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.