Philosophy

The following article published in:

Educational Technology Magazine,
January-February 2004
Reprinted by permission.

Paperless Teaching:

Automation of the Elementary School Turnaround Document

Can the computer be applied to schoolwork as it has been applied to office work? While the computer is an essential fixture on most office desktops, in most elementary schools the desktop remains the same. The paperwork of elementary schooling is untouched by the computer.

Of course, this is not to say that the students are untouched by computers. Thanks to forward thinking educators, most schools are now Internet connected and teach many of the computer skills of our wired society. In addition many schools are attempting to apply the computer to traditional learning tasks. These attempts are fostered by a plethora of software titles ranging from simple counting games to entire suites of educational courseware covering the full range of primary grade learning. Still, in most classrooms the paperwork of teaching and learning has not been affected by the computer.

Teaching as Paperwork
Teaching and learning in the primary grades is a paperwork process. Teachers initiate paperwork and paper documents flow systematically between teacher and student, the output from one being the input to the other, until processing is complete and the document is filed.

Teachers initiate these documents by coping masters or by instructing students to use pages from workbooks. Students read the questions or problems and write appropriate responses on the documents. The documents are then returned to the teacher who reads the student's work on each and writes comments, corrections, and encouragement. Teachers then hand back the corrected documents for students to review, correct or rewrite as necessary. Finally the documents come back to the teacher for filing. Homework, in-class work, and tests all involve this basic paper flow:

1.	Request from teacher.
2.	Response by student.
3.	Review by teacher.
4.	Final viewing by student.
5.	Filing by teacher.

This flow seems to be characteristic of schoolwork in math, language, history, and science. Teaching paperwork, just like paperwork in general, involves typing, photocopying, sorting, stapling, counting, punching, transporting and storing.

A Simple Paperwork Survey of Turnaround Documents
Out of curiosity I surveyed the paperwork brought home by my son three years ago when he was in the fourth grade. I have generally saved all the papers and projects that my kids have brought home from school mainly because I found it easier than deciding what to throw away and what to keep. Each year I have put the papers into a box for each child and stored them in the attic. Although the contents of each box has varied by grade, earlier grades tending more toward artwork than later grades, the bulk of the paper in these boxes is composed of what I will call "turnaround documents".

A turnaround document is a paper entity that is originated by a teacher (or at the request of the teacher) and is transferred back and forth between the student and the teacher. Turnaround documents in my sample were used to teach the core subjects: math, language, science, and history. Artwork and informational handouts are not defined as turnaround documents because they only go one way. The initial paper may have been a photocopy of a published master, a photocopy of a teacher-created master, a page from a workbook or a blank sheet of lined paper. In my sample the blank paper was used to respond to questions posed verbally or on the blackboard instead of being presented on the paper itself.

For my survey counts I defined a "turnaround page" to be that portion of a turnaround document residing on a single side of a piece of paper. My sample consisted of the turnaround pages in my son's fourth grade box. I sorted these pages into subjects and have summarized them in the following table.

4th Grade Turnaround Documents

The categories are self explanatory except for Organization. Organization papers consisted of a weekly calendar created by the teacher for practicing time management. As I sorted the documents into subject categories it was apparent that sub-categories existed. Most documents within a subject could be grouped by format. In the language category for example, spelling tests were always written on blank sheets of lined paper with the student name, class and date on top, the numbers 1 to 10 on the left, and the spelled words on the right. Other language documents with consistent formats included alphabetizing worksheets, proofreading sheets, and reading response workbook pages. For geography the teacher originated a "Countries of the Week" worksheet with a copy of a published map attached. There were a variety of formats for the math pages, the most obvious being problem grids. Math word problems were presented within a consistent format and the format of the problems themselves could have been further categorized. History and science documents were the least consistent as the learning content apparently influenced the document format.

As a parent involved with my kid's schooling the appearance and format of the documents was not new. The real surprise was how many pages there were for just one student. If a single student had to process 1,134 pages of paper, then the teacher in this small class of about 22 students had to process about 25,000 pages during the year! My continued contact with the school's staff and parents during the past three years has given me no reason to think that the results would be any different today.

This sample makes no claim of representativeness. Different teaching methods would have altered the contents of my son's box significantly. Other schools might not have return documents to the parents. The purpose of this survey is not to prove, merely to illustrate an observation: primary grade learning and teaching is a paper-intensive process.

Paper as Teaching Media
Turnaround documents are modules of teaching. They provide a medium for learning content, a medium for the recording of individual results, and a medium for storage and retrieval. Each document is a handy, self-contained record of learning for the specified student, date, and topic. It can be sorted, summarized, and tabulated into interim and final grades for reporting purposes.

Whether called tests, assignments, class work or homework, turnaround documents would appear to be the media of teaching and learning in elementary schools. They represent a major advance over the erasable slate tablets of the one-room schoolhouse. However, now that we have electronic media, perhaps we should be thinking of change. Can we use this new media and associated technologies to improve primary school education? Can it be used to make teaching more efficient as it has been used for so many other types of work?

Teaching Efficiency
If we look upon teaching as helping students learn and we assume that in elementary schools it is only possible to help a student learn while in contact with the student (visually or verbally) then efficiency in teaching must be measured by the proportion of time the teacher spends in contact with students as opposed to that spent doing some other work. For example a teacher is in contact with students when helping an individual student, when standing in front of the classroom, when observing students taking a test, and when traveling with students on field trips. The non-contact time includes time spent preparing assignments, grading tests, filling out reports, and attending meetings.

Teaching efficiency can be measured by the proportion of teacher contact time versus non-contact time. It is assumed that a concept promising to increase teaching efficiency significantly and permanently is worth exploring. Automation of the paperwork of learning holds the promise of improving teaching efficiency by reducing teacher non-contact time. The time currently spent duplicating, organizing, distributing, reading, writing on, filing, and summarizing turnaround documents is subject to computerization given the proper mindset.

The time gained by reducing these tedious and error-prone tasks could be used to provide students with more individual attention, or to explore concepts at a greater depth, or -in third world countries- to increase the number of children receiving an education. Utilizing the time gained from teaching efficiency will require a change in teacher routines as paperwork is replaced by the use of the computer. Quality decision-making by teachers and administrators regarding the use of this time could have a significant effect on childhood education.

The Teaching Application: Automation of the Turnaround Document
If it has been established that increased teaching efficiency is a worthy pursuit, then how can the computer be harnessed to the task? While there is no simple answer a closer look at these turnaround documents provides some illumination.

The turnaround documents in the paper survey above are categorized by subject, and they could have been further sub-categorized by format. By focusing on the sub-categories it is possible to envision a computer application designed to replace that document-type. The computer screen design could almost copy the existing document format.

For example a spelling application could replace the weekly spelling tests. It could present spelling words to the student vocally using computer speakers. Students would type their responses in a format similar to that of the spelling tests described above. Students could work at their own pace or at a timed pace. When finished the student would click a screen button to immediately grade the test. The application could be programmed to retest those words that were missed, until the student got them all correct. The teacher's database would reflect the results with electronic speed and at the same time maintain results from previous tests.

Programmers familiar with Internet software development will realize that this application could be developed with today's technology. The application could easily run on the least expensive of computers. The computers could be linked using the slowest available communication connections. In other words, the technological foundation required to create teaching applications has been built.

Although there can be no predicting how such software applications will be structured, it seems obvious that they will have the following three primary components:

1.	A teacher's database of student information, lesson content, assignment results and student portfolios related to the specific application. Traditionally this information is maintained in the lesson plans, assignment masters, workbooks, and grade sheets stored in desks and filing cabinets.
2.	A teacher interface through which the teacher manipulates the database. This will be the computer screen on which the teacher views and modifies lessons and student information, makes assignments, and reviews student results.
3.	A student interface through which the student works on assignments and receives feedback. This is the computer screen that presents the information traditionally found on the turnaround document. It may also provide a view of the student's portfolio of past work.

This is not an attempt to propose a simple formula for the implementation of teaching efficiency. Each application presents unique challenges and opportunities which must be explored during development. At a minimum however, the software must provide a simple and obvious interface for both student and teacher. The software must allow the students to focus on the learning content without distractions related to software operation.

Effective and creative programming of these applications can provide benefits beyond teaching efficiency. Computers can be programmed for infinite patience and forgiveness. Many different learning pathways can be provided for use at the teacher's discretion. Teachers can have options for challenging quick learners while at the same time providing remedial work for slower ones. Information on the computer can be kept up to date without republishing. Parents and administrators can be more assured of consistent quality of learning and grading. Parents can be more involved with helping their children at home with assignments made available on the Internet.

An Example of a Teaching Application
As any software developer knows it is much easier to describe an application than to create it in software. It is also difficult to predict how an application will meet a need until the actual software is tested. The reader is therefore invited to test a developed teaching application.

This application, called PrimaryMath, has been developed over the past few years with teaching efficiency in mind. It is a tool for teaching arithmetic. It is designed to replace some of the turnaround documents used for first through sixth grade arithmetic assignments. Teachers set up assignments using an on-line database, students work on assignments at their own computers. The computer automatically checks student entries and provides feedback. Final results are automatically returned to the teacher's database.

Included in this application is a stand-alone mode for home use that does not have the database of the school mode. Included as well is a demonstration mode for initial users to try out system operations. This application is free and open to the public as a beta test site at www.primarymath.org. There are no prerequisites for using the site and it is designed to be self-explanatory. For purposes of this report PrimaryMath can provide a functioning example of a teaching application.

Drill and Practice
If you visit the PrimaryMath site you will notice that it is drill and practice. In contrast to most popular primary grade math software, it does not attempt to make learning a game. It is designed to replace paperwork while utilizing the concomitant benefits of computerization (such as random problem generation and automatically checked answers). Its interface is intended to be responsive, easy to use, and less tedious than paper and pencil.

Conventional wisdom in education circles seems to dismiss the computer's benefits for drill and practice. Harold Wenglinsky's analysis of 1996 data concluded that computers in school were best suited for higher order learning, not for drill and practice (1998). Does this imply that lower order learning must be done the old fashioned way and that computers are superior to this task?

Elementary school involves a lot of lower order learning. Mastering the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic requires the transformation of a conscious process into an unconscious process and for this learning drill and practice of some sort is required (Sticht, 1997). If drill and practice is necessary then shouldn't the computer be put to work on this task? Just because the computer cannot make this learning fun and effortless does not mean that it cannot make it easier and more efficient.

Unless one argues that drill and practice should not be used for lower order learning, or that paper is a superior media for drill and practice, it seems foolish to dismiss the computer's potential usefulness based on a dated analysis. Developing software for teaching efficiency will involve the computerization of paper-based drills because they are a significant part of primary grade learning.

Processing versus Motivation
The primary objective in developing software for teaching efficiency should be the automation of manual processing tasks, not the motivation of students to learn. While ignoring motivation may strike some as heresy, it must be noted that the computer excels at quantitative work. Humans excel at the qualitative thinking required for motivation. Teachers are the traditional motivators and traditional forms of motivation will still have to be used for most students to master the basic learning tasks of the primary grades.

In contrast, motivation seems to be the foremost objective of popular children's education software. The computer is seen as a vehicle for making learning more fun than traditional education. Repetitive learning tasks must be disguised and sugar coated to enable success in the software marketplace. With the wide availability of such fun and effortless learning software for primary grades one might assume it would have taken on a crucial role in today's schools. That that has not occurred points out the obvious: this approach is not working.

While the computer is sometimes an initial learning motivator for children, once the novelty wears off the motivation often evaporates. An exception may be newer problem-based learning software such as Alien Rescue (Pedersen, 2002). Because of software's ability to analyze input and branch accordingly it may provide a form of motivation not found in traditional teaching, however problem-based learning is not the vehicle for learning the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic.

In the development of software for teaching the basics a clear distinction should be made between the motivating part of teaching and the processing part of teaching. The software should focus on automating the processing part while leaving motivation to the teacher. It should unburden the teacher without trying to do the tasks that the human teacher is better able to perform. Basic primary grade applications conceived with mixed processing and motivating objectives risk compromising the efficiency benefits.

A New Decision Model
Teaching applications created and developed with the best of efforts however, may well be ignored and overlooked if schools adhere to the traditional top-down model of decision making for computer software acquisitions. This traditional model was necessary because computer solutions of previous decades entailed expensive integrated hardware and software systems requiring large development expenditures and specialized support and training. After requests for proposals and sales presentations, an installation even for trial purposes required a coordinated effort involving staff and administrators which could take months, complete implementation even longer.

In the Internet age software solutions can be available for trial and implementation in minutes. Standard, friendly computer interfaces minimize training and support needs. The Internet offers a vast delivery system for education content. Development costs can be spread thinly over large numbers of schools driving unit prices down while the upside potential for profits will encourage innovation. Systems can be programmed with cross-platform computer code making compatibility a vanishing concern. Opportunities for teacher/developer collaboration via the Internet promise exciting possibilities. Trials involving few users can easily be extended to full implementation if successful or abandoned if not.

This new phenomenon calls for a bottom-up decision making model. Teachers interested in better methods should be able to find alternatives on the Internet, try them out, and subsequently inform their administration of their findings and opinions. The new model is empowering for teachers who want a say, but it may require enlightened management adjustments by administrators who must maintain control. Established content publishers adhering to the old model for distribution of high priced software will face price competition from developers recognizing the advantages of the new decision model.

Current Status
While some new software offered by established publishers may provide the three primary components of teaching applications, cost and exclusivity inhibit widespread use. Popular and widely distributed primary grade learning software generally packaged as CDs is inexpensive for single users but it provides only the student interface. Results are not stored in a database and cannot be monitored through a teacher interface. Interesting problem-based learning software is available through the Internet, but it assumes a mastery of basic skills still beyond most primary graders. While each software offering has its adherents there is no consensus on effectiveness.

More consensus may be found regarding the school computer labs' success in teaching children to use common computing tools. The mastery of tools such as word processing and Internet browsing has obvious benefits. Once learned students can apply these tools to their own work just as adult do. As a result students are certainly better prepared to participate in our computerized society, and they can turn in more readable homework.

While all these uses for elementary school computers may be worthy, they have nothing to do with efficient teaching. Efficiency should result in a savings of cost or time. For most schools the computer lab requires added cost and time. This added burden may well be the price of preparing students for the Information Age. However, to move to the computer-on-every-desk phase in elementary schools the computer must find a crucial role in routine learning. "Crucial" does not mean the same as "important". Ask an office worker whose computer has gone down what crucial means. Crucial for the future student will have the same meaning, and new contingency planning will be necessary.

The software applications that would provide a crucial role for the computer are not found in school computer labs because the opportunity has not been perceived. The old teaching paradigm hides the possibilities. We face the necessity of a paradigm-shift. With new thinking the possibilities for software applications that can move teaching to a higher level will appear.

The New Paradigm
Evolution to the new paradigm will occur as opportunities are illuminated and teaching applications are developed and integrated into schools, one application at a time.

Ultimately paperless teaching will require students to spend a significant portion of the day working with the computer, just as many office workers do today. The time spent will be roughly the same as is now spent on paper turnaround documents. Teachers will spend less time on their computer than is spent today on the corresponding turnaround documents.

Paperless teaching will eventually require a computer with Internet access on each student desktop, and a computer will be required for most homework. Students without home computers will be accommodated by open computer labs (or regular classrooms) during non-class hours, just as today's computer labs are available for students who are required to submit word processed homework.

Even in the new paradigm turnaround documents will always be part of teaching in primary grades. Students will still have to learn and practice handwriting (although writing tablet technology offers interesting learning opportunities). Paperless teaching must be applied only where it is superior to traditional methods. For example, the turnaround document may prove more practical for assignments like pop quizzes or field trip reports. Paperless teaching will result in a magnitude reduction in turnaround documents, not total elimination.

Embarkation
Will the new paradigm have to wait until the student to computer ratio reaches one-to-one? Will the embarkation date arrive when computer prices drop to the price of a few textbooks? What comes first, cheap computers or effective teaching applications? When and where is it opportune to embark?

The opportunity to begin is now, by educators asking developers, "Why not?" The installed base of student computers is sufficient in many schools to provide students with routine daily access for the minutes (not hours) of computer time they will need initially. What's more, if there are "ıtens of thousands of underused computersı " in our schools as James Guthrie says then let's put them to use. (2003)

When paperless teaching applications become available they should be tested and implemented individually. Initial applications may not be perfect replacements for turnaround documents. There may be application overlaps, content omissions, and database compatibility issues. Work habits and procedures will have to change. Some schools, districts, teachers, and administrators may resist the transition. Others will welcome it. Any important change comes with its fans and skeptics, its advocates and detractors, its early adopters and holdouts, as well as its trials and tribulations. Paperless teaching will be no different.

As new applications follow the implementation of the first, a school's computer lab schedule will become more crowded. As utilization rates rise to the maximum computer lab capacity then the school administration and teachers will be required to make the cost/benefit case for additional hardware. If benefits are not deemed to exceed incremental costs then paperless teaching is not working and should either be abandoned or implemented in a different way.

The time for installing a computer on every student's desk will be obvious. It will be when shuffling of students and their teachers between the computer lab and the classroom becomes excessively time consuming. It will be when the trend line of declining computer prices crosses the trend line of growing application benefits. It will be when the debate over school technology has shifted from "Why and what for?" to "How best and what next?"

Summary
Teaching in primary grades is a paperwork process that is subject to computerization. Evidence of this paperwork is found in the thousands of documents a teacher must process every year. The paperwork itself is not a necessary part of learning, but it has all the drawbacks of paperwork elsewhere: it is time consuming, tedious, and error-prone.

There is no magic formula for the automation of this paperwork. Success will be measured application by application as new software is developed and tested by students and teachers. The primary goal should be to increase teaching efficiency. Improved teaching efficiency should result in the teacher spending a greater proportion of time with the students. In less fortunate parts of the world it may mean that the individual teacher can provide an education to a greater number of students.

The technological foundation necessary to improve teaching efficiency has been built. The foundation consists of powerful, low?cost computers, effortless computer communications, vast database storage and retrieval capabilities, and friendly computer interfaces that both teachers and students are capable of using. However the software to place on this foundation and harness this technology for elementary schools has not been built.

Development of incipient software does not require new technological breakthroughs (although new technologies will increase the opportunities), and it does not require more computers in schools (although students will need regular access to a computer). It will however, require a realization of the opportunities through a paradigm-shift in thinking among educators and software developers.

   Pedersen, S., Liu, M., & Williams, D. (2002, Sept.-Oct.). Alien Rescue: Designing for Student-Centered Learning Educational Technology, 42(5), 11-14.

   Wenglinsky, Harold (1998, September). Does it Compute? The Relationship Between Educational Technology and Student Achievement in Mathematics ETS Policy Information Center, Available: http://www.ets.org/research/pic/pir.html [2003, August 25]

   Sticht, T. (1997). Functional Context Education Available: www.nald.ca/fulltext/context/pg54.htm [2003, August 25]

The following reader comment scheduled for publication in:

Educational Technology Magazine,
Early 2004

The Flickering Mind and Paperless Teaching

This motivational myth has not only cost billions but it has obscured the real value of computers for education (at least in elementary grades). Computers excel at quantitative work. People excel at qualitative work. Motivating a student to learn is not a quantitative task, instead it is one of the most challenging of qualitative tasks. Computers cannot motivate students except in the novelty stage (as can any new activity). Motivating the individual studentı must be left to the humans in closest proximity and thus the responsibility largely falls to the teacher.

The quantitative part of teaching and learning is where the computerıs power should be focused. ıPaperless Teachingı (Educational Technology January 2004), illustrates possibilities for harnessing computer power to reduce the quantitative work of teaching and learning. The concept of paperless teaching does not promise a miracle. It does not replace teachers. It does however, offer the possibility of making schooling easier by reducing the paperwork tedium involved in the process through the use of on-line computers. Hopefully Oppenheimerıs exposure of the motivational myth will not result in a backlash against computers.

Leaders looking for the next quick fix for educationıs woes should not throw the computers out and swing the pendulum back 50 years. Unfortunately there is little in The Flickering Mindı which argues against such a backlash. Oppenheimerıs conclusions that we should give teachers more responsibility, pay them more and step back from standardized testing as the primary measure of learning effectiveness are easy to agree with. I disagree, however, that the computer is just another teaching tool in the same category as the overhead projector.

While it is not the motivator that many have believed in, the computer has more potential than a fixed-function machine because of its adaptability and interconnectivity. This potential has been overlooked because the idea of the computer as the magic motivator has drawn all the attention. A paradigm-shift in thinking is needed to illuminate the real opportunity that the computer and the Internet hold for primary grade education.

This opportunity is not found in a pie-in-the-sky promise of effortless learning and teacherless teaching but in the down-to-earth work of the teaching and learning process. It is the paperwork of teaching and learning to which the computer can be effectively applied as it has been in so many other endeavors. As we now have so many schools loaded with underutilized and misused computers and as new computer prices are falling to that of a few textbooks, the opportunity is ripe.

For a real example of paperless teaching see: http://www.primarymath.org

David Dee