Selecting ILSs

Selecting ILSs

Teachers should note that although many educators still refer One way to ensure the appropriate use of ILSs is to have a to these multifaceted systems as “integrated learning systems,” careful, well-planned initial review process that involves the vendors of the systems tend to refer to them as “educa- both teachers and school administrators. Criteria for the tional solutions,” “accountability solutions,” or “supplemental selection process are usually based on the curriculum cover- educational services” (Readers’ Choice Awards, 2004). By age and pedagogical strategies in the ILS, as well as percep- whatever name, several items are ongoing concerns: tions about the usefulness of the reports that the system

produces and to what extent they meet the needs of the • The costs of ILSs — The primary criticism of ILSs district. See Figure 3.7 for examples of ILSs and a summary

centers on their expense as compared to their impact on of ILS features.

improving learning. ILS proponents feel that the students who experience the most success with ILSs are those whose

Benefits of ILSs

needs are typically most difficult to meet (Becker, 1994; Brush (1998) estimated that as of 1998, between 11% and

Bender, 1991; Bracy, 1992; Shore & Johnson, 1992). 25% of all U.S. schools owned ILSs. Two recent develop-

Proponents also say there is value in any system that helps ments have caused a rapid rise in these numbers (Readers’

potential dropouts stay in school or helps students with Choice Awards, 2004):

learning disabilities. They point to studies and personal testimony from teachers over the years that ILSs motivate

• District-and state-adopted academic standards — students by allowing them to work at their own pace and An increased emphasis on educational accountability in

to experience success each time they are on the system.

FIGURE 3.7 Integrated Learning Systems Summary Information

Description of Integrated Learning Systems

Characteristics

Criteria for Effective ILSs

Benefits

• Networked or online systems of

• Can help provide Supplemental instruction

• Good curriculum coverage

Educational Services required by the • Provide complete curricula on a topic

• Good pedagogical strategies

• Several different report formats

NCLB Act

• Benefits of drill, tutorials, simulations, • Monitor and provide reports on

area

• Easily read and interpreted reports

instructional games, and problem student progress

solving, depending on which activities • Summarize data by student, class, or

are used

school • Easier to access via network or online • Entire curriculum at one source • Personalized instruction matched to

student needs • Summary progress data help meet teacher/district accountability requirements

Sample Integrated Learning System (ILS) Software

Sample Screens:

Sample Screens:

The CompassLearning Odyssey ® Manager

The PLATO ® Learning Systems ILS

http://www.compasslearning.com

http://www.plato.com

Sample Reports

• Research on ILS impact — Studies of a variety of ILSs Kingdom (Wood, Underwood, & Avis, 1999), Indiana in a number of different locations reached generally the

(Estep, McInerney, & Vockell, 1999–2000), and New same conclusion as Van Dusen and Worthen (1995)

York (Miller, 1997; Paterson, Henry, & O’Quin, 2003) did: The impact of an ILS on student achievement

duplicated this finding. However, Brush, Armstrong, and varies greatly with implementation methods. Kulik’s

Barbrow (1999) found that two different resources (2003) meta-analysis of ILS studies published between

offered in the same ILS had different impacts on 1990 and 1997 shows modest gains for schools using

achievement. Individualized software designed to pro- ILSs. Becker’s (1992) summary of some 30 studies of

vide foundations instruction had less impact than soft- ILS effectiveness found wide variation in results with vari-

ware that could be selected by teachers to supplement ous implementation methods and systems. Students gen-

their own instruction.

erally tended to do somewhat better with ILSs than with • Concerns about the role of ILSs — In a follow-up to other methods, and results were sometimes substantially

his literature review on ILS uses, Becker (1994) criticized superior to non-ILS methods. But Becker found no pre-

uses of ILSs that encourage “mindless adherence to the dictable pattern for successful and unsuccessful ILSs.

principle of individualized instruction” (p. 78). Brush Subsequent large-scale studies of ILS use in the United

CHAPTER 3 – Teaching with Instructional Software 101

(1998) agreed with Becker, finding that “. . . lack of • Carefully evaluate the grade-level software, manage- teacher involvement (in ILS use) has led to improper

ment system, customization, and online tools, and be coordination between classroom-based and computer-

sure that they match the school’s expectations. based instructional activities . . . and lack of teacher

• Set up reasonable terms of procurement, and calculate understanding regarding effective strategies and proce-

the personnel and fiscal impact of the ILS. dures for using ILSs” (p. 7). An early concern expressed

by many educators (White, 1992) that the cost of ILSs Successful uses of ILSs have been reported for both di-

combined with the comprehensive nature of their curric- rected and constructivist teaching approaches. ula might cause schools to view them as replacements for Directed applications for ILSs. In a directed teaching teachers has not yet proven to be a real problem.

approach, an ILS system can be used for remediation and as

a mainstream delivery system. With either of these applica-

Using ILSs in Teaching

tions, teachers still have important roles to play. They must assign initial levels of work, follow up on student activities

When used only as a teacher replacement to provide indi- on the system, and give additional personal instruction vidual student instruction, ILSs seem to be less effective.

when needed.

When viewed as a supplement to other teaching methods and carefully integrated into a total teaching program,

• For remediation — Although ILSs are expensive alterna- they seem more likely to have the desired impact on rais-

tives to other kinds of delivery systems, the requirements ing achievement. One way to ensure appropriate and

of the NCLB Act have provided new motivation—as well cost-effective uses of ILS products may be through a care-

as new funding sources—for using them. Even when new ful, well-planned purchasing process that involves both

funding and the motivation to use ILSs are present, teachers and administrators. One such process was devel-

schools must determine how ILS functions coordinate oped by the California Department of Education

with and complement those of the classroom teacher. ILS (Armstrong, 1999). This five-stage process (planning,

uses serve target populations that have typically presented pre-evaluation, evaluation, selection, and implementa-

the most difficult problems for traditional classroom tion/post-evaluation) is designed to “establish selection

activities: Title I groups, English for Speakers of Other procedures that ensure that . . . curricular goals remain at

Languages (ESOL) students, special education students, the heart of the selection process” (p. 3). Guidelines for

and at-risk students. Schools have tried and usually failed potential ILS purchasers based on those offered by

to reach these students with other methods. Chrisman (1992), Smith and Sclafani (1989), and Vaille

and Hall (1998) are summarized here: • As a mainstream delivery system — Rather than us- ing an ILS only as a backup system to address educa- • Clearly identify the problem the ILS is supposed to

tional problems, a school may let an ILS do the initial solve, and understand the instructional theory on

job of teaching whole courses for all students in a grade which the system is based.

level. In light of the expense of ILSs, this type of use is • Determine whether the ILS is a closed system (one

more rare. However, some alternative projects, like the that provides 80% or more of the instruction for a

Edison Project (Walsh, 1999), predict that the costs of given course) or an open system (one linked to the

using technology in this way will amount to substan- school’s resources).

tially less over time than teacher salaries. Using ILSs to increase student-to-teacher ratios has stimulated ongo-

• Find out if the system’s scope and sequence are

ing debate and study.

matched to that of the school. • Determine the target population for which the system Constructivist applications for ILSs. An ILS can also

was designed and whether it closely matches the char- combine several kinds of technology resources to support acteristics of students who will be using the ILS.

constructivist learning approaches. This kind of ILS can • Consider the adequacy of the reporting and manage- provide what Perkins (1991) called a “rich environment” ment system for the school’s needs.

that students can use to construct their own knowledge. ILS products useful for constructivist purposes typically

• Consider how much of its resources the school must have an information bank (electronic encyclopedias), sym- spend on hardware and software. bol pads (word processing and/or desktop publishing soft-

• Project the educational benefits to the school from the ware), construction kits (Logo or other graphic languages system, and compare them with the costs.

or tools), and phenomenaria (computer simulations and/or • Request that vendors inform the school of ILS updates. problem-solving resources). They also usually have data-

Directed Models

Constructivist Models

Either Model

p _ 3 mental 0 Optimize Develop

Remedy Build

Identified Provide Support Foster creative models,

1 7 weaknesses Promote skill efficient, 0 self-paced problem increase Allow for Generate personnel logistical literacy and -

scarce Remove Information

Foster

Integration Strategies

or skill

fluency or

self-paced review of solving and

motivation and material hurdles to visual literacy

for Instructional Software

deficits

automaticity instruction concepts metacognition transfer

cooperation intelligences to learn

Drill and

Supplement or

1 Practice X X

replace worksheets,

homework excercises

Prepare for tests

Tutorials

Self-Paced reviews

Alternative learning

strategies

P Instruction when M

teachers are

a P unavailable

Simulations Replace or

supplment labs

Replace or supple- ment role playing

Replace or supple-

CHAPTER

ment field trips

Introduce a

new topic

3–T

Foster exploration, process learning

eaching with Instructional So

Encourage cooperation and group work

Instructional Supplement or

Games

replace worksheets,

homework exercises Teach cooperative

skills

As a reward

Problem

Teach component

Solving

skills in problem-

ftw

solving strategies

ar

Provide support e in solving problems

Encourage group problem solving Encourage group problem solving

structivist methods.

Constructivist activities tend to emphasize learner-

A Summary of Instructional centered, collaborative, and open-ended products rather than

drill or tutorial software. For example, Litchfield (1992)

Software Integration

lists criteria for “inquiry-based science software and interac-