TechnologyJEANNIE OAKES AND MARK SCHNEIDER

Computersand Schools:Another Caseof "... TheMore TheyStay The Same"?

To keep computers in classrooms and outof closets, schools need to take a culturallyresponsive view of these new tools-by promoting "ownership" amongthe teachers who are to use them.

The micro-boom is on. Comput-ers are a common sight inschools, and computer literacy is

becoming a standard pan of the cur-riculum. Teacher inservice courses onmicrocomputer use proliferate in themost prestigious university schools ofeducation, in the not-so-prestigiouscollege weekend extension programs,and in the blatantly commercial store-fronts and offices of hardware manu-facturers and sellers While thesecourses range Awidelv in both theirstyle and substance, "Don't be leftbehind" appears to be their most sa-lient message. As the world is beingrevolutionized by computers. the fu-ture of schools and teachers, it seems,will be digital as well.Teachers: The SimilarityBetween Humans andComputersCan computerized education come toresemble or even replace human-to-human teaching and learning? "Not toworrn,. teachers are constantly as-sured. computers are not the smartmachines we give them credit for be-ing; they only know what humansteach them ' Computers, it is said, willnever provide the multiplicity ofmodes and responses that sensitivehuman teachers have at their finger-tips, They will never be able to re-spond appropriately to the divergencein students' creative output. to weighdifferences of opinion. to interpretquestions of values. or to ferret out acomplicated thought process. Com-puters will never communicate the joyof discoverv and the pleasure in help-ing someone learn Teachers will al-ways be required for those subtle andcomplex interactions that are the heartof the teaching/learning process.

But are these human interactions, infact. at the center of teaching andlearning in classrooms? Those of us

leannie Oakes is .Sentior Research Asociate.Laboraton, in School and Communit)Education. Graduate School of EducatotU'niitesit' qf California. Los Angeles. MarkSdyneider is M.athenas DepartmentClairmaan and Comptaer lnstrctor. Nor-ualk Highb Scool. Norunak-La .MiradaU'nified School District. Norualk. Calfcor

-

nia

Novtsuii-� 198-4-3 -3NO\E.MBFR 1984

who analyzed data from A Study ofSchootng found something quite dif-ferent from this ideal picture of class-room instruction (Goodlad, 1983).Teachers who employed a wide varie-ty of learning modes were extremelyrare. Teaching was almost exclusivelythe presentation of information, andlearning was nearly always seen as thepassive intake of information or aspractice. Within these two classroomconfigurations, teachers out-talkedtheir students by a ratio of nearly threeto one. And most of this teacher talkconsisted of telling--the presentationof information. During the smallamount of questioning that took place,fewer than one-sixth of the questionswere open-ended, requiring studentsto respond in complex ways. Chanceswere less than 8 percent that studentsin these classrooms would be involvedin discussion, simulation, role playing,or demonstration. Students workedcooperatively only 10 percent of thetime.

Further, these classrooms had anemotional climate best described asflat-little warmth and enthusiasm, en-couragement, or praise was expressedby teachers. Nor was there evidence ofmuch eagerness, curiosity, or overtlypostive responses by students. Happi-ly, overtly negative behavior was no-ticeablv absent as well. The evidence,therefore, casts doubt on the centralrole of the subtle interactions we saywe value in teaching and presumecomputers cannot duplicate Suchuniquely human qualities may bemore instructional myth than reality.

Computers, on the other hand, al-low students of varying abilities tocover varied materials at varying rates.The key word here is vary. Does thisvariety benefit the student by accom-modating different learning styles andencouraging more active modes oflearning, or does it benefit the teacherby allowing greater ease in followingtraditional modes of teaching? A lookat the most common types of comput-er-based materials will help answerthis question.

Drill andpractice. Drill and practiceis the predominant mode of comput-erized instruction in use today. Any

"Judging fromcurrentcomputerizedcurricula, aneducationalrevolution does notseem to be at hand;the microchip isaltering the processof education as yetonly slightly."

objective knowledge that can be mem-orized, spit back, and easily judged forcorrectness is prime material for sucha program. The key seems to be theease with which an answer can bemarked right or wrong

Recently, classroom tested drill-and-practice courseware has been en-hanced with the addition of limitedauthoring capabilities that allowteachers to tailor materials to a partic-ular course by typing in their own listsof questions and answers. This optionmakes the program a bit closer to whatthose teachers have been doing al-ready-some revolution!

Do students learn more or betterwith the questions on a screen insteadof in a workbook? Instruction may bemore individualized because studentscan study different lists, but is a com-puter really necessary to accomplishthis task? It definitely is easier for theteacher, as the recordkeeping capabili-ties of many courseware packages freethe teacher from such chores. Butdoes this alter the educational process,or is it just more of the same in a newpackage?

Tutorials. If drill and practice arelinked to electronic workbooks, tutori-als may be compared to electronictextbooks. A typical program leads astudent through the material beingpresented, the only variable being in-dividual reading rate. This approachmay be worthwhile if the material isgraphically presented on the screen in

a way superior to chalkboard, film,video, books, and the like. More elabo-rate tutorials allow students to repeatsections they are not sure of, but fewprograms help students decide whenrepetition is desirable. The only varia-bles are those that relate to how quick-ly students understand the material.Everyone goes through the same ma-terial in the same way.

Who benefits from tutorials? Cer-tainly not students whose reading lev-el may be below the comprehensionlevel for the material being presented.Furthermore, students will probablynot learn more than they could from alive presentation that might encouragemore active learning modes. On theother hand, teachers do not need toprepare each demonstration or worryabout repeating the demonstration forabsent students. Even slower studentsare provided for If they don't under-stand the first time, the patient com-puter will let them view it again.

Tutorials, like drill and practice,seem to make it easier for teachers toretain status quo teaching strategiesThe primary modes of teaching havenot really changed-onlv the labelsapplied to them. Teacher lecture hasgiven way to a slicker computer lecture, and workbook drill has beenreplaced by electronic drill.

The Potential of Computersfor School ImprovementIf this is the case, what hope can wehave for significant educational im-provement via the technological revo-lution? Surprisingly, quite a lot. Twofactors in the computers-in-educationmovement have potential for promot-ing fundamental scho(xl change: (1)computers have entered the schools ina big way, both in the actual number ofpeople and schools affected and in thetremendous interest in the technologyitself; and (2) the computer's potentialfor making possible new modes ofeffective instruction and learning isgreat. But unless schools bring aboutfundamental changes in the way theydo their work, this potential has littlehope of realization. Let us look moreclosely at why these two factors areconducive to school improvement.

74 Eui (ATIONAI I.EAi)FRSiiiP

74 EDI ICATIONAL I.FAI)FRSIIIP

First, the widespread adoption ofcomputers indicates a prevailing viewthat the computer represents bothsubstantial challenge and considerablepromise. Why does this make changelikely? Certainly, conventional wisdomleads us to assume that larger changesare more difficult and more easilyresisted than smaller ones. However,there is evidence to the contrary.

For example, the Rand Corporationstudy of factors affecting the imple-mentation of federal programs sup-porting educational changes in the 70sfound that the amount and complexityof change required of teachers in theirclassroom procedures was positv/elvrelated to the occurrence of change(Berman and McLaughlin, 1977). Thedimensions of these large-scale pro-jects that resulted in more overallchange included changed classroomorganization, curricular revision, andconsiderable extra effort required byteachers.

Clearly, the infusion of computersinto instruction in existing school sub-jects involves all three dimensions.The physical presence of the hardwareitself requires some organizational re-arrangement; the curriculum is cer-tainly revised, if only in mode of pre-sentation, and becoming not onlycomputer literate but a computerteacher requires considerable effortbeyond teachers' usual daily work.What can happen, given the right con-text, is that as these adjustments aremade, profound changes can occur.Once we are in the midst of physicaland organizational rearrangements,other areas of the curriculum comeunder scrutiny.

We know that a classroom's physicalarrangement has substantial influenceon its social organization. So, while weare moving the furniture, we mightreflect on what types of configurationssupport the kinds of human interac-tions that are most conducive to aca-demic learning and to the social andpersonal development of students. Forexample, the power of cooperativelearning might be explored with smallgroups of students working with asingle terminal. Further, as we alterthe mode of instruction from text-

book/workbook to software, we mightconsider whether the content we nowteach is what we really want studentsto encounter. We might even questionwhether we want to continue to viewlearning as the relatively passive acqui-sition of knowledge created by others.The big deal surrounding computersin schools, then, gives hope for signifi-cant change.

Second, the technological capabili-ties of computer hardware and soft-ware bring new teaching and learningmodes within reach. New programs--simulations-encourage the use ofhigher level learning skills instead ofjust testing recall. As the name implies,they try either to simulate realisticproblem-solving situations or to en-courage the manipulation of objects ina highly controlled, self-containedmini-world. These programs offer stu-dents classroom experiences thatwere not available before computers,such as a graphic journey through thehuman body. The learning potential ofthese new modes is both exciting andchallenging to educators (see for ex-ample, Dwver. 1980).

One of the most common forms ofsimulation is the adjenture format,

"If education withcomputers couldapproximatecurrent human-to-human teaching ...then not muchwould be gained orlost because trulysignificant, lastingchanges rarely takeplace in schools." -

where students take on the role of anexplorer or fictional character andplan strategies to solve problemsthrust upon the character. What a won-derful opportunity for groups of stu-dents to interact and cooperate inproblem-solving situations. But howare adventures currently being usedLIf they are used outside of normalclassroom hours or as a reward forfaster students who finish their normalassignments, then the students lackingin these problem-solving skills are thestudents least likely to use these pro-grams.

The most well-known of the "mini-world" simulations is the LOGO lan-guage, developed at MIT over the lasttwo decades. The potential for LOGO(Papert, 1980) is great, but today it isused almost exclusively by individualstudents for creating geometric draw-ings. Little of the rich verbal interac-tion of which the language is capableis being exploited. Probably becauseLOGO goes beyond familiar class-room practice, teachers limit its use.Potentially revolutionary, LOGO's pos-sibilities have vet to be realized intoday's schools.

The complex nesting structures ofLOGO can be used to significantlyenhance traditional (well-known) CAIprograms as well. Take a traditionaltutorial program, add the ability toevaluate progress and nest subpro-grams, and you get a sophisticatedsystem that can address individual dif-ferences. Such a program can identifya student's difficulties and branch tosubprograms that address areas need-ing remediation. Programs of thisscope generally are available only onlarge mainfme or minicompuners, asthe memory needed to store all of thesubprograms is greater than currentlyavailable on individual microcomput-ers. Yet, clusters of micros can benetworked to a hard disk drive, withaccess to hundreds of times morememory than is contained within thesingle computer. Once hard diskdrives make their wav into schools, thetechnological barrier to rich, multi-level courseware will have been over-come.

NOVEMBER 1984

Other technological innovations foruse with the microcomputer includespeech capabilities and light pen de-vices that allow simple and quick in-teractions by just touching the screenwith the pen. In addition, video diskinterfacing holds tremendous promisefor classroom utilization; and as thecomponent prices become lower andaccess speeds increase, we can expectto see more multi-modal instruction,which will address many more learn-ing variables than can now be ad-dressed.

The Potential for FailureBut, of course, just because an innova-tion is perceived as large in scope withthe capacity for significant change,change does not automatically occur.We have a long history of innovationsthat resulted in ver, little alteration ofeither the content or the mode ofschooling.

What causes educational innova-tions to failP Certainly not a lack ofgood ideas, nor an absence of enthusi-asm about them. What has been miss-ing is an appropriate perspective onhow change happens in schools andthe specific implementation strategiesthat flow from it.

For the last 20 vears school innova-tions have been introduced almostexclusively by the research, develop-ment, and diffusion mode (RD&D),which usually begins with the devel-opment of a sound educational inno-vation that meets the needs of theschool. However, it is the policymak-ers who study it, determine its effec-tiveness, and mandate its implementa-tion. What of the people, primarilyteachers and students, who are theobiects of the proposed change' Theinnovation loses its power because itgets disseminated by experts, whowant teachers to understand or at least

a ,

"Because learningactivities aredeveloped from acomputer-freeperspective, theproject is driven bycurricular ideasrather than by thelimitations ofcomputertechnology."

76E ' ("u L-IlRli]

smw hA -Er -*I , ,t

adopt the changes with little, if any,input. When it is solicited, input isusually gathered after the genuinelyimportant issues have been settled.

Thus, schools are passive targets forparticular innovations. A single aspectof the school or classroom comesunder close scrutiny, and the innova-tion is applied to isolated elementsrather than integrated into the wholeof schooling. When attention to theinnovation subsides, as it usually doesbefore long, attention to that part ofschooling diminishes also. The RD&Dperspective does not admit the reali-ties of how sch(x)ls resist or effectchange (Goodlad, 1975: Sarason,1982). The focus is on getting teachersto change rather than on changing theconduct of schooling itself

The Culturally ResponsivePerspectiveAn alternative approach to change pro-ceeds from a culturally responsive per-spectite (Goodlad, 197'5) The differ-ences between this view and RD&Dare several and important. First, in theculturally responsive view the purposeof change activities is to create a self-renewing sch(xl: staff members worktogether to examine the conditions ofthe school, identify problems, and de-velop alternatives based on their ownexperiences and on research in thefield. The self-renewing school mayuse ideas from the outside. but theintention is not to make the school atarget for innovations developed out-side the school

Second, the primary focus is on thedispositions of teachers and others inthe school toward the processes andconcepts of change rather than onchanging specific structures or teacherbehaviors. I laving the school staff criti-cally examine their assumptions abouthow schooling can and should bestproceed, together with informationabout what actually happens, is neces-sary for solving problems But sinceschools are vulnerable to social andpolitical pressures from both insideand out, the culturally responsive per-spective recognizes the support and

encouragement schools need if theyare to attempt anything beyond day-to-day survival (Heckman and others.1983).

How,. then, does this culturally re-sponsive view translate into waysschools can successfully integratecomputer courseware into their cur-ricula? First, those at the school mustbe central in designing or adapting thesubstance of the courseware itself,making it appropriate to the needs ofthe school and its students. In this way.not only is an appropriate innovationdeveloped, but it is one owned bythose who will use it. Second, theseefforts must be supported at theschool with time and resources for thedevelopment activity and with a senseof the project's importance. In addi-tion, support in the form of ideas orresources from outside the school canhelp raise the substance and the proc-ess of the innovation bevond conven-tional wisdom and common sense as-sumptions that develop when a schoolstaff is isolated from theory and re-search.

"The project allowsteachers to exploreand change areas ofthe curriculum thathave long resistedchange attempts."

What are some of the practical con-siderations that arise when teachersexamine the curriculum in light of thecurrent research and their own expe-rience? If the teachers are lucky, thedetermination of those areas most inneed of change will include some thatmav be seen as "eas'": the internalprograms and processes controlled atthe school level such as bell sched-ules. room environments, and studenttracking traditions. If staff members,teachers, administrators, and parentswork together, such logistical featurescan be altered as part of an overallimplementation strategy.

But the more substantive type ofchange is critical and probably moredifficult to accomplish. Curriculumchange usually collides with ratherrigid counter-expectations at manylevels of the educational and socialcommunity. Communication amongand within all components is critical.School administrators must first createa forum for teachers to meet andgrow. Teachers must be encouragedto question current practices withoutfear of being labeled troublemakers.Time must be provided for curricularquestions to be addressed; and educa-tors involved in theory and researchmust participate not as change mer-chants but as facilitators and experi-enced partners in change.

The school district must, in additionto scheduling release time for teachersto develop curriculum. ascribe a senseof importance to this task and encour-age the use of new ideas in the class-room. And in universities, schools ofeducation and liberal arts must worktogether. Traditional divisions must bebridged through communication sothat one does not encourage curricu-lar change while the other resists it.

But, even with all elements in place,will teachers create intelligent, excit-ing. and sound computerized educa-tional programs? Although manyteachers claim that they have vrittensuch materials, vern few programs canfunction both as integral parts of thecurriculum and as thought-provoking,active learning tools. Teachers gener-ally do not have the programming skill

NoV)M'.HBEHR 1984

I I

"We hope to create a self-renewingenvironment in our project schools thatwill make future change a much easierand nonthreatening task."

needed to make exciting programs,while programmers, although well-versed at graphics, animation, andsound techniques, usually do not havethe background and experience to de-velop programs that are both educa-tionally sound and uniquely fitted todiverse classrooms. Traditional au-thoring programs may include somebenefits of both professional program-mers and educators, but nothing excit-ing or important has vet been pro-duced by such structured programs.

Confronting the Problems andPossibilitiesEarlier we asked how computerizededucation could resemble or replacehuman-to-human teaching and learn-ing. An interim conclusion we candraw is that even if education withcomputers can approximate currenthuman-to-human teaching, not muchof significance will be gained or lost.Given that truly significant, lastingchanges rarely take place in schools,we now offer a new question: how canwe use the spirit of innovation sur-rounding computers as a vital compo-nent of meaningful school improve-ment and keep computers themselvesout of the closet where the learningkits, teaching machines, video equip-ment, and other flotsam of failed inno-vations are stored?

A project now under wav at UCLA sLaboratory in School and CommunityEducation is confronting the problemsand possibilities of school change withcomputerized education. Using theculturally responsive view of schoolchange as a model, the project's cen-

tral purpose is to investigate whether acollaboration of public school teach-ers and universirt-based researcherscan result in the conceptualization,development, and implementation ofexemplary computer curricula in basicsubjects at local school sites.

The work of the collaborative teamdid not begin with the development ofcourseware, however. An intensive ex-amination of current curricular beliefsand practices. a survey of research andtheory in language arts and mathematics education, and the conceptualiza-tion of what curriculum would beideal for students preceded any com-puter work.

During this initial phase, steps weretaken to ensure necessary support forproject schools. Both district and sitelevel administrators helped conceptu-alize the project itself and made asubstantial commitment to its importance to their schools In addition,material resources and equipmentwere designated for project use Theschool principals arranged workingspace at each school and facilitatedrelease days for meetings These inter-nal supports helped teachers viewtheir involvement as meaningful andtheir results as important.

Furthermore, the Laboratory atUCLA provided additional support andresources Five weeks of intensiveplanning, reading, thinking, and dis-cussion for the entire team werescheduled at the Laboratory before theproject year began. The teachers wereconsidered part of the Laboratory staffas well as members of their schoolfaculties. Summer salaries and part of

their teaching salaries were paid fromproject funds Even more important,the involvement of the university hasbegun to provide the necessary sup-port for teachers who have tried toconfront educational problems in newwavs. The researchers, too, have en-couraged ideas that go far beyondconventional wisdom about teachingand learning in language arts andmathematics and about the use ofcomputers in schools.

During the development phase, thework of the project took place at boththe university and the school sites. Theteachers' first activity was to translatethe "ideal" curricula-conceptualizedduring the summer-into learning experiences that could he tried out intheir classrooms. Following these trials, the series of lessons were exam-ined as to how computers might en-hance them and, of course, studentlearning. Throughout the project wehave been careful to address curricu-lar issues first and then try to adaptcomputer technology to them

"It is disconcertingto think that 95percent of teachingand learning takesplace in anenvironment soneutral that it ishard to believeanyone cares verymuch about what isgoing on."

E )(,), .* [ ,\ I tERMS[II I'

An experimental authoring systemthat allows considerable curricularflexibility while providing the best ofmicrocomputer technologv-colorgraphics, animation, and sound-isbeing used by the teachers to adapttheir curricula to computer course-ware. The sophisticated svstem leadsstudents through the curriculum in amanner that allows for their variedlearning styles and backgrounds.Branching and nesting of programsenable all students to experience acommon curriculum without theholding-back or hopelessly-lost svn-dromes teachers encounter in hetero-geneous classrooms Exciting lessonsand graphics are relatively easy tocreate without the need for profes-sional programmers.

By addressing the process of changein a wav that encourages teachers toown this innovation and providesthem considerable support, the pro-ject allows teachers to explore areas ofthe curriculum that have long resistedchange attempts Through this processof change, aided hv the awesome po-tential of the computer, we hope to

create a self-renewing environment inour project schools that will makefuture change a much easier and non-threatening task.E

References

Berman, P., and McLaughlin, M W. Fed-eral Programs Supporting EducationalChange The Findings in Retvieu (Vol IV).Santa Monica. Calif: The Rand Corpora-tion, 19'5

Dwo-er, T "The Significance of SoloMode Computing for Curriculum Design."In The Computer in the School. Tutor,Tool, Tutee Edited by Robert P. Tavylor.New York: Teachers College Press. 1980.

Goodlad. I I The DLnamincs of Educa-tional Change New York: McGraw-Hill.19'5

Goodlad.J I. A Place Called School NewYork: McGraw-Hill. 1983

tleckman. P E; Oakes.J.; and Sirotnik. K.A 'Expanding the Concepts of Renewaland Change" Educational Leaderbip 40(April 1983): 26-33

Papern, Seymour Mindstorwzs. NewYork: Basic Books. 1980

Sarason, S B The Culture of the Schooland the Problem of/ Change Boston: A.lvnand Bacon, 1982

Nosi.NIii IR 198-i

Writing forEducationd Leadership

j We welcome manuscripts on. ay aspect of Lu*idw% Irbtstructlon, supervision, or leaderthlp In _e eriu adu nd-aty education. Authors are not paid for their _

Papers should be written In d*ect. cobe as brief as possible (five to ten doubI-s:le_erences may be cited as footnoteS or Ik lsorst~ ·fowm at the end of the artile.r ef.or l s :fr e i-fer to a recent Issue or to Kate L Turn, A Mw1a 11 *ers (University of Chicago Press)

Double-space eveytteh Inchding quoted mated and. Id-erences and footnotes.

We edit all manuscripts for brevity, claity,and os1'of style, and send a retyped manuscrpt for the a: A-proval

We do not return rejected.mnuscts unless the h -rprovides a self-addressed envelope wth conrst a WIask that authors submit two copies Of their 4U t:aBrandt, ASCD, Executive Editor, 25 N. Washkitgo St,andra, VA 22314.

I

Copyright © 1984 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.