JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 26, NO. 7, PP. 587-598 (1989)

ENLIST MICROS: TRAINING SCIENCE TEACHERS TO USE MICROCOMPUTERS

WILLIAM E. BAIRD

Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849

JAMES D. ELLIS The Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903

PAUL J . KUERBIS

The Colorado College, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903

Abstract

A National Science Foundation grant to the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) at The Colorado College supported the design and production of training materials to encourage literacy of science teachers in the use of microcomputers. ENLIST Micros is based on results of a national needs assessment that identified 22 compentencies needed by K- 12 science teachers to use microcomputers for instruction. A writing team developed the 16-hour training program in the summer of 1985, and field-test coordinators tested it with 18 preservice or in-service groups during the 1985-86 academic year at 15 sites within the United States. The training materials consist of video programs, interactive computer disks for the Apple II series microcomputer, a training manual for participants, and a guide for the group leader. The experimental materials address major m a s of educational computing: awareness, applications, implementation, evaluation, and resources. Each chapter contains activities developed for this program, such as viewing video segments of science teachers who are using computers effectively and running commercial science and training courseware. Role playing and small-group interaction help the teachers overcome their reluctance to use computers and plan for effective implementation of microcomputers in the school. This study examines the implementation of educational computing among 47 science teachers who completed the ENLIST Micros training at a southern university. We present results of formative evaluation for that site. Results indicate that both elementary and secondary teachers benefit from the training program and demonstrate gains in attitudes toward computer use. Participating teachers said that the program met its stated objectives and helped them obtain needed skills. Only 33 percent of these teachers, however, reported using computers one year after the training. In June 1986, the BSCS initiated a follow up to the ENLIST Micros curriculum to develop, evaluate, and disseminate a complete model of teacher enhancement for educational computing in the sciences. In that project, we use the ENLIST Micros curriculum as the first step in a training process. The project includes seminars that introduce additional skills: It contains provisions for sharing among participants, monitors use of computers in participants’ classrooms, provides structured coaching of participants’ use of computers in their classrooms, and offers planned observations of peers using computers in their science teaching.

0 1989 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC oO22-4308/89/0705 87- 12$04.00

588 BAIRD, ELLIS, AND KUERBIS

Introduction

What happens after science teachers receive in-service training to help them implement microcomputers? Do they return to their classrooms and begin using them immediately? Are they still using computers one year after the training? What attitudes are fostered by such training? Are these attitudes retained over time, or is there a “damping” effect? Is a well-funded, 16-hour training program effective in changing science teachers’ use of microcomputers? What are some major barriers to increased use of microcomputers among elementary and secondary science teachers?

This study evaluates science teachers’ implementation of microcomputers at one field-test site that was a part of the program to encourage literacy of science teachers in the use of microcomputers (ENLIST-Micros). The National Science Foundation funded the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) to complete ENLIST-Micros.

Related Studies

Many agencies, special commissions, and panels that study science and mathematics education in the United States recommend increasing the use of technology as one of the major items for the national agenda of educational reform (Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, 1984; National Science Teachers Association, 1983; As- sociation for the Education of Teachers in Science, 1985; Lesgold and Reif, 1983; National Science Board, 1983; Education Commission of the States, 1983). In its proposal guidelines for science and engineering education, the National Science Foundation emphasizes appropriate applications of educational technology (NSF, 1985). The report from the National Science Board (NSB, 1983) indicates “an important role is seen for technology in enriching the educational experiences of all children.” To achieve those beneficial effects, the report also emphasizes that “the most critical need is to train teachers, administrators, and parents in the uses of technology in the education of children.”

A survey by the National Education Association (NEA, 1983) found that 82 percent of practicing teachers want and need training in using the computer. If this percentage holds for science teachers, then more than 160,000 such teachers profess a need for in-service training in computer applications. Rarely has a change of such magnitude confronted education. Fewer than five years ago very few teachers and students had access to computers. Becker (1986) estimated, however, that during 1985-86 90 percent of U.S. schoolchildren attended schools that had at least one computer; typical schools had a ratio of roughly one computer per 40 students.

The need to train science teachers in the use of microcomputers is not being met. Lehman (1985) found no use of computers by science faculty in 41 percent of 340 high schools he surveyed. Overall, of the 1,470 science teachers in his study, Lehman found 77 percent did not use microcomputers in teaching. Similarly, Kherlopian and Dickey (1985) found that only 40 percent of K- 12 teachers were using microcomputers in the classroom, primarily for drill and practice. Kherlopian and Dickey found that fewer than 20 percent of the teachers started using microcomputers on their own without completing formal coursework.

Science educators are not doing enough to prepare science teachers to use micro- computers effectively. Marcom and Bellow (1985) point out that one major obstacle to effective use of microcomputers in the schools “is a shortage of teachers who

ENLIST MICROS 589

understand both their regular subjects and fast-changing technology.” Current texts used in preparing science teachers have, at most, only brief references to microcomputer applications, usually at the awareness level. Teacher educators provide preservice and in-service teachers few opportunities to experience effective uses of the microcomputer for science instruction (Ellis, 1984). Much of the formal instruction in computer applications is at the graduate level (O’Laughlin, Dekkers, & Treagust, 1982). The increasing availability of microcomputers and the improved quality of instructional software make it necessary to provide training specific to subject areas. Educators should apply these research findings so as to promote effective use of these new technical tools (Heller, 1984).

ENLIST Micros’ Studies

With ENLIST Micros, the BSCS is solving some of the problems of training science teachers in microcomputer applications. Major goals of the project are:

Part I: Develop and disseminate a curriculum for training teachers to use micro-

Part 11: Develop, evaluate, and disseminate a model of teacher enhancement for computers to enhance learning and teaching in science

educational computing in the sciences

Part I of ENLIST Micros is complete. The BSCS developed the curriculum and tested it in 15 sites with 332 teachers. BSCS staff completed final revisions during the summer of 1987. Part 11, a three-year project to develop training and implementation strategies, started 1 June 1986.

ENLIST Micros: Part I included a needs assessment and a formative evaluation of the curriculum. Ellis and Kuerbis (1985) completed a needs assessment of admin- istrators, teachers, and teacher trainers to determine a set of 22 essential competencies for science teachers. Others such as Okey (1985) have called for organization of computer skills into competency objectives for preservice and in-service training. Table 1 lists the objectives for ENLIST Micros.

Earlier formative evaluation concentrated on assessing gains in teachers’ knowledge of and attitudes about microcomputers. This study is an evaluation of classroom implementation by teachers one year after their ENLIST Micros training. BSCS staff are using the results of this study to refine the model of teacher enhancement used in the project.

Procedures

Treatment

The experimental edition of the text for ENLIST Micros that we used for the field test is a 126-page manual with five chapters and six appendices. The design team based the chapter titles-Awareness, Applications, Implementation, Evaluation, and Resources-on the groupings of the 22 essential competencies derived from the project’s needs assessment. The curriculum accommodates a variety of learning styles and learning situations. The intended audience includes both preservice and in-service

590 BAIRD, ELLIS, AND KUERBIS

TABLE I Objectives for ENLIST Micros

Each science teacher who completes the iraining will

1) demonstrate an awareness of major applications of the computer related to teaching. such as

inlormation storage and retrieval. simulation and modeling, computation and data processing

2) communicate eflectively about computers by understanding and using appropriate terminology

3) recognize that an aspect 01 problem solving involves a series of logical steps, and that programming IS

translating these steps into instructions lor the computer

4j understand that a computer only does what the program instructs it to do

5) demonstrate an awareness 01 computer usage in fields such as health, science, engineering.

education, business, transportation, communications and the military

6) respond appropriately to common error messages when using computer software

7) load and run a variety of computer software packages.

8) describe the ways computers can be used to learn about computers, learn through computers, and

learn with compufers.

9) describe appropriate uses of computers in teaching science.

10) apply and evaluate the general capabilities of the computer as a tool for instruction

11) use computer courseware to individualize instruction and to increase student learning

12) demonstrate appropriate uses of computer technology for basic skills instruction

13) demonstrate ways to integrate computer-related materials with non-computer-related materials,

including textbooks.

14) plan appropriate scheduling for student computer activities.

15) respond appropriately to changes in curriculum and teaching methodology caused by new

technological developments.

16) plan lor ellective pre- and post-computer interaction activities lor students (lor example, debriefing

after a science simulation).

17) locate commercial and public domain software lor a specific topic and application

18) locate and use at least one evaluative process to appraise and determine the instructional worth of a

variety 01 computer software.

19) identify, evaluate and use a variety of sources 01 current information regarding computer uses in

20) voluntarily choose to use the computer for educational purposes.

21) display satisfaction and confidence in the use of the computer.

22) value the unique benefits of the computer for society and education, such as

education.

- better efficiency in inlormation processing;

- automation of routine tasks;

- increasing communication and availability of information;

- improved student attitudes and productivity;

- improved instructional opportunities.

ENLIST MICROS 59 1

teachers from grades K-12 and from all science disciplines. The materials include independent-study , small-group, and whole-class activities. The participants engage in activities that emphasize interacting directly with the microcomputer and sharing ideas with peers.

Each chapter in the manual includes an introduction with a chapter overview, a list of objectives to be mastered, prerequisite knowledge and skills, vocabulary of new terms used in the chapter, activities for the learner, optional application activities for reinforcement, and supplemental resources.

BSCS developed a special annotated text for the group leader. In addition, the training materials consist of video programs of interviews with teachers and scenes that depict students who are using computers in science. The developers used these motifs to introduce computer competencies for science teachers and to illustrate how to integrate microcomputers into instruction. The project staff wrote computer software programs for ENLIST Micros to accomplish specific objectives in the curriculum. The curriculum includes commercial computer software, which introduces examples of the appropriate use of computers in science teaching, and catalogs of commercial computer software, which help the participants locate and analyze software for particular topics, objectives, and grade levels. The developers added six appendices to the manual to serve a wide variety of initial skills and interests. Table I1 describes these appendices and ways they might be used.

Sample

At the training center from which data for this study were obtained, most teachers were from rural, relatively small schools. A total of 47 teachers drove as far as 70 miles to attend the workshop sessions. Two workshops were held, the first for five

TABLE I1 Appendices

Appendix A - "Getting Started" - is intended for novices who must learn how lo turn on the computer, insert

Appendix B - "History and Impact of the Computer" - is designed to provide background on computing

diskettes, recognize components 01 the hardware, and care for computer diskettes.

devices and the computer revolulion.

Appendix C - "Microcomputer Software Evaluation Instrument" - contains the 1983 version of the National

Science Teachers Association assessment instrument for critical and systematic evaluation

of science courseware.

Appendix D - "Resources in Educational Computing in the Sciences" - contains a list of on-line and

published sources of reviews, software catalogs, and dalabases of computer-related

educational materials. This appendix also contains a list of science software publishers,

helpful periodicals, books, arlicles. and newsletters.

Appendix E - "Answers to Discussion Questions" - contains suggested responses to the questions posed

Appendix F - "Glossary of Terms" -contains an alphabetical list 01 new terms used in the chapters.

in each chapter.

592 BAIRD, ELLIS, AND KUERBIS

consecutive weekday evenings from 4:OO-7:00 p.m. during October of 1985 (Group One), and the second for four consecutive Saturday mornings from 8:OO a.m. until noon during January of 1986 (Group Two). The participants represented grade levels 1-12 and a variety of science subject areas. Participants worked together in groups of three or four at the ten Apple IIe microcomputer stations in the in-service center. None of the teachers received university credit to attend. Computer novices and those with some computer experience shared ideas, examined application software, and participated in role-playing and software evaluation.

Table 111 presents demographic parameters for the 47 in-service participants. Seventy percent were K-6 teachers, four percent were middle school, and 21 percent taught in grades 10-12. Thirty-eight percent had Bachelor’s degrees and 55 percent had Master’s degrees. Sixty-three percent of the participants claimed prior experience with microcomputers, and 48 percent identified themselves as novice computer users. A total of 78 percent had microcomputers available for teaching, but only 13 percent claimed to have used computers previously in the classroom. Eighty-six percent of participants were female; 35 percent were Black.

The home schools of the participants varied in size and had high minority populations. The mean number of students in participants’ schools was 627, with a range of 230 to 1500. Fifty-three percent of those students were black, with a range of 10 to 99 percent.

Evaluation Methodology

The formative evaluation for ENLIST Micros consisted of gathering information prior to and immediately after the sessions. The information gathered at the beginning of the treatment consisted of descriptive data about the participants and group leader, and measures of knowledge and attitudes about computers. The information gathered at the end of the treatment consisted of curriculum evaluation surveys from participants and workshop leaders, and the same measures of knowledge and attitudes we used earlier as pretests. In thefinal report for Part I, Ellis and Kuerbis (1987) presented evaluation results that they used to revise the curriculum.

Formative evaluation.

TABLE 111 Demographics of Workshop Participants

VI\RICBIE

Years teaching K-6

Years teaching 7 - 12

Credits in science

Credits in education

Credits in computer science

Credits in computer education

Insewice hours, educational computing

Frequency of micro use in teaching (/week)

No. of mcros available for teaching

MEI\N

6 6

4 9

25 0

70 4

0 2

0 6

4.4

2 3

6 1

STD. DEVIATION

6 3

7 6

20 7

41 4

1 0

1 8

9 0

1 4

6 6

mY 0

0

3

20

0

0

0

0

0

MAX VALID N

29 35

29 12

115 43

180 37

5 47

10 47

45 47

4 7

20 42

ENLIST MICROS 593

To assess teacher attitudes toward computer use, the project evaluator used the Computer Opinion Survey (Version AZ) (Maurer & Simonson, 1984). The 26-item instrument uses a six-point Likert scale that assesses to what degree the respondents feel intimidated by computers.

We assessed skills and cognitive gains using two forms of a 20-item instrument that BSCS staff developed for ENLIST Micros. These items are either true/false or four-selection multiple choice, and examine the participants’ recognition of terms, hardware components, applications, and implementation issues that involve micro- computers.

In addition to the formative evaluation procedures, we conducted a follow-up telephone interview one year after the workshops. We conducted a 32-item focused interview with 33 of the original 47 participants. We were unable to locate the remaining 14 teachers. The procedures we used for developing the interview checklist were the same as those found in the Concerns-Based Adoption Model for measuring innovation configurations (Heck, Stiegelbauer, Hall & Loucks, 1981). The five steps for developing a checklist of Innovation Configurations are:

Follow-up Interview.

(1) Identify the components of the innovation. (2) Identify additional components and variations. (3) Refine the checklist. (4) Test the checklist with a few users and make final corrections. ( 5 ) Collect the data.

We designed the first 12 items of the interview to obtain demographic variables and to assess participants’ reactions to in-service sessions they had attended during the previous two years. In the next section we examined computer availability and current use. Finally, we asked participants about their perceived barriers to greater computer use.

Prior to being interviewed, all participants were sent a letter informing them of the need to assess in-service offerings at the regional in-service center, which sponsored the ENLIST Micros sessions. Each letter contained a return postcard, on which participants indicated the preferred time for the interview and their telephone number. Using the interview checklist, a research assistant conducted a telephone interview of participants from the site during February, 1987-12 months after the second session of ENLIST Micros ended. Thirty-two of the 33 teachers interviewed remembered attending all the workshop sessions. Of those interviewed, 45 percent had attended the October 1985 sessions; the remainder had attended the January 1986 sessions.

Results

In the post-workshop survey, 85 percent of teacher participants indicated that ENLIST Micros effectively met its goals and objectives. Participants also confirmed that the material was neither too simple nor too complex, and said that they would recommend the workshop to other teachers. Combining results from all test sites, scores on the objective-based test of knowledge and skills increased slightly (p < 0.01) from the pretest to the post-test. Attitudes towards computers, as measured by the Computer Opinion Survey, increased dramatically ( p < 0.01) from the pretest to the post-test. Table IV presents cumulative percentages of participants who expressed

594 BAIRD, ELLIS, AND KUERBIS

TABLE IV Computer Opinions-Re and Post Cumulative Percent Rating each Statement as “Agree”

or “Strongly Agree”

St~tsrnont Pre-Workshop Post-Workshop

Havlnp a mnpner would ihpfove my general salisfaclkm

I lock forward to a time when mnpners are m e widely used

78 3

74 5

67 4

76 6

77 8

I eMy Uaiw mnpnen

Conputers are phbabhl Wnp 10 be an inponam parc of my life

I cdnlhim d may wa yathat I muld me a mrrpner

The lollowlnp n.0stlvely worded alaternentt were reversed for #coring. Thut. Inematlnp perceniaoes indlcate mom dl.aareammt rrilh the statement.

nadw m UM a m w a r would make my 1116 less enjoyable 82 6

100 0

48 9

32 6

78 7

44.7

n I hsd a mnpRerat my dsposal. I Wti try lo get lid oi L

I somim6 feel inimidated when I have to use a mnpner

I am uwHy utwamlorlaM when I have to use mmplten

If I had 10 use a mnputer au the time, I would pobably be vely unhappy

I sometimes feel that mnpnen are smarter than I am

95 2

85 7

90 5

85 7

90 0

a5 7

95 2

57 1

66 I

57 1

61 9

personal agreement with selected statements from the Computer Opinion Survey both before and after the workshop.

In response to the question: What in-service session of those you have attended during the past two years provided you with the most useful skills and knowledge?, 21 of the 33 participants identified the ENLIST Micros workshop. Of all the reasons, the one cited most frequently was hands-on acquisition of new skills.

Eighty-eight percent of teachers interviewed indicated that microcomputers were available to them for teaching. Sixty-four percent had software and supplies available. Only 15 percent, however, indicated that their school system budgeted money for software and supplies. Twelve percent were currently using computers for teaching science. The specification of science as a focus of computer use may have been biased by the fact that 23 of the teachers taught at the elementary level. An additional 21 percent use computers in teaching other subjects. Thus, 33 percent of these participants were using computers one year after the workshops. Although this figure seems low, 76 percent of teachers interviewed felt that ENLIST Micros had affected their use of computers. Forty-two percent said they had used skills from the workshops to help train other teachers in computer skills. The average number of teachers helped was five (s.d. = 9.4).

We asked the participants to, rank order what they perceived to be barriers to increased implementation of computers in their classroom. Table V presents the results by school grade level. In addition to common grade-level designations, such as K-6 and 9- 12, there were schools organized for grades K-3,5-6 , and K- 12. The barriers that ranked lowest were personal and student interest in the use of computers. Those barriers that participants ranked highest were lack of money, lack of time to prepare, and lack of available equipment and supplies. The data show little difference in barriers among grade-level designations.

The interview contained questions on whether the teachers would use computers more, less, or about the same if these barriers were removed. Eighty-eight percent of

ENLIST MICROS 595

the teachers indicated that if the barriers were removed they would use the computer more. Forty-eight percent rated support from peer teachers for computer implementation as “maximum” or “strong,” versus only 24 percent as “none” or “poor.” Forty-five percent felt that technical support for computer applications was “maximum” or “strong.”

It seems clear that teachers who participated in the ENLIST Micros workshops acquired needed skills and knowledge for better application of computers in teaching. What emerges from the follow-up interviews is the powerful influence of the local environment on a teacher’s use of the computer. Lack of money for software and hardware sufficient to create a “critical mass” of computer resources within each school may, along with the lack of follow up to the initial training, limit the implementation of educational computing in science. A disappointing number of teachers is using computers regularly one year after a 16-hour, hands-on training workshop, but there is evidence that teachers remember and value that training and feel that local factors inhibit their application of the new skills and knowledge.

Implications

In this article we have described the development and testing of a curriculum to prepare science teachers to use microcomputers effectively for instruction. The curriculum is based oq essential competencies identified by a needs assessment. The training program using those materials improved participants’ knowledge of and attitudes toward computers. The participants rated the in-service training as effective in meeting its objectives. Why was the program not successful at encouraging teachers to implement educational computing in science instruction?

Actually, the results are not completely unexpected. Changing teacher behaviors is a complicated process, involving much more than knowledge, skills, and attitudes.

TABLE V Mean Rankings of Perceived Barriers to Increased Computer Use

SChWl Grade Level

7.8 (N=l) 9 ~ 12 (N=6) K ~ 12 “-31 Earrier K - 3 IN-9) K - 6 (N-7) 5 - 6 (N-7)

Personal Lack of interest 6.3 7.0

Lack 01 skills 4.1 3.4

Tim 10 4 3 2.9 Prepare

Lack 01 A v m W 3.2 3.0 Equipment

insdequne Stan 2.9 4.3 -ppo*

lMdegU&

Ladld Studenl 5.1 4.6 Imerebl

7 0 7 0 6 3 5 0

4 0 4 0 3 7 5 0

3 1 3 0 2 5 1 7

2 3 2.0 2.8 2.0

3 6 5 0 4 7 4 0

5.3 6.0 5.2 6.0

Olher 8anlers 2.0 1.7 2.7 1 0 2.8 4.3 (0

Nore. The scale runs from 1 (maximum barrier to greater use) to 7 (minimum barrier to greater use).

596 BAIRD, ELLIS, AND KUERBIS

The developers consider training with the ENLIST Micros curriculum to be the first part of a complete implementation process. Early in the development of the curriculum, the BSCS proposed ENLIST Micros: Part 11-the development, evaluation, and dis- semination of a model for implementing educational computing in science teaching- to the National Science Foundation. This second part of the project is now underway.

A growing body of research indicates that teachers who receive hands-on training from experienced, computer-using classroom teachers benefit from that training and express positive attitudes toward educational applications of computers. If teachers receive this training over several sessions and the training program builds on existing skills in a systematic way, then the teachers will incorporate the new skills into their classroom practices at all grade levels and subject areas (Burke, 1986; Carlson, 1985).

McCullough (1983) found five significant predictors of high levels of microcomputer use among elementary teachers who had received various types of in-service training in computer applications. These predictors indicate that successful in-service training to facilitate microcomputer use should (1) provide for the participation by teachers in program evaluation, (2) implement a combination of individual and group activities, (3) make a sufficient number of microcomputers accessible to participants, (4) enlist classroom teachers with computer experience as trainers, and (5) arrange for cross- classroom observation by teacher participants.

In ENLIST Micros: Part 11, the BSCS is developing strategies to increase the implementation of microcomputers in science instruction. The project goals are to train 260 science teachers and administrators in the 22 districts in the Pikes Peak region to use the computer for enhancing science learning and teaching, establish a network in the Pikes Peak region to implement educational computing in science teaching, develop and test a model of teacher enhancement for educational computing in science teaching, and disseminate a model of teacher enhancement for educational computing in science teaching.

The first year of the project consisted of building an implementation network by training administrators and science teachers, from grades K-12 and from all science subject areas, to serve as leaders and facilitators in each district. Sixty-one science teachers and administrators participated in the leadership training. In most cases, the participants have formed building teams containing an administrator and at least two science teachers. The leadership training model includes a two-day , 16-hour workshop that prepares teachers and focuses on the ENLIST-Micros curriculum. Four seminars, each of which lasts 2.5 hours, have concentrated on dealing with barriers to imple- mentation, introducing special topics, forming special interest groups, and building, both within and among districts, a network of people who use computers to assist in their teaching of science. The leadership training model also includes a teacher practicum that has given teachers realistic training on how to implement the use of computers in their science classrooms. The project staff have observed and supervised this im- plementation process. The participants have visited and observed science classrooms where teachers and students are using microcomputers effectively. Project staff have visited participating teachers' classrooms, and have observed, discussed, and coached the participants in the use of computers. Finally, the leadership training model calls for building a support network for implementing educational computing in science instruction through improved communication and cooperation among school districts.

During the second and third years of ENLIST Micros: Part 11, the project staff will continue to build the implementation network and to use the leaders trained during

ENLIST MICROS 597

the first year to help more than 200 science teachers in the Pikes Peak region implement educational computing. The training of teachers will be similar to the training of the leaders during the first year, except that the leaders will gradually assume responsibility for the training. After the third year, the implementation network will be self-sustaining and the leaders and district staff will conduct all training activities. During and after the completion of the project, the BSCS will disseminate the ENLIST Micros model of implementation to other sites.

Plans for Dissemination

The Educational Materials and Equipment Company is the publisher for the ENLIST Micros materials. The published package consists of a video, tutorial software, and training manuals. Project staff expanded the text to eight chapters, including new chapters for training leaders. The developers recommend using catalogs and commercial science courseware as an important supplement for the package.

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. TEI-8650174. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or rec- ommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author@) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

AETS Ad Hoc Committee on Computers in Science Teaching (1985). Computers in science education: An AETS position paper. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 44(4), 17-20.

Becker, H.J. (1986). Instructional Uses of School Computers, Number 1. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University.

Burke, M. W. (1986). The effects of in-service microcomputer training on teachers’ attitudes toward educational computing. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 2126A.

Carlson, L.B. (1985). A longitudinal study of the process to utilize computers in a school district. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 2866A.

Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (1984). New Goals for Mathematical Sciences. Washington, D. C. : Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences.

Education Commission of the States (1983). Action for Excellence. Report of the task force for economic growth. Denver, CO: Author.

Ellis, J.D. & Kuerbis, P.J. (1987). ENLIST Micros: Final Report to the National Science Foundation. Colorado Springs, CO: Biological Sciences Curriculum Study.

Ellis, J.D. & Kuerbis, P.J. (1986). The development of a test of computer literacy for science teachers in grades K- 12. Paper presented at the 59th meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.

Ellis, J.D. & Kuerbis, P.J. (1985). Development and validation of essential computer literacy competencies for science teachers. Paper presented at the 58th meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, French Lick, IN. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 255 373.

Ellis, J.D. (1984). A rationale for using computers in science education. The American Biology Teacher. 46(4), 200-206.

Heck, S., Stiegelbauer, S.M., Hall, G., &bucks , S.F. (1981). Measuring Innovation

598 BAIRD, ELLIS, AND KUERBIS

Configurations: Procedures and Applications. The Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, The University of Texas at Austin.

Heller, P. (1984). Report of the 1983 Minnesota survey of science education. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 259 882.

Kherlopian, R. & Dickey, E. (1985). Technology in teaching science and mathematics (grades 7-9). Paper presented at the tenth annual meeting of the National Council of States on in-service education, Denver, CO.

Lehman, J.R. (1985). Survey of microcomputer use in the science classroom. School Science and Mathematics, 85, 578-583.

Lesgold, A.M. & Reif, F., Eds. (1983). Computers in Education: Realizing the Potential. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 95-108.

Marcom, J. Jr. & Bellow, P.A. (1985, April 17). Schools keep buying computers, but pupils may not benefit much. The Wall Street Journal, p. 1 .

Maurer, M. & Simonson, M.R. (1984). Computer Opinion Survey (version AZ). Ames, IA: Iowa State Unive&y*

McCullough, L.L. (1983). Guidelines for in-service teacher training for instructional applications of the microcomputer in the elementary grades. Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 8 16A.

National Education Assoc. (1983). A teacher survey: Computers in the classroom. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association.

National Science Board (1983). Educating Americansfor the 21st century. Wash- ington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.

National Science Foundation (1985). Teacher enhancement and informal science education: Program announcement and guide. Washington, D.C.: Author.

National Science Teachers Association (1983). Standards for the preparation and certification of teachers of science K- 12: Position statement. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association: Author.

Okey, J.R. (1985). Integrating computing into science instruction. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 4(2), 14- 18.

O’Loughh, M.J., Dekkers, J. & Treagust, D.E. (1982). An approach to introducing computing to practicing science and mathematics teachers: Technical Report 7 of Western Australian Institute of Technology, Bentley. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 233 892.

Manuscript accepted November 17, 1988.