|
June 15, 2000
Taking Stock:
What Does the Research Say About Technology's Impact on Education? (cont.)
conducted by Judy Salpeter, Editor, Technology & Learning
Q:YOU'RE OFTEN REFERRED
TO AS A CRITIC OF "TECHNO-ENTHUSIASTS" WHO OVER-RATE THE VALUE OF
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY. CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THIS ISSUE?
A:When I refer to
"techno-enthusiasts"or "technophiles"I'm talking about folks who believe
that schools can be saved by information technology. These enthusiasts
usually say kids learn faster, better and more with the machines and
that the technology is an instrument for reform. They do not question at
all the pervasive story used to justify educational technology-that,
unless we have technology in our schools, kids won't be able to get jobs
in an increasingly computerized world.
I believe this is a misguided way to think about schooling. We worry
about teaching keyboarding today but it won't be needed when voice
activation becomes common in a few years. The dogma will only be
replaced when people realize how quickly it is all changing. Kids don't
need years of computer exposure to succeed. People with no computer
background generally catch on in a few weeks-a few months tops.
Q:SO YOU DON'T BELIEVE
THAT TECHNOLOGY HELPS STUDENTS LEARN FASTER, BETTER AND MORE?
A:Well, there is a long
research history that shows that tutorial and drill software-the sort of
CAI uses that began in the '60s and '70's-can improve test scores. But
the issues are more complicated. Much computer use in schools these days
involves computer "enhanced"instruction-things like simulations or other
programs that require teachers to be involved. And there's no evidence
that this helps to the degree promoters promise..
Q:WHY NOT? DO YOU BELIEVE
THAT THEY REALLY DON'T HELP OR IS IT JUST THAT WE HAVEN'T MEASURED THEIR
IMPACT?
A:Mostly the latter. We
haven't made appropriate distinctions as we pose the research questions.
There's been a lot of research about CAI and a lot of anecdotal evidence
but no body of serious research to measure whether technology will
achieve its own goals-whether it can help in areas such as intellectual
development. I'm open minded. We might find that it works. In fact my
hunch is that it probably does, but we don't know for sure. I remain a
skeptic because so many claims have been made without questioning.
Q:EVERYONE SEEMS TO AGREE
THAT THIS SORT OF RESEARCH IS MUCH HARDER THAN MEASURING IMPROVEMENTS IN
TEST SCORES. IS IT AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK OR ARE YOU OPTIMISTIC IT CAN BE
DONE?
A:Yes, I am optimistic.
The studies need to be well designed and their authors need to be
willing to publish results even when they don't come out the way they
would like.
There are a few research studies that are examples of what's
possible. I wrote a preface to the book written by David Dwyer and
others about ACOT's research because I was very impressed that the
authors went beyond the narrow questions and looked at evidence about
the ways in which technology affects teaching, how it aids in a
constructivist approach.
I think the studies at Vanderbilt and other university-based research
where they develop and try out their own software also look promising.
They seem to be getting some positive results although they're not far
enough along for us to base policy on them.
Q:WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL
HAPPEN IN THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS WITH TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS? WILL THERE
BE DRAMATIC CHANGES?
A:As long as the money
continues to be there, and the economy is strong, access will continue
to be much greater for all levels of students. It's easiest to find
money to buy hardware so this will continue. Still, most kids will be
using computers no more than one or two hours a week-less that ten
percent of their instructional time. There will always be schools at one
extreme or another, but this will be most common. And reformers will
continue to complain about limited access and unimaginative uses of the
technology.
Q:WHY DO YOU THINK THE
CHANGE IS SO SLOW? I BELIEVE I'VE HEARD YOU QUOTED AS SAYING THAT
TECHNOLOGY WILL NEVER MAKE HEADWAY IN SCHOOLS BECAUSE OF RESISTANCE ON
THE PART OF TEACHERS.
A:No, I wouldn't use the
word "resistance."That's an administrator's term. Teachers don't resist.
They're not saboteurs. They simply realize that the costs of adopting
technology are very high and many of them don't like it. "Adaptation"is
a better word. Most technology initiatives are top-down. Many teachers
want to use the technology but others don't because the people who make
the decisions for them don't understand their needs.
Schooling has many purposes. Lots of people see it just as getting
prepared for the workplace. There are so many other pressures and
organizational issues teachers face. People who push technology on
teachers minimize the impact of workplace conditions and the culture of
the classroom.
Q:CAN YOU ELABORATE ON
THIS?
A:Suppose you're a high
school teacher. You have five classes and a few prep periods. You teach
about 100 kids a semester. You have papers to grade, homework to assign,
tests to prepare. You're told you have to use computers but you also
have to follow the curriculum and what if the two don't match? What if
the computer breaks down or there's only one to be shared by all the
students in the room? If there's a lab, you need to schedule time to use
it. And the technology is neither reliable or flexible enough for you to
count on it. Elementary school teachers have a similar problem. They
have fewer students but even more subjects to cover and very little time
to prepare.
We find similar skepticism at a university level. Take for example
Stanford University where Stanford professors have been using computers
for decades. Studies in the '80s and early '90s showed that the vast
majority of these professors had computers at home and used them for
their own work. But by 1994 only 27 percent of the faculty surveyed said
they ever used a computer in the classroom for instruction and only 8
percent said they used it often. Why? Most said that it was due to lack
of time to locate relevant instructional software. Approximately half
said they had no time to learn about classroom uses of computers
although help was available at five university centers. Basically, they
did not see the need. What we are really seeing in schools and
universities is a conflict of values between techno-enthusiasts and
teachers who are comfortable with the human role they have become used
to playing without the machine to interfere.
Q:WHAT'S THE SOLUTION?
SHOULD WE BACK OFF AND FORGET ABOUT TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS?
A:Not necessarily but we
need to ask the right questions. What are the goals of schooling? Do we
care most about literacy? Social development? Other goals? The school
community needs to reach a consensus, then ask, "Now, how might the
technology help us reach these goals?"Finally, once you know where you
want to go and how technology might help, you need to look at the
structure of the school and how time is used and see what might need to
change in order to meet the goals. The questions really break down
into:
1. What are we after?
2. How can technology help?
3. What do we have to change to make use of it?
Teachers themselves vary in their beliefs. They don't necessarily
agree with one another about whole language vs. phonics, arithmetic vs.
"new math." We need to leave them some choice. Technology can help drive
change. Sometimes it's a catalyst. But it is not driving most school
reform efforts. And I can imagine a fine school that uses no computer
technology at all. We need to be honest and open to debate about value
conflicts-not determined that wiring schools and sending teachers to
workshops is the only right answer.
Top of Page
David Dwyer >>
|
