Pioneering educators who joined the National School Network Testbed in 1994 described their visions and expectations of educational reform and transformation that would result from school networking. Then in 1995 and 1997, teachers, network coordinators and administrators in NSN schools responded to surveys that asked about their Internet infrastructure, cost and funding sources, applications, participation, conditions of use, and perceived benefits. Here we compare the educational reform expectations and visions of 1994 with some of the available data concerning the actual practices, conditions and beliefs in these schools at the end of the 1997 school year. We find notable differences between the original expectations and the actual activities taking place. Possible reasons are explored to help explain the differences between expectations and actual developments. Implications for policy and practice are suggested.

1994: Visionaries in the National School Network Testbed

In early 1994, pioneering people from school districts, state departments of education, universities, museums, other educational institutions and private corporations, representing several hundred schools around the U.S., formed with BBN the National School Network Testbed (NSNT). (Hunter, 1995). This research project was supported by the National Science Foundation's National Infrastructure for Education program. A basic premise of the NSNT is that all members of a learning community -- in or out of schools -- should be able to participate in the construction of their local information infrastructure, connected to the worldwide Internet, in such a way as to meet the changing needs for learning by all members of that community. This premise is grounded in the belief that people learn in the process of actively constructing knowledge, both alone and in collaboration with others. Adoption of this premise requires that all participants have full Internet connectivity and the ability to contribute knowledge to a local server.

During 1994, these founders of the National School Network Testbed were just beginning to build their technical infrastructure of LANs, WANs, Internet connectivity and user workstations. They described their visions and purposes for doing this. NSNT Members four years ago had exciting visions of how they would use Internetworking to change, restructure, and reform their institutions, curricula, teaching methods, assessment, collaborations across the local community, and economic development. Table 1 summarizes those motivations.

Assessing the schools' progress towards the reform goals

What happened to their visions for educational reform through Internetworking? Three years later, what progress had been made towards the Internetworking and towards the educational reforms? Are efforts at Internetworking and educational reform actually linked in practice?

In January, 1997, survey booklets were mailed to 248 schools selected to represent the 300+ schools of the NSNT. (Becker & Ravitz 1997). Separate booklets were identified for the School-Level Network Coordinator (a 13-page booklet with 47 questions, most with multiple sub-questions), a 5-page "Technical Supplement," and a 4-page "Administrator Supplement." In addition, the "strongest Internet-using teachers" completed a 13-page, 54-question booklet and randomly selected "other" teachers from each school completed a shorter 15-question survey. Data from these surveys enable us to examine many different indicators and perspectives on the following:

• the actual technical infrastructure that was built (hence who has access to the Internet within the schools),
• participation in the construction of the Local Information Infrastructure,
• the kinds of learning and teaching activities taking place and the extent of participation in those activities within a school,
• the beliefs of the teachers concerning the value and purposes of these activities and Internet in school generally, and
• other conditions that might affect the nature of Internet use by teachers and students.

The Prerequisite Technical Infrastructure Has Been Built in NSN Schools

The survey data show that in general, the schools in the NSNT have succeeded very well in building the technical infrastructure needed in order to have people in schools participate in Internetworking, and the participation rates within those schools is growing rapidly.

The schools are well connected at the classroom level.

The schools we are reporting on have built a strong infrastructure of connectivity to the classroom level. Modems have disappeared. 96% of the schools have high-speed LAN-based Internet access. Fifty-one percent have T1 lines to the building. The typical NSN school has 50 simultaneous connections; the typical T1-connected school has 73. In 57% of elementary schools, a majority of teachers have classroom Internet connections. Middle schools average 14 connections per 100 students. In the high schools, 62% had T1 connections, and the mean number of connected computers is more than 100. (Becker, 1997). (Figure 2).

The tools are becoming more widely accessible.

Only two percent of respondents thought that the Internet was "too complicated to use," and only 13% said that Internet=connected computers were in an inconvenient location in the school.

The number of network users is growing rapidly in NSN schools

Network coordinators in NSN schools reported rapid growth between 1996 and 1997 in terms of numbers of students and teachers using the Internet in their schools and the sophistication of their use. For example, two thirds of the schools reported a tripling of the number of students with some Internet experience and nearly all the others reported doubling. Similarly, nearly half the schools reported a tripling of the number of teachers with Internet experience, and nearly all the others reported at least a doubling over the past school year. (Figure 3). This is a strong indicator that the physical infrastructure that they have built, is actually accessible and usable by a rapidly growing proportion of the people in the schools. This growth in actual use is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for Internetworking to be used in support of educational reform agendas.

Are teachers and students participating in construction of the information infrastructure?

The premise of the NSNT is that everyone would have an opportunity to participate in constructing the information infrastructure. The information infrastructure includes data, information, knowledge, how these are organized, the tools for manipulating information, and the ways in which one interacts with other people through the networks and in relation to information and knowledge. In 1994, such participation typically meant creating files published online in a Gopher space, participating in newsgroups, or participating in email-based projects and forums. Today, it typically means building and publishing WWW pages, or contributing to group discussions or data collection in online forums, projects, telementoring exchanges or email lists.

At the beginning of the NSNT, at least a third of the participants said their students would be creating digital libraries and making them accessible to others via Internet for learning and teaching. Often this agenda was coupled with a community service plan, for instance when students would digitize materials in a local history museum and put them on the Web so more people could use them. A key pedagogical reason for such activities is to give students a real audience for their work, which is known to be motivating and demanding of high quality standards. It was also expected that such publications would become a central feature of new methods of assessing student work and learning -- for instance by sharing standards for assessment of the work among schools.

Few students participate in Web publishing

In just about all of the NSN schools surveyed in 1997, some Web publishing was taking place. However, according to network coordinators, few teachers and students in those schools were participating. (Figure 4). Web publishing was done in about 90% of NSN schools, but only by 3-4 teachers and a handful of students.

This finding is corroborated by the Internet-using teachers' reports of the kinds of Internet-related instructional activities their students engage in. Thirty-three percent of those teachers reported "creating Web pages with contributions from many class members", with a median number of 15 students per teacher. (Figure 5).

Seven types of publishable products were asked about in both the 1995 and 1997 surveys. In 1995 network coordinators were asked to indicate the amount of each type of publishing activity expected in the future. Fewer than 20% of the schools had published teacher lesson plans or curriculum guides. About as many schools accomplished putting links and pointers on a Web site in 1997 as planned to do so in 1995. Somewhat fewer (but still most schools) accomplished putting some amount of individual and group student work on a website (63% versus the 79-87% who planned to do so two years earlier). A minority of schools planned to put more innovative student work on the Web (contributing to multi-school publications or student surveys).

Few schools give individual students e-mail accounts

Relatively few of the NSN schools have distributed individual e-mail accounts widely to students. At only 21% do half or more students have or use their own e-mail accounts. More than one-third of the NSN schools (35%) do not give individual e-mail accounts to any students and at another third (33%), only "a few" students have that privilege. If students do not dependably have and use email accounts, teachers cannot have them participating in email-based projects online. Hence in the majority of NSN schools, participation in email-based projects is not widespread. This is a surprising finding, since this genre of networked project was one of the earliest kinds of network-based learning activities (since 1980), hundreds or thousands of such projects exist, and most are free.

Local Community Involvement

A major motivation of the founding members of the NSN for building a network infrastructure, was to help strengthen or forge new linkages between schools and people outside of schools, particularly within the local community -- with local government, homes, businesses, museums and libraries, adult mentors, and so forth. The NSN Web site was used to share among the member schools information about innovative ways in which school-community linkages are being built. The NSN is replete with stories, case studies, profiles and articles about how schools are using the networks to support such activities as school-to-work programs, telementoring, project-based learning with the local community as the context for a project, community service activities, creating digital libraries from local information resources, school/business partnerships, and the like. (e.g. Goldman, 1997; 1998; NSN, 1996; <http://nsn.bbn.com/community/projects.shtml>). However compelling these leading-edge examples may be, however, such practices require a kind and level of school restructuring and curriculum reform that has not yet taken place on a widespread basis.

Community service activities spread slowly.

For instance, in 1995, 28% of all NSN schools at the time reported at least one type of organization that was the beneficiary of students' Internet-related community service. That was seen as fairly substantial then. However, this aspect of student leadership has not spread very fast. In 1997 only 33% of all NSN survey-responding schools involved students in an Internet-related service activity, just 5 percentage points more than two years earlier. The most common target for service learning is local government agencies. 16% of NSN schools help there, while 11% help local businesses. Middle schools are most likely to have students do Internet-related service learning (40%), somewhat more than high schools (34%). (Becker, 1997). (Figure 6a).

Similarly, only 14% of the strongest Internet-using teachers said that their students create Web pages as a service to others, such as community organizations, and the median number of student participating per teacher was only five.

On the other hand, over half of the network coordinators reported that their school facilities were used to train parents or community members on how to use the Internet. Also, over half of the schools had "class or individual projects where the Internet is used to acquire information from community members or groups." (Figure 6b).

Relatively few students participate in telementoring.

A major emphasis of the National School Network Testbed is on telementoring -- students having email exchanges with either adult experts or tutoring exchanges with other students via email. The NSN highlighted telementoring projects of its members on the NSN Web pages, held meetings and a major conference on this topic, and developed special software to support telementoring exchanges. Fifteen percent of Internet=using teacher respondents said they have their students participate in telementoring, with a median number of 12 students involved. Five percent of this teacher group have students tutoring or receiving tutoring from other students via email, with a media of 17 students involved per teacher.

Student interaction with local community via networks is still uncommon.

One type of project-based learning that seems a promising way to engage students in real-world concerns, is where students interview community members and report results on Web pages. Of the strongest Internet-using teachers, only five percent reported having students conduct such projects.

Internetworking is not being used as widely to support and foster curricular and pedagogical change as was originally expected.

The spring 1997 survey of NSNT schools shows patterns of Internet participation and applications different from those envisioned by the founding members at the outset of the NSN in 1994. By far, the most common classroom use of the Internet is to "search for specific information online" and to "look at sites on the World-Wide-Web." Ninety-four percent of the strongest Internet-using teachers reported having students perform this kind of activity. (Table 5). All other kinds of activities -- those which involve online collaborations or knowledge-building with adults and students outside of the school, for example -- are reported far less frequently and involve far fewer students.

Collaborative learning activities are in half the schools, involving 20 - 50 students

A move towards project-based learning, online collaborative projects, and related changes in instructional methods were frequently cited among the reform agendas described by NSN participants in 1994. (Hunter, 1995; 1996). However, by 1997 there were a relatively small number of students in the NSN schools who were participating in online projects such as those involving collaborative science investigations or collaborative writing projects with distant classes. Of the Internet=using teachers, 21% said their students had participated in collaborative math or science investigations online, with a median number of 23 students per teacher. (Figure 7).

According to the Network Coordinators, about 50% of NSN schools have students participating in collaborative science investigations with distant classes, up from about 30% two years ago. Median number of students per school was reported to be about 50. With respect to collaborative writing projects with classes in other schools, seven percent of Internet-using teachers report this activity, with a median of 24 students. Network coordinators reported about 40% of the schools participating in such activities, with a median of 50 students per school involved. These figures represent a modest growth in participation from 1995. (Figure 8 ).

Network coordinators valued Internet for access more than pedagogical changes

A move towards project-based learning and related changes in instructional methods were frequently cited among the reform agendas described by NSN participants in 1994. However, In 1995, the Internet's value "two years from now" as a huge and easily accessible library of information was thought much more important than other values--publishing student work, communication and collaboration for students and teachers. In 1997, information retrieval was seen even more universally as the Internet's most important value as of that point, going from 48% ranking it first to 65% among the 52 network coordinators who responded to both the 1995 and 1997 surveys. (Figure 9).

Internet-using teachers value access to information far more than collaboration or knowledge-building

When asked to rank order five possible values of the Internet, Internet-using teachers ranked "access to a huge variety of curriculum relevant information for teachers and students" far higher than any of the other choices, which all relate to collaboration, communication and participation in projects and products.

How is Internetworking being used to support professional development of teachers?

One of the visions for the use of the Internet was to support teachers' professional development, for instance through collaborations with peers online or building and publishing curriculum and lesson plans online. Innovations in teaching and implementation of new curriculum often require that teachers learn to re-think their craft, their basic pedagogical teaching approach, and their goals for students. The founding members of the NSNT thought that the Internet would help teachers in implementing reforms by providing them with opportunities to collaborate and reflect with other teachers and experts outside their schools, obtain evaluations of educational materials, author new learning materials, and so forth.

Few of the Internet-using teachers are actively participating in professional development activities online

However, few of even the strongest Internet-using teachers reported engaging in this sort of activity. About 15% reported posting a message to a news group or electronic mailing list of educators daily or weekly. About seven percent reported participating in a real-time chat about educational issues monthly or more. (Figure 10).

Teachers' reasons for using Internet appear unrelated to their own professional development in relation to reform agendas

Internet-using teachers were asked to rank the importance of possible reasons for using the Internet. These teachers ranked "life in a technological society" as the most important reason. Generally seen as unimportant were reasons like "new teaching practices," "reduce professional isolation," or "support school change. (Figure 11).

Using the Internet has placed additional demands on teachers for their own learning

It appears that the presence of Internet at this stage of implementation in these pioneering schools, rather than being a solution to the need for professional development, has actually added to the teachers' learning requirements. Ravitz (1998) has analyzed responses of Internet-using teachers to a series of questions concerning their own level of skill in performing Internet=related tasks such as using a search engine to find information, putting files on a server for others to access, or participating in an IRC discussion. He has found a strong correlation between these responses with teachers' extent of use of Internet in their classrooms.

A key area in which the strong Internet-using teachers have recognized their own lack of skill is in their own ability to manage large amounts of electronic information.

Teachers report changes in their classroom management and teaching styles

Although teachers did not report much direct use of the Internet for their own professional development, they did see themselves as changing their classroom practices in part as a consequence of their having their students use the Internet. (Figure 12). Many of these changes in teaching practice and classroom management are in the direction of a more learner-centered classroom where students take charge of their own learning, work on long projects that are related to the real world outside of a classroom. For instance, teachers who direct their students' use of Internet in their classrooms were more than twice as likely as non-Internet using teachers to report that they are more often having their students work on long projects than in past years. Sixty-six percent of those Internet-using teachers also attributed that change in their teaching to the fact that they were using the Internet. Eighty percent of Internet-using teachers reported that they have their students more often addressing problems in real-world contexts than before, compared with about 55% of non-Internet using teachers. Sixty percent of those Internet-using teachers attributed the change at least in part to the fact of using the Internet.

Student benefits are primarily motivational at this point

When asked what benefits they have observed so far in a substantial proportion of student network users, most of the strong Internet-using teachers chose items like "Students apply themselves for longer periods of time." (59%). One of the least frequently selected items was "Students have a deeper understanding of the ideas they encounter." This kind of observation is also reflected in network coordinators' opinions of the rationale for using the Internet with students: only 13% of them think students learn better.

Other factors affecting educational change and Internetworking uses in schools.

Many factors affect implementation of innovations, and the NSN survey data help us to assess some that have affected teachers' use of Internetworking in NSN schools. (Ravitz 1998). While this analysis is still underway, it seems safe to say that in general, the kinds of conditions we usually look for as prerequisite to implementation -- such as leadership, administrative support, technical support, training opportunities, teacher participation in decisionmaking, existence of a long-range technology plan, an approved budget for technology, and others -- are at least adequate in most of these schools. We find that teachers who have more of those supports and conditions do use the Internet more than those who have less.

Making time for new kinds of activities is most problematic

Predictably, the time factor seems most problematic -- both planning time and time in the curriculum. As reported in Ravitz (1998) both these elements were among the most lacking as reported by Internet=using teachers. Given the time difficulty, it is not surprising that the single most highly desired change in conditions of Internet use as reported by strong Internet-using teachers is "Packaged instructional materials and lesson plans for using Internet resources."

Within a school there are different perspectives on purposes for using Internet

When Internet-using teachers were asked to rate a list of possible reasons for using the Internet, "support school change" was one of the lowest rated reasons. The highest rated reason given by these teachers was "life in technological society." However, network coordinators were asked a similar (not identical) question, and their response was quite different. By far, the majority of network coordinators thought that the most defensible rationale for using the Internet with students at their school was that it "can help transform the educational process." Only half as many of these respondents chose "the pervasiveness of technology in society." We can speculate that network coordinators are more knowledgeable than teachers are about a broader range of Internet applications, both for education and more generally in society, and therefore have a broader perspective on reasons for Internetworking.

Some suggestions for policy and practice.

The snapshot of school communities that we can capture from the NSN school surveys, reflects an early stage in process of change. For policy makers and administrators wanting to build on the lessons learned in these pioneering school communities, the following should be considered.

• Many schools are in the process of implementing new curriculum frameworks, expectancies for student learning, teaching methods, and assessment methods. The substantial investment being made in building and maintaining the technological infrastructure could have a more rapid payoff in terms of desired learning outcomes, if the types of uses of that infrastructure were more tightly coupled to particular school improvement priorities.
• Teachers bring what they learn into their classrooms and teaching practices. If there is an intent by a school or district to use the Internet to help accomplish particular school improvement or reform goals, then those goals should be explicitly addressed in teacher training or professional development activities related to using the Internet and associated technologies.
• If particular learning outcomes (besides learning to use the Internet) are desired and intended to result from Internet use in the schools, then appropriate content, pedagogy, learning activities and assessment methods that take advantage of the Internet need to be a regular part of the core curriculum. Time and other resources have to be managed in a way that is aligned with the nature of those activities.
• If the Internet (or a school/district Intranet) is intended to be used for collaboration and communication, students need to have email accounts and know how to use this medium responsibly.

References

Becker, H. (1997, November). Two Years of Progress in the National School Network Schools: Presentation by Hank Becker. Presented at TelEd'97. Austin, TX. Available: http://nsn.bbn.com/nsn_learnings/becker_teled97/overheads_explained.html

Becker, H. & Ravitz, J. (1997). The equity threat of promising innovations: The Internet in schools. Paper presented as part of the Internet and Equity in Education Symposium (Phillip Bowman, Chair), at the 1997 SPSSI Conference of the anual meeting of the American Psychological Association in Chicago, IL, August, 1997. Available: http://nsn.bbn.com/dissemination/docs/equity.html

Goldman, M. (1997, November). School-Community Partnerships: Potential Hero in Today's Transformation. In Two Years of Progress in the School Network Schools. Presentation at TelEd*97. Austin, TX. Available: http://nsn.bbn.com/nsn_learnings/school_community_partner.html

Goldman, M. (1998). Telecommunications changes the relationship between schools and their communities. Consortium for School Networking 3rd Annual Conference: K-12 School Networking on the Information Superhighway. Washington D.C. February 1998.

Hunter, B. (1995). Internetworking and educational reform: The National School Network Testbed. Paper presented at the 1995 INET Conference in Hawaii. Available: http://copernicus.bbn.com/testbed2/TBdocs/065.hunter.html

Hunter, B. (1997). Fostering Collaborative Knowledge-Building: Lessons Learned from the National School Network Testbed. In Collis, B. & Knezek, G. (Eds.) Teaching & Learning In the Digital Age: Research into Practice with Telecommunications in Educational Settings. Eugene, OR: ISTE. Presented at the Annual Telecommunications in Education (TelEd) Conference. Austin, TX. November 14-15, 1997. Available: http://nsn.bbn.com/dissemination/docs/Hunter_TelEd97.html

Hunter, B. (1997). Learning in an internetworked world. In The Internet as Paradigm. Queenstown MD: Institute for Information Studies.

Hunter, B. (1995) Learning and teaching on the Internet: Contributing to educational reform. In Kahin, B. and Keller, J. (eds.) Public Access to the Internet. MIT Press 1995.

Ravitz, J. (1997, November). What do Internet-using teachers say about their Internet use? Presentation at Tel*Ed97 in session titled Two Years of Progress in the National School Network Schools. Austin, TX. Available: http://nsn.bbn.com/nsn_learnings/iut/iut.html

Ravitz, J. (1998). Conditions that facilitate teachers' Internet use in schools with high Internet connectivity: Preliminary findings. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Association of Educational Communications and Technology. February, 1998. St. Louis, MO. Available: http://copernicus.bbn.com/Ravitz/Ravitz_AECT98.html

---

Figures

Internetworking and Educational Reform:

Are These Different Subjects?

Beverly Hunter, Lead Scientist

BBN/GTE Internetworking

Cambridge, MA

<bhunter@bbn.com>

Consortium for School Networking Annual Conference

Washington D.C. February 1998

Reform Agenda 1994	Example Organizations
Create new kind of curriculum; implement new standards	Rosa Parks; Ralph Bunche; Mendocino; Allegheny PA Schools Partnership
Project-based Learning with online teams	Glenview ILL S.D.
Integrate computational methods into curriculum	MDVirtual HS; Earth Systems Science CurriculumC
Invent new methods for assessing student learning	Coalition of Essential Schools portfolio assessment
Collaborate beyond school walls	Exploratorium; Franklin Institute
Digitize, disseminate community resources, construct digital libraries	Patch H.S., OCM Boces, Science Learning Network
Community-wide learning	Lexington; Mendocino
Home-school connections	Buddy System, Indiana
Connect scientists to schools	Earthwatch
Global Collaborations	Global Lab
Economic Development	Mendocino
School leadership in community	Gould Academy ME; Sweetwater WY
Teacher Professional Development	Boulder Valley; TeacherNet
Educational restructuring	Champlain Valley School Dist.
Statewide Ed reform	CA; TX
Expand educational market	Scholastic, PacBell
Aggregate educational resources	Geometry Forum

Figure 1: Some Motivations of NSNT Pioneers in 1994 (Hunter, 1995)

Figure 2: Technical Infrastructure in NSNT Schools in 1997 (Becker, 1997)

Figure 3: Network coordinators' perception of the differences between last year and this year. Red areas represent proportion of respondents who reported "much more" (perhaps a tripling); green shaded areas represent proportion reporting "some more" (doubling). Blank areas on each bar represent proportion reporting no change. (Becker, 1997).

Figure 4: Web publishing in NSNT schools according to network coordinators. (Becker, 1997).

Q-20 Below is a list of network learning activities. Indicate which of these activities you have had students participate in at school since September, and roughly how many students have participated. Have you had students do this since Sept? IF YES: How many students? Instructional Activities:	% YES	# Yes	Med # students
b) Search for specific information on-line	94	223	50
a) Look at sites on the World-Wide-Web	93	221	51
g) Create Web pages with contributions from many class members	32	77	15
m) Create Web pages as a service to others (e.g., community organizations)	14	33	5
l) Projects where students interview community members and report community opinion or experiences on web pages	5	12	18

Figure 5: Internet-Using Teachers Report on Web-Related Learning Activities of their Students

Q-20 Below is a list of network learning activities. Indicate which of these activities you have had students participate in at school since September, and roughly how many students have participated. Have you had students do this since Sept? IF YES: How many students? Instructional Activities:	% YES	# Yes	Med # students
k) Tele-mentoring e-mail exchanges between students and adult mentors	15	37	12
m) Create Web pages as a service to others (e.g., community organizations)	14	33	5
q) Access information on school server from their home (e.g., homework assignments)	10	23	10
l) Projects where students interview community members and report community opinion or experiences on web pages	5	12	18

Figure 6a: Internet-Using Teachers Report on School/Community Learning Activities

Q-29 Has the school's networking facilities and connectivity been used in any of the following types of programs? Circle "yes" or "no" for each	YES	NO
a) School-to-work transition programs (e.g., database of potential employers, e-mail between worksites and school supervisors)	29; 24.8%	88; 75.2%
b) Class or individual projects where the Internet is used to acquire information from community members or groups.	69; 57.5%	51; 42.5%
c) Class or individual projects about the local community published on the Internet	47; 40.2%	70; 59.8%
d) Service learning activities involving the Internet (e.g. Internet training or support by students to non-profit agencies).	22; 19%	94; 81 %
e) Internet accessibility supplied to parent or community volunteers in exchange for their work at the school	23; 19.5%	95; 80.5%
f) Internet training to parents or community members using the school facilities	66; 55%	54; 45%
g) Communications to parents about the school program, homework assignments, etc via publication on Web pages or e-mail	55; 45.8%	65; 54%
h) School taking the leadership among local community groups attempting to increase accessibility of the Internet throughout the community.	31; 26%	88; 74%
I) Students accessing information on school server	17; 14.4%	101; 85.6%

Figure 6b: Percentage of NSN schools reporting certain kinds of school/community programs that are supported by Internetworking.

Collaborative Learning Activities Online

 

Q-20 Below is a list of network learning activities. Indicate which of these activities you have had students participate in at school since September, and roughly how many students have participated. Have you had students do this since Sept? IF YES: How many students? Instructional Activities:	% YES	# Yes	Med # students
c) On-going e-mail exchanges between individual students (e.g. pen pals)	28	67	23
f) Collaborative math or science investigations	21	51	27
j) Follow scientists doing work around the world as they are doing it	21	49	24
I) Participate in live events, such as interviews, over Internet	18	43	23
d) On-going e-mail exchanges between whole classes	15	36	27
k) Tele-mentoring e-mail exchanges between students and adult mentors	15	37	12
h) Be part of live chats involving students in different schools	14	32	23
n) Video-conferencing over the Internet	8	19	21
e) Collaborative writing projects with classes in other schools	7	17	24
o) Tutor or receive tutoring from other students via e-mail	5	12	17

Figure 7: Internet-Using Teachers Report on Students' Participation in Collaborative Learning Activities Online

Figure 8: Modest increase in number of schools participating in online projects, and median number of students participating in those schools. (Becker, 1997).

Figure 9: Perception of the value of the Internet for NSN schools (Becker, 1997)

Teacher Use of Internet for Professional Activities

Q-44 Roughly how often during these past few months have you been doing each of the following activities related to your teaching? Circle the choice that comes closest. Items listed in order of mean	% Daily	% Weekly	% Monthy	% 1-2 times	% Never	Mean	Med	S.D.
a) Conduct a search using Alta Vista, Web Crawler, Lycos, or other Web search engine	24.6	43.2	15.3	11.9	5.1	2.70	3	1.12
b) Post a message to a news-group or electronic mailing list in education	3.0	11.9	11.9	19.6	53.6	.91	0	1.18
c) Create or add to a World Wide Web home page for yourself, class, or school	2.1	9.4	8.1	23.0	57.4	.76	0	1.08
e) Participate in a Web-based simultaneous discussion of educational issues (chat)	0	3.0	3.9	10	83.1	.27	0	.68
d) Use CU-SeeMe or other computer-based video-conference	0	.4	4.3	11.1	84.3	.21	0	.52
f) How often have you been doing any of the above things for personal or recreational use--not connected with your teaching?	19.0	34.5	18.5	14.2	13.8	2.3	3	1.31

Key: "Never"=0; "1-2 times"=1; "Monthly"=2; "Weekly"=3; "Daily"=4

3 missing cases on a-e; 7 missing cases on f

Figure 10: How often the Internet=using teacher engages in certain Internet-related activities. (Ravitz, 1998).

Item	MEAN	Med.	Md.	S.d.
Generally more important reasons
e) life in technological society	2.69	3	3	.57
g) keep self up with new technologies	2.47	3	3	.72
l) provide resources and materials	2.43	3	3	.76
a) increase student motivation	2.39	3	3	.82
b) help students w/out home access	2.37	3	3	.86
d) skills for college	2.22	2	3	.87
f) students in global community	2.22	2	3	.93
Generally seen as less important reasons
h) new teaching practices	1.93	2	2	.90
j) reduce professional isolation	1.49	2	2	1.10
m) support school change	1.49	2	2	1.10
c) student/parent expectations	1.43	1	1	1.02
i) overcome remoteness/isolation	1.27	1	0	1.19
k) overcome lack of staff/offerings	.89	1	0	1.01

Key: 0="Not a Reason for You"; 3="Very important reason"

Figure 11. Distribution of Internet-using teachers' responses to REASONS for Internet use, ordered by overall mean. (Ravitz, 1998)

Figure 12: Teacher-reported changes in teaching practices.

Q-20 Below is a list of network learning activities. Indicate which of these activities you have had students participate in at school since September, and roughly how many students have participated. Have you had students do this since Sept? IF YES: How many students? Instructional Activities:	% YES	# Yes	Med # students
b) Search for specific information on-line	94	223	50
a) Look at sites on the World-Wide-Web	93	221	51
g) Create Web pages with contributions from many class members	32	77	15
c) On-going e-mail exchanges between individual students (e-mail pen pals)	28	67	23
f) Collaborative math or science investigations	21	51	27
j) Follow scientists doing work around the world as they are doing it	21	49	24
I) Participate in live events, such as interviews, over Internet	18	43	23
d) On-going e-mail exchanges between whole classes	15	36	27
k) Tele-mentoring e-mail exchanges between students and adult mentors	15	37	12
h) Be part of live chats involving students in different schools	14	32	23
m) Create Web pages as a service to others (e.g., community organizations)	14	33	5
q) Access information on school server from their home (e.g., homework assignments)	10	23	10
n) Video-conferencing over the Internet	8	19	21
e) Collaborative writing projects with classes in other schools	7	17	24
l) Projects where students interview community members and report community opinion or experiences on web pages	5	12	18
o) Tutor or receive tutoring from other students via e-mail	5	12	17
p) Remote control of computational software or robotic devices via Internet	3	8	13