Skip to main content
Log in

Report to the President on the Use of Technology to Strengthen K–12 Education in the United States: Findings Related to Research and Evaluation

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Panel on Educational Technology was organized in April 1995 under the auspices of the President's Committee of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST) to provide advice to the President on matters related to the application of information technologies to K–12 education in the United States. Its findings and recommendations were set forth in March 1997 in the Report to the President on the Use of Technology to Strengthen K–12 Education in the United States. This report was based on a review of the research literature and on written submissions and oral briefings from a number of academic and industrial researchers, practicing educators, software developers, governmental agencies, and professional and industry organizations involved in various ways with the application of technology to education. Its most important finding is that a large-scale program of rigorous, systematic research on education in general and educational technology in particular will ultimately prove necessary to ensure both the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of technology use within our nation's K–12 schools. Finding that less than 0.1 percent of our nation's expenditures for elementary and secondary education are currently invested to determine which educational techniques actually work, and to find ways to improve them—an extremely low level relative to comparable ratios within the private sector—the Panel recommended that this figure be increased over a period of several years to at least 0.5 percent, and sustained at that level on an ongoing basis. Further, because no one state, municipality, or private firm could hope to capture more than a small fraction of the benefits associated with a significant advance in our understanding of how best to educate K–12 students, the Panel concluded that such funding will have to be provided largely at the federal level in order to avoid a systematic underinvestment (attributable to a classical form of economic externality) relative to the level that would be optimal for the nation as a whole. This paper originally appeared as Section 8 of the report.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • American Psychological Association (1982). Ethical Principles in the Conduct of Research with Human Participants, Washington, D.C.

  • Atkinson, Richard C., and Jackson, Gregg B. (Eds.), (1992). Research and Educational Reform: Roles for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1992). The Word Processor as an Instructional Tool, School Science and Mathematics, pp. 69-93.

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University, (1992). The Jasper Series as an Example of Anchored Instruction: Theory, Program Description and Assessment Data. Educational Psychologist 27: 291-315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C. (1995). Written statement submitted to the PCAST Panel on Educational Technology, p. 2.

  • Gardner, C. M., Sirnmons, P. E., and Simpson, R. D. (1992). The Effects of CAI and Hands-On Activities on Elementary Students' Attitude and Weather Knowledge, School Science and Mathematics, 92: 334-336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., and Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-Analysis in Social Research, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, Jan, (1996). Dilemmas, in Education and Technology: Reflections on Computing in Classrooms, C. Fisher, D. C. Dwyer, and K. Yokom (Eds.), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, J. A. (1994). Meta-Analytic Studies of Findings on Computer-Based Instruction, in Technology Assessment in Education and Training. E. L. Baker and H. F. O'Neil (Eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Means, B., and Olsen, K. (1995). Technology's Role in Educational Reform, in U.S. Department of Education Report, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Education (1991). National Academy of Education, Research and the Renewal of Education. Author, Stanford, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reil, M. (1990). Cooperative Learning Across Classrooms In Electronic Learning Circles, Instructional Sciences 19: 445-466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1988). Best-Evidence Synthesis: An Alternative to Meta-Analytic and Traditional Reviews, in Evaluation Studies Review Yearbook, Vol. 12. W. R. Shadish and C. S. Reichart (Eds.), Sage Publications, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. General Accounting Office (1987). Education Information: Changes in Funds and Priorities Have Affected Production and Quality, Washington, D.C. as reported in National Academy of Education, Research and the Renewal of Education, National Academy of Education, Stanford, California.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shaw, D.E., Becker, H.J., Bransford, J.D. et al. Report to the President on the Use of Technology to Strengthen K–12 Education in the United States: Findings Related to Research and Evaluation. Journal of Science Education and Technology 7, 115–126 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022539822660

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022539822660

Navigation