Re: classroom tech--long

Joe Polman (jlpolman who-is-at artsci.wustl.edu)
Mon, 25 Aug 1997 14:20:54 -0600

Hello Mike, Honorine, Edouard, and others,
I just wanted to put in my own two cents on this topic which I'm sure quite
a few others could chime in on as well, given the number of people who seem
to be working on issues related to this topic. Please excuse any
redundance.

I couldn't agree more with Edouard's general point that "it's how you use
it." I can't count the number of times my reaction to a popular press
piece or news story is "What do they mean? Is 'the computer' or 'the
Internet' good for teaching? Did we do studies to decide whether we should
use paper and pencils in classrooms? NO!" The important point for me is
that writing is such an important tool in our culture that it obviously
belongs in classrooms (Plato disagreed, but he lived in a different
sociocultural world). Computers and networked technologies also clearly
belong in some form, but how they should be used is both a moving target
(they are less "mature" technologies than writing) and a question of values
(plenty of those in questions of writing education too). Research on how
things can change and have changed in particular settings with use of
computers and networking would seem to be relevant, but I wish there was
more of it that I loved.

Of course one immediately relevant piece of work which occurs to me is my
own! Now if I can just get my dissertation published I'm sure everyone
will refer to it all the time. Right. Rather than that route, though, I
figured I'd put down some other stuff I've found helpful.

I agree with Katherine that the ACOT research is pretty good. Two articles
I like are Dwyer, et al. (1991) and Sandholtz, et al. (1992). They make
the point that teachers who remain committed to computer use go through
developmental processes. In the 91 article, they call the stages of
beliefs and practices entry, adoption, adaptation, appropriation, and
invention (unfortunate and different use of "appropriation" there for those
of us familiar with CHAT), and in the 92 article they refer to the stages
of classroom management as survival, mastery, and impact. Although I
question how deterministic they make their stages sound, I like the fact
that they think about how the new tools interact with existing beliefs and
practices as well as become involved with changed practices and then
re-evaluated beliefs based on experiences as they unfold.

Allan Collins (1991) argued in a review partly based on ACOT research that
the committed use of computers as tools in classrooms has several
predictable "effects." He thinks since skills in working with computers
are vital to participation in the emerging information economy, schools
will face increasing pressure to incorporate their use into instruction.
Examples of the effects he talks about are student engagement, small group
instruction instead of whole group instruction, and coaching instead of
lecture and recitation. In effect, this argument maintains that computer
use will introduce constraints that overpower the standard constraints of
schooling described and illustrated convincingly by Cuban (1986). In order
to provide students with more "computer time," for instance, teachers who
have a limited number of computers in their classrooms face constrained
choices about how to reorganize instruction. Two common solutions which
Mehan (1989) identified were incorporating computers into small group work
for one group at a time, and sending pairs of students to work at the
computer during time set aside for individual seat work. Both these
options involved a grouping strategy much different from whole-class
instruction-peer interaction. The teacher no longer controlled and
directly supervised the students' work. Instead, students used one another
as resources, and talked through their work on the computer, thereby
surfacing confusions and conflicts in interpretation. They also explained
their understandings to one another, which caused them to articulate and
re-evaluate those understandings in the process. Meanwhile, the teacher no
longer initiated all interaction-the students called for the teachers' help
and coaching when they encountered trouble.
Interestingly, Cuban (1993) published a response to Collins (1991) with the
fun title "Computers meet classroom: Classroom wins." Cuban agrees with
Collins' prediction that increased technology use will foster change in
some settings, but does not concur that such changes will occur in all
settings. Specifically, Cuban argues that Collins' vision will be
implemented in elementary schools, but change at the high school level will
not be forthcoming due to the greater constraints placed on high schools.
These constraints are of three types: the economic pressures for training
in complex subject matter, the structural constraints associated with
limited teacher contact time with students, and political pressures from
accrediting associations, college entrance requirements and exams, and job
market requirements. In this view, pressures for computer competence would
be forced into didactic, isolated parts of the curriculum to continue
meeting the demands of other constraints. At the elementary school level,
Cuban believes there is enough flexibility and less pressure, which is
likely to allow for greater use of computers across the curriculum.

This is getting a little bit long here. There are a few major points about
this debate as well as most of the research on this stuff that I find
interesting and important. The institution of schooling obviously comes
along with some heavy cultural-historical baggage and well-developed
(entrenched?) practices, which computer technologies with their own C-H
baggage as well as material affordances encounter and interact with (as you
can tell, I too find thinking of education as a "design science"
productive). Because of this, I think it's important to consider the
particular practices and settings into which the technologies are
"integrated", and the interpretations that the teachers AND THE STUDENTS
make of their "situated actions," which is likely to be affected by
existing practices, beliefs, and idiosyncratic affinities and events among
particular groups of people. This makes for idiosyncratic developments,
which is why I chose to study the history and development of one teacher's
inquiry-oriented science teaching in a computer-rich networked classroom,
and the actual implementation with students.

As a final aside, some other works in this general vein which I have found
informative are: the CSILE folks at OISE/UToronto (Scardamalia, et al.,
1989; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1991), the project-based science group at
Michigan (e.g., Blumenfeld, et al., 1991), Bruce and Rubin (1993), and
Denis Newman's work (e.g., Newman & Torzs, 1991). Gavriel Salomon's (1992)
AERA presentation also had some helpful ideas for me, particularly his idea
of focusing on "effects WITH" computer technology rather than "effects OF"
computer technology.

Thanks for reading this far. Hope you found something interesting along
the way.

-Joe

REFS
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M.,
and Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining
the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3),
369-398.
Bruce, B. C., and Rubin, A. (1993). Electronic quills: A situated
evaluation of using computers for writing in classrooms. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Collins, A. (1991). The role of computer technology in restructuring
schools. Phi Delta Kappan(September), 28-36.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology
since 1920. New York: Teachers College.
Cuban, L. (1993). Computers meet classroom: Classroom wins. Teachers
College Record, 95(2), 185-210.
Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. H. (1991). Changes in
teachers' beliefs and practices in technology-rich classrooms. Educational
Leadership(May), 45-52.
Mehan, H. (1989). Microcomputers in classroom: Educational technology or
social practice? Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 20, 4-22.
Newman, D., & Torzs, F. (1991, February). A world in the classroom: Making
sense of seasonal change through talk and technology. Technical Report No.
11. Center for Technology in Education.
Salomon, G. (1992, April). Computer's first decade: Golem, Camelot, or the
Promised Land? In American Educational Research Association 1992, .
Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., and Dwyer, D. D. (1992). Teaching in
high-tech environments: Classroom management revisited. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 8(4), 479-505.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R. S., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E.
(1989). Computer-supported intentional learning environments. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 5(1), 51-68.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for
children in knowledge building: A challenge for the Design of new
knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37-68