Moving From Technological Possibility to Richer Student Learning: Revitalized Infrastructure and Reconstructed Pedagogy

Abstract

The science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke once noted, Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. So it is with the technological possibilities showcased at the 1996 Education Summit, which apparently bewitched the governors and business leaders in attendance. Americans have historically trusted the power of technology to solve problems and improve quality of life (Segal, 1996), and the Education Summit seems a compelling demonstration of America's belief in the power of the technological fix. Not only was it sponsored by IBM, but the agenda indicates that approximately one third of the Summit was devoted to demonstrations and discussions of small-scale, advanced educational technology projects and experiments (see National Education Summit, 1996a). Although there is no doubt that advanced technology suggests new possibilities for learning and teacher professional development, to date these possibilities have been explored in relatively small-scale, test bed projects. Few have survived the realities of largescale implementation in typical classrooms, and those that have report significant implementation problems (Ladewskii, Krajcik, & Harvey, 1994; Marx et al., 1994). Three final policy statements were issued at the end of the Summit. One was titled is the Equalizer in Educational Advancement and quoted Governor Tommy G. Thompson, chairman of the National Governors' Association (NGA) and the Education Commission of the States as saying Information technology is critical to improving the quality and diversity of (National Education Summit, 1996b). In addition, BellSouth Corporation CEO John Clendenin noted, We will be inadequate in our response to the competitive education challenge if we do integrate technology into the classroom (National Education Summit, 1996b). Although these documents acknowledge that technology is not a silver bullet, they also place the nation's hope for educational reform and improvement on only two ideas-higher standards and technology--among all other possibilities (e.g, school finance reform, teacher training, school/community relations, family involvement, curriculum development, etc.). This testifies to the appeal of technology for Summit participants. Technology is far less than a silver bullet. Indeed, it invariably creates new problems at the same time it may ameliorate others. Educational technology is often ill matched to the normative expectations and complex social interactions and behavior patterns that define school as we know it (Cuban, 1986; Hativa & Lesgold, 1996; Means, 1994). It is no accident that the most prevalent uses of computer technology--drill and practice instructional programs in elementary schools and word processing in secondary schools (Becker, 1994; Mergendoller, Sacks, & Horan, 1995)-are those that fit most cleanly within the existing educational context and require little or no change in standard operating procedures. The sights of the Education Summit, however, were set far beyond the humble image of computer as tutor or word processor. Instead, it emphasized the educational possibilities latent in real-time video conferencing; Internet access to worldwide multimedia information resources; longdistance collaboration with students, scientists, and teachers; digitized records of student work; simulations of workplace problem-solving experiences; mathematical and graphical modeling of realistic problems; and computer-based school/parent/community communication networks (see National Education Summit, 1996c). Although such pilot projects are enchanting in their potential, full-scale and school implementation face formidable barriers. If policymakers are to take seriously the commitment of Summit participants to take swift action, the following two issues will need careful consideration and a monetary commitment that is more than rhetorical.