SO MUCH HIGH-TECH MONEY INVESTED, SO LITTLE USE: HOW COME?
The facts are clear. Two
decades after the introduction of personal computers in the nation, with more
and more schools being wired, and billions of dollars being spent, less than two
of every ten teachers are serious users of computers in their classrooms
(several times a week). Three to four are occasional users (about once a
month). The rest--four to five teachers of every ten teachers--never use the
machines for instruction. When the type of use is examined, these powerful
technologies end up being used most often for word processing and low-end
applications in classrooms that maintain rather than alter existing teaching
practices. After all the machines, money, and promises the results are meager.
There are, of course,
tech-wizard teachers who have mastered high-end software to create multimedia
projects that push learning and teaching beyond the twilight zone. There are
also many teachers using information technologies who have dramatically changed
from mostly teacher-centered practices in their classroom to student-centered
ones. But these teachers including the tech-wizards are a tiny fraction of the
teaching corps.
For hard-core
techno-enthusiastic policy makers, the answer to limited classroom use and
continuing traditional instruction is simple: look no further than the
teachers. Their lack of preparation in universities, their
lack of training, insufficient time to learn, too many older teachers,
technophobia, etc., etc. When I and my colleagues interviewed
kindergarten, high school, and university teachers and shadowed students from
class to class in
FACT: Almost eight out of
ten public school teachers have computers at home and use the machines to
prepare lessons, communicate with colleagues and friends, search the Internet,
and conduct personal business.
FACT: Most teachers use computers at home far more than at school.
FACT: Both at home and at school, older as well as younger teachers are serious
and occasional users.
FACT: Most teachers believe that computers in school improve both teaching and
learning.
CONCLUSION: There are few technophobes among the majority of public school
teachers who use computers at home and school.
The question is: with so much money invested in wiring schools, buying
hardware, and constantly upgrading software across the country in the hope of
transforming teaching and learning why are the majority of public school teachers serious home-users but at school infrequent
classroom users? Furthermore, when teachers do use technologies in their
classrooms, why does their use tend to sustain rather than alter existing
teaching practices?
To answer these questions
and broaden the debate over using new technologies in schools, I offer reasons
that neither Presidents Bill Clinton or George W. Bush and promoters Bill Gates
or Michael Dell and other cheerleaders for technology in schools
seldom mention. Schools have intractable working conditions, external
groups make constant demands upon teachers, and the technology is inherently
unreliable. Combined together, these reasons offer a seldom-heard explanation
that would account for much teacher use of computers at home, less in classrooms,
and the maintaining of customary teaching practices.
Let's imagine an average
high school math teacher in Newton South, Boston Latin, or in the heart of the
INTRACTABLE WORKPLACE
CONDITIONS
Although information technologies have transformed
most corporate workplaces, our teacher's schedule and working conditions have
changed very little. She teaches five classes a day, each 50 minutes long. Her
five classes contain at least three different preparations. She has two classes
of Introductory Algebra, two of Geometry, and one Calculus class. In those five
classes, she sees 140 students a day. She has one period a day set aside for
planning lessons, seeing students, marking papers, making phone calls to
parents or vendors, previewing videos, securing a VCR or other equipment, and
using the school's copy machines for producing student materials. Our math
teacher, like most of her colleagues elsewhere is a very busy person who could
use rollerblades as she tries to meet all of her obligations.
EXTERNAL DEMANDS
In addition to these daily
tasks, our math teacher is expected to know the subject inside and out; she is
expected to maintain order in their classrooms; she is expected to be both
friendly and demanding of each and every student; finally, with higher academic
standards and the mandate to take tests that can spell the difference between
graduating high school or staying in school longer, she is held accountable for
her students doing well on high-stakes tests. So teaching
high school, besides knowing one's subject-matter thoroughly, requires the grit
of a long-distance runner, the stamina of a boxer going 15-rounds, the
temperament of a juggler, and the street-smarts of a three-card monte dealer.
UNRELIABLE TECHNOLOGIES
And infinite patience. Ask even the most dedicated
teacher users how often these machines and their software break down. Most
schools can't afford on-site technical support. When they do have coordinators
and eager students who troubleshoot problems and do the repairs, there are
still software glitches and servers that crash torpedoing teacher lessons
repeatedly. Then new software and upgraded ones require more memory and speed
from machines that are sorely limited in their capacity. More breakdowns; more
pulled hair. These caring and techno-enthusiastic teachers such as our math
teacher ask: what did I do to deserve this?
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
Popular remedies for limited and unimaginative use of computers for classroom
instruction--more preparation in teacher education, more inservice
training, and technical support--are largely inadequate and mismatched to the
underlying problems that determine classroom usage of computers. Although
helpful for a fraction of teachers, these solutions fundamentally miss the
larger problems that account for large percentages of teachers being non-users
in their classrooms but heavy users at home. And for those teachers who are
serious technology consumers, the very same fashionable remedies don't even
come close to dealing with the issue of why teachers end up using new
technologies to sustain old teaching practices.
What about stop buying and
using computers for classroom instruction? The cease-and-desist strategy toward
using computers for teaching and learning has already been recommended for
early childhood programs. Last year, The Alliance for Childhood called for a
moratorium on purchasing of new computers for preschoolers and primary children
(except for those students with disabilities) because of the lack of
information on the short- and long-term costs and benefits, particularly in
health and safety, for children under the age of 7. Critics of classroom
computer use for older students have pointed out that there is no body of
evidence that clearly links student use of new technologies to increased
academic achievement, job preparation, or any other major purpose of public
schooling. Skeptics openly worry that all of the monies spent on wiring
schools, replacing existing computers as technological innovations outstrip
budgeted funds, and increasing technical support staff to help teachers could
be better spent on reducing class size, expanding preschool programs, and
attracting qualified teachers.
Yet chances of a general
moratorium on buying and using computers for instruction are unlikely for no
other reason than the pervasiveness of technology in the workplace and the
prevailing belief held by parents, practitioners, and policy makers that the
New Economy is the future for each and every child. What could alter even that
dominant mind-set would be an economic recession. Such a downturn would
decrease funding for public schools and thereby drastically slow down the
purchase and use of new technologies for classrooms. Short of an economic
decline, critics need to have a far stronger arsenal at their command for the
cease-and-desist alternative to become a viable policy alternative.
Another approach aimed at
state and federal officials is both modest and incremental.
*Establish federal and
state standards for hardware and software vendors who sell their products to
schools. At least one standard would require data on actual use with teachers
and students listing the strengths and flaws of the materials and machines.
*State and federal funds be provided for schools to hire technicians at each site who
would respond to teacher requests for help in using and fixing equipment.
General industry guidelines recommend one technician for every 50 workstations.
*State departments of
education develop a corps of teachers, not external consultants, to teach other
teachers about integrating technologies into their classrooms. After two
decades, there is sufficient expertise within most districts to hire
teacher-wizards to conduct training for their colleagues.
Yet even these short-term
proposals would still miss the intractable workplace conditions which help
explain why most teachers remain infrequent users and seldom alter existing
practices. For those reformers who are determined to get teachers to use
computers extensively in classrooms and to alter traditional teaching practices
they would need to prod federal, state, and district policy makers to:
*Reduce class size to 20
students in a class, and to 15 in high-poverty areas.
*Decrease the current
teaching load of secondary school teachers from five classes a day to four and
increase the time for teaching from 50-minute periods to 100-minute periods.
From where would monies
come to underwrite these expensive recommendations?
1. Federal and state
officials reorganize existing coalitions of private and public partnerships and
begin new ones to find funding sources of monies, equipment, wiring, and
advanced technologies that would be invested annually in public schools. Monies
could come from state utilities contributing to a technology fund for schools;
targeted grant programs by corporations and foundations; state taxes on
videocassettes, software, computers and peripherals; and a surcharge on
telecommunication users.
2. President and Congress
provide categorical funds to pay for developing software, designing innovative
uses of information technologies in classrooms, and underwriting the costly
reductions in class sizes and changes in time schedules.
3. State funds be directed
specifically toward class size reduction and decreasing teaching loads in
secondary schools.
Although bits and pieces of
these items have appeared on federal and state policy makers’ agendas, an
alternative calling for serious governmental intervention and funding appears
unlikely in the current political climate. The historical pattern has been for
incremental changes to be made at the margins of a problem rather than grasping
the core of the issue.
Perhaps it is now time to
recognize that getting teachers to integrate technology into daily teaching and
learning is more than UPS delivering machines to the schoolhouse door; it is
more than having workshops for teachers or pressing universities to change
their teacher education programs. Important as such measures are, in the larger
picture of why teachers are infrequent users of classroom technologies, these
actions divert attention away from deeper causes for teacher behavior. Making
changes in what teachers do in their classrooms requires paying attention to
the daily workplace conditions and constant external demands, and the inherent
unreliability of the innovations themselves. It is very expensive. It takes
time. And it won't be popular with technology vendors. However, if promoters of
school reform who see new technologies as the bulldozers to begin building a
road toward a