0.2 Newell, p. (march 2010). technology disconnected: teacher  (Page 2/10)

Background on technology revolution

The inclusion of “revolutionary” new technology into the world of education is no new phenomenon. The history of education in the 20 ^th century is littered with mistaken forecasts of technological revolutions in education. In 1913 Thomas Edison predicted that books would ‘soon be obsolete in the schools” because of motion pictures. Educational historian Larry Cuban argues that these expectations were repeatedly disappointed not because of poor implementation, insufficient money, or resistance by teachers but because of a more fundamental obstacle: the logic of the classroom (Cuban, 1986). Some of the common elements of all technological revolutions (film, radio, automated instruction and now digital media) was that each new medium would make teachers better by providing them with interesting new ways to enhance their teaching through state-of-the-art innovation and techniques. Everyday teaching presents enormous problems, and the tools that teachers have added to their repertoire over time “have been simple, durable, flexible, and responsive to teacher-defined problems in meeting the demands of daily instruction.” In contrast, information technology requires a lot of setup, access to computer labs requires advanced scheduling, and the information technology available at the beginning of the “revolution” did not necessarily mesh with lesson plans (Cassidy, 2004).

In the 1990s, computers were deviating from the pattern of earlier technologies and were easier to use as the sorts of “simple, durable, flexible, and responsive to teacher-defined problems in meeting the means of daily instruction” that teachers need. Interest in using PCs in instruction began to, selectively, bubble up from teachers and students. This expanded greatly with advances in multimedia technology and the popular adoption of the Internet as a communications technology (Starr, 1996). Even with all of this interest in using technology to change how education takes place, little has changed in the classrooms. Traditionally, blame has been placed on teachers or schools for failing to include new technologies, even when the change to be effected is not clearly spelled out, well planned, or well suited to the educational environment. Rod Paige, the seventh Secretary of Education, presented this sentiment well ("Rod Paige Secretary, U.S. Department of Education," 2002): “There is strong resistance to change in the school business. And there are no consequences for failure. Why would they want to change when there’s no real reward for success?” While blaming teachers, schools, and administrators for problems with the educational system has a long history in America, other factors are at work that explain why technological literacy has not taken root as deeply as was hoped. History, politics, educational philosophy, and the basic nature of computer technology as an educational tool provide rationales beyond merely blaming the system.

Involvement of the federal government

A review of important historical points since the advent of the personal computer will provide several indicators of why information technology has not dramatically changed the course of K-12 education. In April of 1995, President Clinton issued an Executive Order that planned for accelerating technology literacy in the classroom. The Executive Order included four goals: