A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Using Technology to Support Education Reform -- September 1993

Lessons from Implementation Studies

An increasing number of studies of technology use in schools have focused on the implementation process and provide a basis for preliminary recommendations regarding the use of technology to support education reform.

Need to Start With Instructional Goals

Many of the horror stories concerning television sets stacked in school closets and computers still in their boxes reflect the unfortunate situation where technologies are purchased for their own sake rather than as a means to an instructional goal. Those who market technologies recognize this tendency, as indicated by two software marketers interviewed by Levin and Meister (1985):
Schools find it hard to know where they're going with computers. No one knows. Schools are really just trying to keep up.

Despite all the advice that says to look at the courseware first, schools never look at software first. [They acquire computers and then search for software.] They re so quick to spend money, they end up doing it haphazardly. (p. 24)
We have argued that technologies per se do not embody a particular set of curricular or pedagogical goals. The writing of Cuban (1986), Cohen (1988), and others suggests that unless the school staff start out with an instructional goal, technology is most likely to be used to reinforce the status quo. Piele (1989) argues that this is exactly what happened with microcomputers in most schools, where they became a drain on resources and just added to the burdens of teachers who already were trying to do too much.

Most teachers will find little incentive to tackle the technical and scheduling problems associated with technology, unless they have a clear vision of how the technology can improve teaching and learning. Calfee (1991) argues that education reform requires the involvement not just of the classroom but of the school as a whole. If students are to experience a new kind of education that places real value on extended intellectual effort and problem solving, this kind of thinking needs to be encouraged not just in one unit or one class or even in one year but throughout the student's school experience. This requires a school's teachers to come together and to work with administrators to develop a unifying set of goals. Although principles may be embodied somewhat differently in different classrooms, adherence to a consistent set of principles can unify the school. Given reformers' goals such as those we outlined in the introduction (i.e., use of authentic, challenging multidisciplinary tasks; promotion of active learning and collaborative work; and so on), schools will find that there is much they can start doing to prepare students for this kind of work without technology for example, working on collaborative research projects with traditional paper-based tools. Schools participating in California's Model Technology Schools program found that a common set of instructional goals to work on was important in maintaining project identity and momentum when they encountered the inevitable delays in the delivery of hardware and software (M. Stearns et al. 1991). Such activities prepare students and teachers for their new roles in subsequent technology-enhanced projects. Moreover, they start moving the school toward education reform now, without waiting for the approvals, funding, delivery, and training that precede the use of new technology.

Importance of Connections to Curricular Goals and Frameworks

Often, technology does not get used because the available software is simply irrelevant to the teacher's curricular goals. The decentralization of American education and the resulting diversification of curriculum content have made it uneconomical for the developers of instructional courseware to develop products to match every curriculum. Most of the more sophisticated, inventive pieces of instructional software deal with only a narrow slice of curriculum (Levin & Meister 1985) or with material that is fairly trivial in and of itself (Rockman 1991). At the same time, teachers report intense pressure to "cover" an unrealistically large amount of required material. Teachers see instructional software that does not match their curriculum as a distraction, fine for enrichment for students proceeding rapidly and for basic skills remediation for slower students, but not central to their basic curricular goals.

This problem can be attacked on two fronts. First, teachers and schools can be involved in efforts to modify the curriculum and to develop a more realistic set of curriculum goals. The requirement to cover too many topics in a given time period has led to superficial treatment, with students learning the names but little else for many of the concepts they are studying. Many reform efforts are pointing toward greater depth in covering fewer topics and toward more local-school involvement in determining what those topics should be. This trend will make it easier to incorporate technology in teaching and learning the key concepts and skills that are to be emphasized in the new curriculum. At the same time, as Wiske, Niguidula, and Shepard (1988) report, teachers who are able to participate in renegotiating curriculum and assessment requirements are more likely to consider using computers in ways that support education reform.

A second way to approach the problem is by encouraging the development of software materials that are compatible with curricular goals. As described in Chapter IV, technology can provide tools for teachers to use in creating their own materials. Evaluators have noted, however, the great investment in time and effort that such projects require. Often, teachers prefer to have the opportunity to do some tailoring of materials for their own purposes, without having to do the basic development (Wiske, Zodhiates, Wilson et al. 1988, and the Catlab example in Chapter IV).

The state of California recognized the importance of the match between technology- based materials and the existing curriculum and has been a leader in addressing the issue. The state established funds to set up partnerships between developers and the California Department of Education. The state provides seed money for the development of technology-based materials geared to state curriculum frameworks; developers coinvest with substantial matching funds; California schools get discounts on the resulting materials, and the state receives royalties based on the materials out-of-state sales (O Connor 1991). One of the early products of this arrangement, GTV, The American Experience, developed by the National Geographic Society, Apple Computer, and LucasFilm, won awards for quality and earned back the developers investment within the first 6 months. A current project, Science 2000, is aligned with California's science framework for seventh graders and is intended to be a full, exemplary science curriculum taught using computer software, video- and audiotapes, videodisc, hands-on materials, text, and telecommunications.

Compatibility with Assessment System

Concern over the quality of education and the resolve to hold schools accountable for student learning have made assessment a "high-stakes" activity. Districts and schools are rewarded and punished on the basis of the average test scores of their students. In striving for comparability across sites and for cost- effectiveness, the standardized tests that are used for these evaluations consist almost entirely of multiple-choice questions covering many discrete topics. Basic skills are stressed. To avoid favoring one curriculum topic over the other, test developers measure reading comprehension using material that is likely to be new to everyone. Thus, particular knowledge that may have been learned, the ability to regulate one's own sustained intellectual inquiry, and advanced skills generally go untested. The education system may unwittingly subvert efforts to teach more advanced skills by judging districts, schools, principals, and teachers on the basis of their students performance on basic-skills tests. The surest way to raise those test scores is to teach to the tests; time spent with technology-enhanced instruction aimed at very different learning outcomes becomes a "distraction."

The potential for high-stakes testing of content that is not the goal of an innovation to kill off a project was demonstrated at the Belridge School in McKittrick, California. Funded by tax revenues from neighboring oil fields, this small K-8 school district purchased computers for school and home use for every student and teacher in the school. Laser disc players, television production equipment, and large amounts of software were purchased. The project stressed having students collaborate on meaningful tasks that would challenge them to think. Student work included producing their own television news shows and setting up and administering a computer-based presidential election. Two years later, when scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills for the first year of the technology implementation were released, parents were shocked to see that their students scored no better than before and slightly below the national median. Failing to consider the difference in focus between the technology-based projects and the standardized test and the immaturity of the implementation at the time the students were tested, parents picketed the school and elected a new school board with the mandate to find a new "back to basics" principal. Computers were removed from student desks and pushed to the rear of the classroom or sold (Schulz 1992).

Thus, it is wise for innovators to confront the assessment issue as early as possible. Although district and state testing policies may be beyond local control, the school or classroom can at least take steps to collect additional assessment data that are more compatible with the goals of their innovation. Unfortunately, we lack good standardized measures of many advanced thinking skills, but a school can at least choose among the more appropriate subtests from standardized test batteries (e.g., reading comprehension as opposed to word attack skills, math problem solving as opposed to numerical operations) and can supplement these measures with writing samples, portfolios, and other concrete evidence of student achievement.

Teachers and Technology Need to Work Together

Many of the early technology enthusiasts dreamed of a "teacher-proof" system embodying sound principles of teaching and learning and engaging students directly without the interference of a teacher whose knowledge base might be incomplete or whose pedagogy might be faulty. Studies of classroom implementations of technology have demonstrated that this goal was not only unrealistic but wrongheaded. Teachers can subvert practically any kind of instructional material to their own goals and ways of teaching (Cuban 1986). At the same time, even the best software programs will be inadequate for many students under many circumstances. Zorfass (1991) describes the abysmal failure of the Carmen Sandiego program with a class of inner-city students who were not fluent in English and knew little about geography, American culture, or how to use reference materials. Lacking the needed background, they could not engage in the kind of problem solving the game was designed to evoke. Only when the teacher developed an instructional program around the software, having students work in small groups rather than individually and teaching skills and knowledge needed to play the game, were students able to profit from it.

Delclos and Kulewicz (1986) studied sixth-grade children's use of Rocky's Boots, a highly regarded piece of software for teaching problem-solving skills. Without help from a teacher, most of the children in the study could solve fewer than half of the 39 problems in the program. The researchers described students as "hitting a plateau" in their independent work. When teachers intervened, providing instruction on problem-solving strategies within the context of the specific problems in the programs, students were able to go far beyond their initial level of independent problem solving. Thus, experience suggests that the most successful projects will be those in which the intervention incorporates both teacher activities and technology into a broader learning activity.

Requirement for Ongoing Pedagogical and Technological Support

Wiske et al. (1988) interviewed 76 teachers concerning their experiences with integrating computers into their classrooms. The teachers were nearly unanimous in concluding that initially the use of computers made teaching more difficult. They not only had to plan how technology could be incorporated into their lessons but also had to work through the logistical problems of deciding which students would use the computers at what times. Hardware and software problems are common in the early stages of an implementation. Evaluations of the Model Technology Schools in California (M. Stearns et al. 1991) documented similar problems and found that the presence of on-site assistance with the technology is critical for success. Districts found that moving technical assistance personnel from a central site out into the schools during the implementation process was important in making curricular and instructional improvements happen.

The need to train teachers when introducing technology was illustrated also in the experience of the San Francisco schools with multimedia systems. Seventeen systems were installed in 1989 along with social studies and history software developed by the National Geographic Society. Most of the machines were idle at the end of that school year, however. Only after teachers were given training in how to work the multimedia content into their lesson plans did teachers start using the technology available to them (Yoder 1991).

Even if the technology and its content did not pose challenges to teachers, the new curricula and teaching strategies associated with education reform would. Introducing complex, multidisciplinary projects and a strong element of student control means opening the door for students to explore content areas that are unknown to the teacher. Acting as a coach for small groups of students working cooperatively requires diagnostic and management skills that are not called on when teaching is equated with lecturing. Smith and O'Day (1990) point out that pre-service education for teachers does not equip them for these roles. Teachers need support for deepening their knowledge of content areas and for learning new teaching skills. Both outside advisors and fellow teachers trying to implement the same or similar innovations can serve this function effectively.

Role of Community Involvement

The push toward use of technology in the classroom often comes from outside the school. Parents and business representatives, seeing how technology has transformed the workplace and concerned for the economic survival of their children and their community, press schools to capitalize on the presumed efficiency and power of using technology. However, such calls for the infusion of technology into schools are not usually accompanied by any clear ideas concerning just what should be taught using technology or how it should be taught. The chances for success are increased when parents and the community buy into the instructional goals of the reform and understand the implications in terms of costs, other forgone activities, and likely effects on test scores.

The effective schools literature showing the value of parent and community involvement (Epstein 1984; Herman & Yeh 1983) implies that these groups should be made participants in the process of technology-supported education reform. Partnership means sharing in developing the instructional goals of the reform and taking responsibility for helping to support them. This requires much more than unfocused enthusiasm concerning computers or videoconferencing.

Obtaining community understanding and support will not always be easy. Education reform goals, as we have described them here, are based on a particular (constructivist) view of learning. This view is in direct contention with conventional notions of knowledge as a set of facts and teaching as the telling of facts. Cohen (1988) points out the prevalence of the conventional view:

Contrary to most reformers' beliefs, these [conventional] views elicit profound attachment from many children and adults....The conceptions and practices that reformers wish to replace are not simply obsolete, boring, and stupid impositions....Traditional approaches to instruction contain coherent and defensible views of knowledge, teaching, and learning....One part of this scholastic inheritance is the widely shared conviction that valid academic knowledge consists of facts. Facts are found in books and teachers lectures. Efforts to suggest that there is more to academic knowledge than facts--that it consists of ideas about facts, or that facts have no meaningful status unless embedded in ideas about them, or that students are authors of ideas and therefore creators of academic knowledge--violate this view. For if knowledge does not consist of facts, well established and stored in authoritative locations, how can it be trusted? Anyone can make up ideas. If knowledge is composed or constructed--which is to say, made up--by little children, or even by schoolteachers, how seriously can it be taken? (pp. 256-257)

The experiences of the Belridge School described above provide a dramatic demonstration of the risks involved when the community does not fully understand or embrace the instructional goals of an innovation. A misunderstanding of the project's intentions and likely outcomes led to a community backlash that not only killed the school project but produced technology-bashing headlines ("The revolution that fizzled") in a national news magazine (Elmer-Dewitt 1991) as well.


-###-
[Chapter VI: Implementation Issues ] [Table of Contents] [The Role of Business]

This page was last updated December 27, 2001 (jca)