Public School Teachers Using Machines in the Next Decade

Larry Cuban, a French teacher at Stanford University, lays out three possible scenarios for the future role of computers and technology in schools in his article Public School Teachers Using Machines in the Next Decade. Cuban, seemingly concerned with the lack of technology use in classrooms during the 1990s, evaluates the Technophile’s scenario, the Preservationist’s Scenario, and the Cautious Optimist’s Scenario in an attempt to convince the reader of which situation is the most likely candidate for the future of public schools. The Technophile’s scenario suggests that “one decade from now” (the decade we are currently living in), schools will have enough machines that students will rely more on the machines and on each other, than on the teachers themselves. A typical scenario would be a student taking his research paper to a computer for an explanation (by the computer) of his mistakes, and a practice session to improve on needed skills. This scenario, which obviously did not take place within the decade, seems unlikely to occur any time in the somewhat near future. The entire concept of computer based learning as a leading method of teaching completely ignores the fact that students need interaction with other human beings! It is important to have real people to bounce ideas off of, to learn from, and to build relationships with. While machines are excellent tools and should be utilized frequently, students need a balance of technology and hands on real life experiences. Classroom experiments, group activities, and class field trips are integral parts to the success of a child’s education that must not be overlooked.
The second scenario (Preservationist’s Scenario) places computers in a secondary role in education. This model suggests that while educators will continue to implement technology into daily lessons with the intent of increasing productivity, computers and other machines of this nature will be adapted to fit the needs already in place within traditional (current) ways of teaching. While this concept of machine use in classrooms seems much more likely than the first, Cuban argues that the reality of the future will be a mix of this second situation coupled with a third: the Cautious Optimist’s Scenario. In this manifestation of the future, there will be an extremely slow shift towards a more central role of computers in education. Supporters of this method claim that this change, in which efficient machines will effectively “free” students from tedious methods of traditional teaching, is inevitable over time. Cuban suggests that we will see more of this third change in elementary schools, while secondary schools will remain in a Preservationist’s Scenario. He explains that because of the way elementary and secondary schools are structured, this affects future use of technology. Secondary schools, where teachers spend little time with many different students, are much more core subject oriented and test result driven than elementary schools, where teachers spend a great deal of time with a significantly smaller number of students. I agree with Cuban, in than there is much more room for creative implementation in elementary schools than in the rigidity of secondary schools. However, this is one of our challenges as educators: we must strive to keep up with the change in times and help students to become technologically proficient within the little time we spend with them.
In the final section of his article, Cuban poses the idea that schools are likely to stick with a more Preservationist scenario at both elementary and secondary levels due to the increased emphasis on standardized testing. Schools do not want to take as many risks, like technological experimentation for example, because they are extremely focused on raising test scores. Cuban questions whether the structure of schools and teaching will change in the next few decades (similar to the hope of Cautious Optimists) or remain pretty much the same (in concordance with the ideas of the Preservationists). Interestingly enough, schools have remained mostly in the Preservationist’s scenario over the past decade, just as Cuban suggested. Nationalized testing due to mandates such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has taken over as the primary focus in education. Many teachers are afraid to take too many risks in instructional methods because so much is riding on students’ test scores. However, I would like to propose that it is quite likely we will see a major shift in public educational practices within the next few decades. When the time for Adequate Yearly Progress is up in 2014, and 100% of the nation’s students are expected to meet the standards set forth by NCLB, we might experience a major revamping of the public school system if these standards are not met. If a shift in standard educational practices does occur, there are unlimited opportunities for the integration of technology into the new construct of public schooling.

Teachers’ View of Computers as Catalysts for Changes in Their Teaching Practice

Sara L. Dexter and Ronald E. Anderson, University of Minnesota
Henry Jay Becker, University of California, Irvine

This article discusses the idea of whether or not technology/computers can be used as the catalyst for educational reform. While the introduction stated that many policy makers and educators felt that computers could be a catalyst, a study conducted in the late 1990s showed that most teachers felt technology was less of a catalyst and more of a facilitator for change. I agree with this point of view. I believe that the use of technology in the classroom is extremely important. However, as mentioned by a few of the teachers in the study, the teachers and school culture make the decisions for change, and technology is then an excellent support system for implementing the desired changes.

One reason for lack of technology integration, as stated in the article, is lack of proper training. I feel that teachers are most certainly more likely to properly implement technology into the classroom (as more than just a “tool”) if they have attended classes that show them how to use and then integrate this technology successfully. Many first-year teachers are simply worried about getting the information across to students correctly, while maintaining a certain level of discipline in the classroom. These teachers, understandably so, do not have nearly the time that veterans do to sit back and reflect upon how to include technology in their lessons as an integral part, rather than just an add-on. Thus, if they are properly trained ahead of time, this technology integration will come more easily to them.

Finally, I really enjoyed the statement by one teacher, which explained that she was doing her best to stay away from delivering the information to her students, and instead letting them discover it on their own. This was really hard, she said. I feel that with this change in personal teaching philosophy more technology can be incorporated because the technology is an excellent resource for self-guided exploration.

Overall, I believe that while computers are certainly aiding teachers in the implementation of new, creative ways to help students learn, they will never take over as a catalyst for change. Teachers, their experiences, gained knowledge through classes, and school culture will ultimately be the catalysts for change.

Education and Urban Society: Ensuring Equality of Educational Oportunity in the Digital Age

Morse opens his discussion of equality of educational opportunity by referring to the famous case of Brown vs. Board of Education. In this case, a fight for educational equality regardless of race, the United States Supreme Court recognized that there are tangible and intangible factors associated with equality. Morse claims that these factors also apply to equality of educational opportunity in the digital age. This digital divide, as Morse calls it, has two sides to it. In a tangible sense, not all students/schools have equal access to technology. Intangibly, the specific uses of software and computer technology are unequal between different ethnic and social groups and in different schools.

National statistics clearly reveal that access/ownership of technology varies among different ethnic and social groups. Schools that are largely populated by students of diverse ethnic backgrounds, as well as those living in areas of poverty, have much less access to most types of technology than other schools. Morse offers the solution that the government should provide adequate and equal funds to all schools in order to even out access to technology. He also explains that schools in need of additional funding should write grants or participate in fundraising activities. I feel that although these are wonderful solutions, I am not convinced that they are entirely realistic. There are many difficulties with government funding of schools in relation to the No Child Left Behind Act. Thus, I do not see it as likely that the government will very readily offer equal funding for technology. I believe that the government would pull money from schools with unacceptable testing scores. Unfortunately, these schools are most likely the ones who most need the money for technology. The schools will then be forced to either fundraise or write grants. However, the impoverished schools in need of more funding will most likely be in communities that are not able to offer financial support to their schools. Thus, it seems unlikely that they will be able to pull themselves out of the rut they find themselves in.

Intangibly, not all schools are emphasizing use of technology in the same ways. Morse explains that most inner-city schools use computers and internet access only for students to acquire basic academic skills. In contrast, affluent schools use technology in an effort to develop students’ higher-order critical thinking skills. Morse claims that this problem can be addressed at the level of teacher training. I agree with this idea, but feel that it will certainly not solve the issue altogether. For example, Morse argues that we should train current and future teachers to effectively integrate technology into their lessons in ways that will challenge students to do more than rote memorization and regurgitation of simple facts. This, he says, will allow for more consistency and equality within technology use. Also, the teachers of teachers must be an example in using technology appropriately within their lessons. In my opinion, although attacking at the level of teacher training is very important link, there is more to the problem. The inner-city schools that are not using technology to its full potential are forced, in some ways, to maintain focus on very basic areas simply due to the academic levels of their students. It seems that because these areas are impoverished, the students of these schools are not as academically prepared to use technology in a more advanced way. These schools are so focused getting the students through the basics in preparation for state testing, little time remains for more advanced instruction in relation to the technology itself. Thus, the issue is much more complex that simply modifying teacher training.

Although there are not many readily available solutions, I feel that we are headed in the correct direction simply by recognizing that these issues need to be addressed. Perhaps we can find a way to raise money within the more prosperous schools and neighborhoods to donate to the less privileged schools. I believe awareness is the key. If the wealthier schools become more aware of the dire need for technology in other schools, it might be possible to start an outreach program. And certainly, by properly educating teachers and future educators alike, this will be an enormous step towards equal educational opportunity and breaking down the digital divide.