Plenary Address: Is It Still an Apple for the Teacher?

Plenary Address Is It Still an Apple for the Teacher? Michael L. Deninger Dr. Deninger is Dean of Curriculum and Instruction, Pre-College Programs, Gallaudet College, Washington, DC. One year ago 1 made a presentation at the annual meeting of the Conference of Educational Administrators Serving the Deaf. The presentation addressed trends in the use of computers with deaf children in our schools. Our experience at that time appeared to mirror that of the public education sector with regard to the types of equipment in use, the number of computers in use, and the applications they supported. During last year's presentation, I discussed the problems schools face when hardware is purchased before investigating available software. I discussed how some schools then face problems when they try to match their new hardware with incompatible software. I advised the schools to first identify the appropriate software for their students' needs. Only then can informed decisions be made about hardware purchases. During that presentation, I reported results of last year's survey indicating that, among schools serving deaf children, Apple equipment was by far the most popular hardware used for computer-assisted instruction and other classroom applications. It also appeared that this trend would continue. This article offers new information about these trends from our more recent survey that addressed the following questions. How many computers are in use among schools for the deaf in this country? Is there a difference in the level of use in day schools, residential schools, and day classes? How many and what kinds of software programs are in use in our schools? It is interesting to note how rapidly the use of computers has grown in general education in the United States in the last few years. Table 1 shows growth in the numbers of computers in schools and school districts between 1981 and 1983. Over this two year period, the number of school districts with microcomputers grew from 6,473 to 12,517, representing an increase of 93%. Because there are an estimated 16,000 school districts in the U.S., this would mean that approximately 78% of all districts in our country were using some kind of microcomputers in 1983-84. Growth in the number of individual schools using computers was even more staggering—from 14,132 in 1981 to 55,175 in 1983—a growth rate of almost 300%. This will provide a point of reference throughout the discussion of similar growth in the use of computers in schools serving deaf children. Table 1. Microcomputers in U.S. Schools and School Districts 1981-83. No. of Microcomputers Category 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 % Increase 1981-83 School Districts Schools 6,473 14,132 9,379 30,859 12,517 55,175 93 290 Note. Data source is Quality Education Data of Denver, Colorado. 332 A.A.D. / November 1985 An Apple for the Teacher Table 2. Microcomputers in U.S. Schools and Classes for the Deaf 1983-84. School Type Have Computers No Computers % With Computers Day Schools Residential Schools Day Classes Totals (N = 304) 19 70 152 241 6 3 54 63 76 96 73 79 METHODOLOGY A one-page questionnaire was sent to a total of 500 residential schools for the deaf, day schools, and public day classes for the deaf. Questions were designed to gather information about how many computers were used in the schools, what types of computers were in use, what they were used for, what kinds of software were in use, whether the schools had hardware and software budgets, and who was responsible for computer use in the school. One follow-up mailing was sent to encourage additional responses to the survey. The questionnaires were coded and entered onto the computer for analysis. Copies of the survey can be obtained from the Office of the Dean for Curriculum and Instruction at the Model Secondary School for the Deaf. RESULTS Seventy-four surveys were returned from residential schools, 25 from day schools, 207 from day classes and 4 from colleges. Of the more than 500 questionnaires distributed, a total of 310 were returned, representing more than 60% of the sample surveyed. Results from the responses from the...