Deborah Yoklic
I. Need for Curriculum Reform
a. What will the New Paradigm Look Like?
II. Role of Technology in Reform
a. What can we learn from Technology-Based Curriculum
b. Recent Examples of Technology Driving Curriculum Change
III. Changing Teachers' Roles
a. How the Teacher and her Classroom Changes as the Result of Using Technology
IV. Changing Students' Role
a. How Technology can help At-Risk Students
b. Interactivity
V. What Impedes Effective uses of Technology in Schools?
a. Lack of Availability of Technology and its Consequences
b. Caveat Emptor: Change Must be Locally Motivated
c. Staff Development
d. Structure of School Day
e. Time
f. Assessment of Both Teachers and Students
There are many theories of what constitutes curriculum. One helpful way of viewing curriculum is as made up of three parts:
ideal, intended, and actual. (Kuballa, 1993)
Most school districts have curricula that are made up of an
accumulation of patched together intended learning outcomes
comprised of lists of topics which are often textbook-dependent,
relate to an industrial society and are being questioned for
appropriateness. (Minor, 1989) As attempts are made to restructure schools to meet the demands of the current era of
telecommunications and information technologies, the contrast
between what children learn in school and which abilities they will
be called upon to use in the workplace must be dealt with.
As soon as you describe the curriculum in terms of what the
kids can show that they can do, that forces you to make a lot of
curricular decisions that previously were swept under the rug.
(O'Neil, 1995). This is not going to happen easily. What role can technology play in these changes?
The skills that will be required of students include the following:
verbal presentation and explanation skills
the ability to answer questions and challenges
the ability to try out different conjectures
the ability to revise
reflection and analysis
complex problem solving abilities
collaborative work
synthesis
self control of one's own learning
ability to formulate questions and construct ideas
active exploration
Students can become adept at these skills only when they practice them. The kinds of activities that foster them can be facilitated by the use of technology.
Technology can be key to realizing the conditions needed for
effective schooling. Technology provides a selection of tools--
simulations, graphical capabilities, spreadsheets, database
programs, writing tools, programming languages, and electronic
bulletin-board communications software--for accessing information
and for thinking and expressing which allows more children more
ways to be successful at learning. Because technology gives access
to vast amounts of information and removes barriers of time and
distance, it offers the potential to help teachers change and
enhance what they do in the classroom.
Most of the reported studies on the use of computers in the
classroom focus on integrated learning systems (ILSs) and drill-
and-practice uses of computers. Although we do not advocate
computers being used primarily as curriculum-deliverers, research
has shown that computer-based instruction does have positive
effects on students. Through these uses of technology, students
generally (Kulik, 1989; Dyrli, 1995)
learn more, in less time;
are willing to spend more time on task;
like their classes more;
develop more positive attitudes about computers;
are satisfied with ILS systems, as are teachers and administrators;
exhibit large gains on standardized tests.
Further, Van Dusen (1995) contends that when ILSs do not produce significant increases in test results, the fault is not with the
system but with critical underutilization of that system.
But just because technology can support significantly enhanced
learning conditions does not mean that it will. Technology alone
does not transform schooling (Pearlman, 1993; Policy Research Project, 1989; Ramirez, 1994). Why? In many schools, computers remain isolated in laboratories; computers cannot be integrated into everyday activities when even getting access to them is a major obstacle. The emphasis on drill-and-practice impedes revising the curriculum to include more beneficial uses of
curriculum. Selection of technology is often based on availability
or political forces rather than being driven by curricular goals.
Further, enthusiasm for technology tends to produce uses that are
attainable rather than optimal (Dyrli, 1995).
There are beginning to be more reported studies of enhanced
uses of technology which validate the claim that technology can
lead to transformed classrooms and revamped curriculums. Becker (1994) investigated the characteristics of what he termed "exemplary computer users". These teachers were four times as
likely to introduce new topics as a result of using computers.
They were five times as likely to de-emphasize or drop certain
topics as a result of using computers. In fact, the change in
content coverage gave statistically the largest difference of all
areas between exemplary and other computer users.
Dwyer (1991, 1994) reports that effects long known about ILSs--students producing more and faster, test scores remaining as strong or stronger--being replicated by teachers in Apple Classrooms on Tomorrow (ACOTs).
The key to curriculum reform, to classroom reform, to school
reform, is the teacher. Having computers accessible to only the
students means that computers are used for remediation or reward.
Giving the teacher continuous, immediate, and supported access to
computers is necessary for creating the potential for creating deep
and sustained changes.
Most teachers initially view technology as tools to make their
jobs easier and more efficient. Technology is seen as useful for
enhanced record keeping capabilities. Technology is valued for its
ability to provide individual students extra drill-and-practice or
enrichment activities. Perhaps, too, teachers find the computer
worthwhile for specific, but isolated, lessons. It is not clear
whether it is the sustained use of the technology itself or if it
is outside influences (for example, what kind of degree the
teacher has, or a teacher's pre-espousal of the efficacy of group
learning) which determines changes in the role of the teacher, or
even the degree of that change. Nevertheless, it is apparent is
that profound changes in the teacher's role do occur as teachers
use technology more and more in the classroom.
Teachers who integrate technology become more flexible. They
emphasize group work more. They are more likely to give students
choices in all areas (Becker, 1994). The teacher begins to
function less as an information-giver and manager and takes on the
roles of mentor, counselor, research associate, resource allocator,
and advisor (Hawkins, 1993; Braun, 1993).
In classrooms with computer-based learning, control of
student-teacher interactions becomes more equally shared between
students and teachers. Swan and Mitrani (1993) found seventeen
times more individual interactions between teachers and students in
computer-based classrooms than in traditional classroom settings.
A Pittsburgh high school teacher using a tutoring system to teach
geometry began to provide more individualized, targeted help, began
to spend more time with weaker students and began to value, and
credit, process and effort in students' work in addition to final
answers. (Hawkins, 1993)
It also appears that the more integral technology becomes to
the classroom, the more profound the changes. Long-term
observation of ACOT classrooms (Dwyer, 1991) show teachers changing
their instructional approaches and broadening their ideas on what
the children should be accomplishing, with change being toward
child-centered instruction, collaborative tasks, and active
learning. The emphasis on collaborative and creative activities
led naturally to team teaching and to interdisciplinary project-
based instruction and, eventually, to teachers altering the school
master schedule to accommodate more ambitious class projects.
As change evolves, teachers must confront their beliefs about
learning and the effectiveness of their instructional activities.
More active use of technology renews teachers' focus on the
programs and curriculums they teach. While the change may occur
without it, technology appears to facilitate the process (Buckley,
1995).
Restructuring the classroom involves a new role for the
student as well. Data has consistently shown that computer-based
activities can encourage students to work together and to spend
more time working on problems (Hawkins et al, 1993). Active
learning requires even more shifts in the student's role; active
learning requires inquiry, collaboration, and the employment of a
variety of problem solving skills not generally exhibited by
students from traditional classrooms. Dwyer (1994) reports that
students from ACOT classrooms develop these skills. Indeed,
through practicing interactive learning behavior and sharing
learning experiences with peers and teachers, students are able to
develop the mental models necessary for more complex problem
solving (Ramirez, 1994).
Technology can assist at-risk students in a variety of
practical ways. First, minority group students may fail because
the gap between what is learned in school and out of school is so
wide. They may fail to develop higher order cognitive schools
because their classes overemphasize drill and practice. Lastly,
they may rarely be given tasks that engage and motivate them
(Kozma, 1992). Through sustained employment of technology in the
classroom, all of these inequities can be lessened.
"The use of computers seems to be having the kind of effect,
in fact, that Marshall McLuhan maintained in 1964 communications
media have on those who use them -- that the defining properties of
a medium are internalized by its users, who then incorporate those
properties into their external affairs. The defining property of
the computer medium must be its interactivity." (Swan, 1993, p. 52)
It has been estimated that in 1993 there were somewhere
between 1.5 and 2.5 million computers in schools, or approximately
12 to 18 students for each machine. Although no one really knows
the true numbers, there were at that time at least 3500 schools
with no computers at all. (Beach 1993) It should be obvious, but
bears noting, that it is not possible for computers to become
integrated into the schools when there are no computers for the
students to use.
More importantly, perhaps, is that there are no computers for
the teachers to use. It is easier to get school boards, parents
and voters to appropriate money for computers for the kids to use;
but the kids will not be using the computers in useful ways until
the teachers have regular access to computers. Only when the
teacher is comfortable with the computer--even in only limited
ways--will the teacher begin to be able to imagine how
the students could use the computer.
The lack of computers in the schools leads to lack of
awareness of the appropriate uses of technology in schools
(Strommern 1992). Media are still perceived as add-ons to the
educational process, not as central to the educational mission.
Often that means that technology is used primarily for reward and
remediation; these are valid uses, but are peripheral to the main
curriculum. Equally peripheral, technology may become yet another
content area.
Schools that enroll large numbers of low-income and minority
group students are especially prone to this predicament. These
schools are under substantial pressure to teach basic skills and
raise standardized achievement scores, and use computers primarily
for drill and practice. (Kozma, 1992) They may be more resistant
than other schools to the uses of technology that involve major
changes in pedagogical technique.
The inclination to employ media as add-ons to the curriculum
is understandable. Reform is demanding and difficult. When
technology is introduced into the schools, most teachers and
administrators readjust the technology mix to fit existing
practices. Even when the goals of change are clearly stated, both
personal beliefs and contextual constraints can combine to hinder
progress.
Efforts to impose technology over the objections of teachers
will fail. Nevertheless, simply waiting for all teachers to
embrace technology on their own is not a viable option. (Policy
Research Project, 1989) Somehow a balance needs to be found. Who
is it who has decided how technology is to be used? Who has
developed the program? The forces that go into creating something
are different from the forces that are at work in any other
situations where people are trying to use that product.
The Adventures of Jasper Woodbury--known as the Jasper Series,
developed and produced by the Cognition and Technology Group at
Vanderbilt University--is a case in point. In this series, a
narrative, presented on videodisc, connects mathematical concepts
to realistic, complex situations. In this way the concepts are all
tied to meaningful problems and outcomes. Students can benefit
when the concepts are learned as tools rather than arbitrary facts;
students and teachers can share and revisit a complex situation;
the structure of the series facilitates problem finding as well as
problem solving. (Barron, 1993; Ramirez 1994) These positive
outcomes have been observed in situations were the implementation
was under the direction of Vanderbilt. There is some evidence that
when other teachers, not guided by the folks from Vanderbilt
University, attempt to use the Jasper Series, the results are not
as clear-cut. Aside from the expense, the biggest problem appears
to be that using the Jasper Series may require a great deal of
insight and expertise on the part of the teacher. Without the
guidance of Vanderbilt, where is the teacher to get these?
Teachers must resist the urge to follow the futurists who
claim to know what is best for everyone. Teachers must look
carefully at the software they are using and are planning to use.
Are the trade-offs necessitated by the use of a certain type of
technology worth it? Are the children using the technology as
hoped? If not, what modifications should be made, by whom, and
how?
A particular problem is the absence of incentives for
individual teachers to assume the additional burden of
incorporating technology into the curricula. Sustained staff
development can successfully address this. Schools and districts
that ensure ongoing collaboration with teacher and administrative
teams working together to solve problems appear to be more
effective at technology integration and educational reform in
general. (Guthrie, 1995) Teachers must also be permitted by the
administration to take reasonable risks without penalty for
failure. (Braun 1993) And these must all occur on a continuing,
long-term basis.
In identifying necessary pre-conditions for the presence of
exemplary computer-users, Becker (1994) found only four factors
essential. Two of these were staff development and support issues:
school support for using computers for consequential activities and
resources allocated to staff development and computer coordination.
The structure of the school also inhibits the ability of
teachers to engage students in unstructured tasks. The division of
the school day into 40- to 50-minute periods is based on the model
of dividing learning into discrete subject areas. Yet higher order
skills are multidisciplinary by definition. (Peha 1995; Policy
Research Project 1989)
Dwyer found that in ACOT classrooms, teachers eventually and
spontaneously restructured the school day to accommodate more long-
terms projects. Middle schools with teaming approaches may already
be in this position.
We are, most of us, impatient creatures. We want to see
results immediately. If we invest money in technology, we want to
see our children benefitting from this right away. Yet a
commitment of three to five years of planning and revision is
required to significantly alter schooling conditions in ways that
deeply incorporate technologies (Hawkins 1993).
The ACOT experience supports the necessity for patience. In
the earliest stages, ACOT teachers demonstrated little penchant for
significant change and, in fact, were using their technological
resources to replicate traditional instructional and learning
activities. It was not until the fourth stage--Appropriation--that
they gained a great deal of perspective on just how profoundly they
could alter the experience of learning for their students. (Dwyer,
1991).
It has been posited (Strommern, 1992; Dwyer, 1994) that the
most serious barrier to the integration of technology and
consequent curriculum change is student and teacher assessment.
Certainly the kinds of skills required in the new model-- abilities
to synthesize and integrate, to revise, to communicate (see also
"What Will the New Paradigm Look Like?")--will require new forms of
assessment. Dwyer's research contains promising evidence that as
students are encouraged more and more to practice creative problem-
solving strategies or heightened abilities to collaborate, teachers
struggle to create mechanisms to measure those.
But these kinds of assessments are complex to gather, store
and evaluate. The use of computer simulations, videotapes of
student presentations, and portfolios offer hopeful possibilities
for assessment. Dwyer found experimentation with technologies for
assessment taking place, but only after four years or so.
More serious may be district evaluative instruments of
teachers, which can be too inflexible to accommodate more active
classroom environments. It may, in fact, be difficult to appraise
a teacher's effectiveness of teaching higher-order skills since not
a great deal is yet known about how to do that teaching. (Policy
Research Project, 1989) Far-reaching and substantive change cannot
take place in isolated classrooms. District support of such change
must be accompanied by changes in many aspects of how the
educational process is carried out.
