular areas of opportunity that can be targeted by PBS

for product development. These include: products for the interactive whiteboard, products with

webcam features, products that utilize progress tracking, and strategies for using technology to

communicate with parents of PK-3 children.

PRODUCTS FOR INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS AND CLASSROOM

COMPUTERS

Teachers and administrators were very interested in standards-aligned content for the interac-

tive whiteboard. These respondents indicated that there is a strong need for PK-3 curricular

content and tools for interactive whiteboards. Though not a particular focus of the needs assess-

ments, educators also mentioned that many of the products for the interactive whiteboard (e.g.,

Plato, Read180) also had components for classroom computers. They mentioned that they liked

having complementary content for each device. In addition, 76% of administrators mentioned

that their districts and schools have plans to purchase interactive whiteboards in the near future.

These findings suggest that products created for the interactive whiteboard would be well

received in low-income schools.

PRODUCTS WITH WEBCAM FEATURES

Though many schools and districts have some restrictions on webcam use and parents indicated

some reservations about their use, there is a strong interest in the use of webcams for learning

academic content. Findings indicate that as long as webcams are used for educational purposes,

schools and families are open to using them. About half of elementary schools and one-third of

families indicated they had access to webcams. As technology products are updated in coming

years, these percentages are expected to rise. Products with webcam features would most likely

be used in many low-income schools and homes in future years.

PRODUCTS THAT UTIL IZE PROGRESS TRACKING

Though the topic of progress tracking was not specifically targeted in the study, it did come

up in numerous focus groups and interviews. Elementary school teachers and administrators

mentioned that they had some experience with progress tracking in other digital products, and

they felt the concept held great promise. Many elementary school teachers and administrators

understand that one benefit of digital curricula and tools is that valuable data can be collected

from students while products are being used. Many teachers and administrators had used prod-

ucts in which individual student data had been extracted and they reported that this feature was

useful. Products with progress tracking may be welcomed at some schools.


COMMUNICATING WITH PARENTS TO SUPPORT STUDENT LEARNING

Though the study found that many low-income parents had limited access to technology, many

are finding ways to communicate with their schools using technology. Teachers reported that

they found online gradebooks and teacher-created class websites to be effective ways to com-

municate with parents. Teachers report that though parents may not have computers or access

to the Internet in their homes, parents might visit the library or use school computers to check

these webpages. Some parents reported having access to the Internet via their phone rather than

a home computer. In focus groups, teachers reported that many parents used “pay as you go” cell

phones. Though these phones accepted text messages, parents often have to pay extra for them.

Therefore, teachers said that sending text messages was not always the best way to communi-

cate with the parents of their students. One point of entry for parent digital content that supports

student learning may be web-based content that parents can access via teacher webpages,

online gradebooks, or mobile applications. Another strategy for reaching parents may involve

giving parents multiple options for accessing content, including web-based and texting options.

AREAS OF CHALLENGEThe needs assessment study addressed needs in three areas: methods for communicating with

parents of PK-3 children, access to and capacity for interactive whiteboard technology in PK-3

education settings, and access to and capacity for other technologies in PK-3 education set-

tings. The findings suggest that tremendous challenges continue to exist in these three areas.

Particular challenges at the elementary school level are related to the capacity of parents and

schools to access digital media. Challenges at the preschool level also involve access, in addition

to questions about teachers’ capacity to effectively integrate digital media into instruction.

REACHING THE LOWEST- INCOME PARENTS AND SCHOOLS

Equipment and connectivity continue to be a tremendous hurdle to technology use in low-

income schools and homes. About half the homes included in the study did not have access

to computers or high speed Internet. Elementary schools have more access to computers and

connection to the Internet, but their computers are often in poor condition and unreliable. In

addition, most low-income classrooms do not have access to interactive whiteboards, iPods or

iPads. In the near term, a large proportion of low-income schools and families will struggle to

access digital media.

INTRODUCING DIGITAL PRODUCTS IN THE PRESCHOOL ENVIRONMENT

The preschool age group currently poses particular challenges for producers seeking to pro-

vide digital content for underserved classrooms. Preschools in the study reported extremely

low access to technology, including computers and Internet access. Very few preschools had


access to technology other than computers. In addition, focus group data suggest that pre-

school teachers are not familiar with the benefits of technology such as interactive whiteboards

and iPads, highlighting the need for ongoing professional development in this area. Preschool

teachers also indicated they were less comfortable using various technologies compared to their

elementary school colleagues.

RECOMMENDAT IONSThe following recommendations stem from the studies’ findings.

» Continue to study how low-income families access and use digital media.

» Pilot test methods of media delivery to low-income parents and high-need schools to ensure that content and delivery are amenable to the target populations.

» Explore methods to reach low-income classrooms that do not have reliable Internet connectivity.

» Continue to explore which types of interactive whiteboard curricula and tools that are most desired by PK-3 teachers.

» Create guidelines for webcam use that can be used by schools and parents to help allay safety concerns associated with webcam use.

» Explore the use of online gradebooks to communicate with parents about their children’s learning.

» Pilot test early project tracking models in low-income schools.

» Pilot test early models of communicating with low-income parents about their students’ learning. Consider using models that give parents multiple pathways to access informa-tion (e.g., email, online gradebooks and texting).

Documents

New Technologies in Pre-K to Grade 3 Needs … // New Technologies in Pre-K to Grade 3 Needs Assessment // HIGHLIGHTS page1 HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FINDINGS Methods for Communicating with