In this essay, I argue that technology has become the great siren song of education. The gist of the argument is that the enormous amount of attention and resources devoted to the use of technology in the education and training realms distracts us from the really important problems and issues that need to be addressed. In other words, educational technology is primarily a distraction (on a grand scale) from what matters most -- effective learning and good teaching. In many educational applications it would be far more worthwhile to worry about other things than waste time on technology.
I am hardly the first to voice this concern. Cuban (1986) provided a pessimistic analysis of technology in schools; Bowers (1988) identified the cultural biases of educational computing; Dreyfus (1992) outlined the failure of computer-based instruction to live up to its promises; Perelman (1993) identifies the dead-end nature of past efforts, Saettler (1990) documents the largely futile history of the field. These critiques which are particular to educational technology supplement a large literature that deals with the problems of technology in general (e.g., Ellul, 1990; Landauer, 1995; Norman, 1993; Postman, 1992; Stoll, 1996).
Let's examine some specific examples of how and why educational technology fails, along with a few cases of genuine value.
Instructional Television
Without a doubt, television is the most powerful and influential medium of the 20th century. Television has profoundly affected our culture and the way we present and process information. It makes sense that television should also have had a significant impact in the realm of education -- yet it hasn't, despite the fact that an enormous amount of money and resources have been directed towards classroom use of television.
Commercial television (including public broadcasting) is responsible for a greal deal of informal or incidental learning (particularly with children). While most of what individuals learn from television is sociocultural in nature, there is a certain amount of information that has to do with subjects such as history, geography, politics, and science. While it is unresolved whether the overall influence of commercial television on society is positive or negative, there can be no argument that it exposes everyone to a great deal of information -- much of which is retained and absorbed.
More importantly, television creates an expectation of how information will be presented -- in a highly dynamic and multimedia form. Television relies on quickly changing images, drama, sound and music, comedy, and various other devices not often found in traditional instructional materials. To put it bluntly, traditional educational offerings are deadly dull compared to most television programs. This realization was impetus behind the highly successful work of the Children's Television Workshop that created Sesame Street and other television programs for children (Lesser, 1978). It also provides the basic rationale for educational television which has been used for decades in public schools and at the post-secondary level. PBS and many community colleges around the country produce and show thousands of hours of programming which is directly tied into courses (Annenberg/CPB, 1990; Zigerell, 1991).
However, television programs (of commercial quality) are expensive to produce and require special resources such as camera crews, technicians, engineers, directors, editors, scriptwriters, and possibly actors (not to mention production facilities). Because the development of education and training materials is almost always done on a shoestring budget, most instructional television follows a different model of production from commercial television which is often called the "candid classroom" model. In this model, a traditional classroom lecture or presentation is videotaped, often illustrated with graphics (or in the worst case, writing on a whiteboard). It comes as no surprise that instructional television of the candid classroom type is no more effective than untelevised classroom instruction since it hardly takes advantage of what television has to offer as a powerful communication medium.
Of course, it doesn't have to be this way. There are plenty of techniques that teachers can employ in the design and delivery of television classes that can make them very effective (e.g., Cyrs & Smith, 1990). Furthermore, there are lots of ways to make television classes highly interactive through the use of two-way audio or student response units (see Lockte, 1992). But to do this requires much more preparation time than teachers normally have, not to mention the specialized training and skills to do so. And teachers rarely have a production team to work with who can provide the kind of support and expertise needed to create good television. Consequently, the majority of instructional television is of the candid classroom type -- and not very effective in terms of improved learning.
Computer-Based Instruction
On the face of it, the idea of using the computer to provide individualized instruction is a powerful one. Everybody agrees that students have their own learning styles and preferences, and that group-based (i.e., traditional classroom) instruction does not address this. Computer programs can be designed to allow students to study what they want, at their own pace, in their own way. Plus, computers can easily track student progress and provide a detailed analysis of learning accomplished.
However, the promise of providing individualized instruction via computers had been met in only the most trivial ways. Thousands of drill and practice and tutorial programs have been developed and used in schools with very little impact. Such programs allow students to go at their own pace ("Press
the spacebar to proceed") and to control the sequence of material ("Select the topic you want to study next"), but this is not the kind of personal learning experience that individualized instruction ought to be, based upon the background and interests of the student at any particular moment. There has been a sustained attempt to develop more sophisticated "intelligent tutoring" programs (see Burns, Parlett & Redfield, 1991; Farr & Psotka, 1992) but with a few exceptions, this entire line of research has yielded little of practical value.
Ironically, the one domain in which computers really can deliver powerful learning experiences, is one that education largely ignores: games. This has not escaped the commerical world, however, where game products and arcades are hugely successful. Seymour Papert is one of the few involved in the educational technology field to have promoted this view (e.g. Papert, 1993) Computer games are fun and challenging; they exercise a student's problem-solving and decision-making skills, and they can be used in any subject domain. Similarly, simulations (which are just more serious games) are rarely used in classrooms, apart from the occasional science lab. This is also true for the training world with the single exception of military and aircrew simulations which are enormously effective. Yet simulation is a general teaching/learning methodology which is uniquely suited to computerization (see Towne, 1995; Gibbons et al., 1997).
There has been a great deal of attention devoted towards teaching students and employees how to use applications programs such as word processing, spreadsheets, databases, as well as specialized statistical, graphics, or mathematical programs. And now there is a lot of emphasis being placed
on the use of email and internet software. While this makes sense in terms of practical skills, it seems that it drains a lot of attention away from teaching the underlying cognitive abililities needed to write, analyze, organize, formulate, communicate, etc. While it is very desirable for people to know how to use computers as tools, it is even more important that
they learn how to think, solve problems, make decisions and interact using those tools. By focusing on simply how to use computers at the lowest level, we are missing the forest for the trees.
Adaptive Technology
Another educational domain that ought to be a wonderful success story for technology is adaptive technology -- hardware and software designed to make it easier for people with disabilities to use computers (e.g., Brett & Provenzo, 1995; Lazzaro, 1996). While there is an enormous amount of such technology available, it is infrequently used, often unavailable, and in many cases, doesn't meet the needs of its users. Apart from a few high profile examples (such as Stephen Hawking and his use of speech technology to talk), many educators, administrators, and parents do not know what is available, and it is rarely seen in schools or homes of disabled individuals. Furthermore, until very recently, computer developers have not incorporated design considerations into their products that would accomodate handicapped users (socalled "universal design").
The reasons are complex and mostly socioeconomic in nature. First, many disabled individuals, and the schools/training centers dedicated to their interests, are also economically disadvantaged. They often do not have the financial resources to buy adaptive technology -- even when reasonably priced. When handicapped students are integrated into regular classrooms ("mainstreaming"), the school does not usually have extra funds to buy adaptive technology needed for these students (even though they may have a budget for "regular" technology). Special educators and specialists who advise disabled students and their families rarely have any background or experience with adaptive technology, so they are unfamiliar with it and unlikely to recommend or encourage it. Furthermore, evaluating and installing adaptive technology for a given individual is a lot of work and requires a lot of specialized skill/knowledge (vendors of the equipment can help here). Finally, the research base underlying the use of technology in special education is equivocal and relatively narrow in its breadth (e.g., Woodward & Rieth, 1997).
An even more difficult problem is that technology itself may become an obstacle or barrier to the handicapped. For example, most computers today use a Graphics interface and a mouse (e.g., Windows, the Web). Individuals with vision or psychomotor impairments are likely to have difficulty reading the display or selecting things. Indeed, many blind persons who use text-to-speech interfaces can do fine with older systems that were primarily text displays but cannot deal with the newer graphics screens. On the other hand, a person who has no use of their hands but has an alternative pointing device (such as one activated by a blow tube or head position) can handle mouse input quite well. Every new advance in a computer interface or technology development presents a new challenge for a disabled person that their current adaptive technology may or may not work with. So technology in schools or the workplace can present a significant dilemma for disabled individuals -- especially when it changes often.
So overall, technology is not the blessing it should be for handicapped individuals. It could be, but that would require more funding to buy adaptive technology, better training of teachers and special education support staff, and more involvement of computer developers. As the population ages, we are going to have more and more people with disabilities who are not helped by, and cannot interact with, technology. Clearly, this is a problem domain that is going to become increasingly important.
Distance Learning
Distance learning is the latest educational fad, fueled by a frenzy of vendors eager to sell hardware and software for this purpose. Distance learning is a solid idea -- allowing people to study without having to be in a classroom or
school at the same place or time as the instructor or other students. By its nature, distance learning depends upon some form of technology to work, although this can be simple technologies such as mail or telephone. Indeed, distance education has been conducted quite successfully for many years around the world using the mail, radio and audiocassettes (see Moore & Kearsley, 1996). Newer technologies such as satellite television, videoconferencing and computer networks (e.g., the internet/web) provide a wonderful range of new possibilities for learning activities and interaction among participants, but they do not necessarily make for better distance learning.
There are many critical components to distance education, none of which have anything to do with the technology involved. The design of the learning materials is very important in terms of completeness and organization. For example, a study guide which includes objectives, self-evaluation exercises, summaries, and learning suggestions is highly desirable. Material to be learned needs to broken down into small chunks (modules) to facilitate comprehension and retention. Receiving prompt and helpful feedback on assignments or tests is another vital element -- a role often performed by "tutors" rather than the instructor. Distance learners typically need a lot of counseling and guidance in order to complete a program -- another function usually performed by someone other than the instructor. Administration of a distance learning program requires very different procedures from a typical school-based system since all student registration, grading, participation, performance tracking, and discipline needs to be done remotely. When distance learning involves teleconferences, the presence of a good site coordinator or moderator makes a great deal of difference between success and failure.
While technology certainly plays a role in distance education, it is far from the being the most significant element. Yet, it is frequently the technology that receives all the attention, often to the exclusion of curriculum design, learner support, apropriate administrative procedures, etc. This is one of the major reasons why distance learning is often unsuccessful. Educators fail to understand that distance education is really about creating a different kind of structure for learning and teaching -- not the use of technology.
A nice example of a distance education effort which illustrates the appropriate role of technology is the Conflict Resolution Distance Learning demonstration project conducted by the North Florida Distance Learning consortium and described by Lovett & Wal zak (1997). In this project, a group of schools teamed up with post-secondary institutions and tv/telecommunications companies to develop and deliver a violence prevention curriculum to students, teachers and parents. The curriculum included videotapes portraying conflict si tutions as well as interactive video field trips to a juvenile detention facility, hospital trauma center, and the police dept. A variety of different technology were used in the project, but the primary focus was always on the problem at hand, namely how to deal with conflicts and reduce violent confrontations. An independent evaluation of the project indicated that it worked; the number of violent incidents at participating schools was reduced. This is what the bottom line for distance learning projects ought to be -- an important educational outcome was achieved -- not whether the technology itself was impressive or successful.
Teacher Education
One of the saddest aspects of educational technology is how ill prepared most teachers are to use it -- despite widespread attention to this issue. The problem is that the technology training that most teachers receive (assuming they get any at all) is too little and too late. The primary exposure to technology for the majority of teachers is a single course they might get during their teacher preparation program, or a brief workshop or two they might participate in as part of in-service training. More than likely, such training focuses on something very specific (e.g., "How to use MathLab" or "Software for language skills") which may happen to be useful to some teachers, but doesn't provide the kind of deeper understanding or comfort level with technology needed to use it well in a classroom.
Teachers who are a little luckier may be at a school or college that has teachers or support staff with technology experience who they can team up with or get help from. (Actually, the most fortunate teachers are those who have computer hip students who can figure things out for them and other students.) And some teachers are able to attend regional or national computer education conferences (e.g., CUE, ISTE, NECC) or vendor-sponsored workshops where they are exposed to plenty of new ideas and interesting examples. But only a very small percentage of teachers get these opportunities -- most are simply encouraged to use the computing resources available at the institution with no further assistance or training provided.
In order to develop a good understanding and sufficient skill levels to use technology well in a classroom, teachers need extensive and sustained practice -- usually spanning years, not days or weeks. For example, in the Educational Technology Leadership program in the Graduate School of Education and Human Development at the George Washington University, students take approximately 12-15 courses over a 2-3 year period all of which deal with different aspects of technology use. Since all of the courses are taught by distance education (there are no on-campus classes), they experience first-hand a variety of technology-based learning approaches (including instructional television and computer networks). Furthermore, in every class they must do projects in which they apply technology to their current work/home settings. So, over time, they develop a high level of expertise with technology and when they graduate, they are ready to be technology leaders.
Clearly, we can't expect every teacher to devote two years of training to technology -- but we could integrate technology more fully into all teacher training programs -- including content areas. In fact, the latter circumstance is very important because what teachers want to know most, is how to teach their chosen subject domain more effectively (including how to reach poorly motivated students and deal with diverse learning styles). And this is precisely where most current technology training fails, because it focuses on how to use the technology, not how to use it to teach a given topic or student better. We need to have technology experts work closely with the faculty and staff who provide teacher preparation classes and in-service workshops to integrate technology into the content in a meaningful fashion.
The Flawed Logic of Educational Technology
When we examine the gap between the promises of technology in education and the reality, what we find is a lot of wishful thinking. Advocates of educational technology are almost always optistimic rationalists -- people who believe that technology use is the logical way to produce better instruction. Alas, its not a rational world and logical choices often fare poorly. For example, technology ought to be a good way to reduce inequitities between the haves and have-nots. By introducing technology to poor areas (e.g., inner cities, developing countries), it should give people in these areas access to the same knowledge and skills as the well-off. This is a logical premise and one that has been put into practice many times. But it almost never works because poor areas lack the support or infrastructure necessary to take advantage of the technology or any outcomes that might derive from it. In such a situation, there are probably much more basic aspects (such as a better learning environment or more relevant curricula) which would have greater value and impact.
Indeed in many cases, the reasons for poor learning are not instructional and ameniable to improvement via technology. Instead, they are sociocultural, economic, political or psychological in nature (definately not rational). We persist in trying to address these problems through the use of technology because its the logical thing to do. Technology may have a role to play (e.g., teleconferences to share ideas, databases to provide information, desktop publishing, etc.) but it is probably not the solution itself. Our approach to teacher training is a good illustration of this point -- we teach people how to use specific types of technology, not how to solve educational problems using technology when needed and appropriate. The desire to use technology as a quick fix in education typically derives from a very superficial understanding of it -- often at the administrative level where selection and implementation decisions are made. In fact, educational administrators may be more in need of in-depth training about technology than teachers.
The field and practice of educational technology has been far too insular in nature -- not well connected or integrated with the other factors that affect education. It has focused almost exclusively on instructional variables to the exclusion of all the other organizational, social and personal considerations at play in a given educational setting. We need to apply technology in a much broader context, as part of a solution or strategy that addresses these other dimensions. We need to stop thinking about learning in strictly rational terms, i.e., educational technology. Until we can do so, we should probably use as technology as little as possible -- in fact, the less the better.
Many educators have diagnosed these flaws and proposed the "systems" approach as a remedy (e.g. Banathy, 1992; Riegeluth, Banathy & Olson, 1993). Indeed, the systems approach does address the "big picture" and attempts to focus on the underlying problems. But the systems approach is still a highly rational methodology that assumes an orderly world. It cannot deal with the random events, unpredictable combinations, and the idiosyncratic actions that shape educational practice The real problem with educational technology is not that it doesn't always work, but that it is employed in the context of dysfunctional ontology. We need a different kind of belief structure about education, one that does not assume or expect rationality, in order to make better use of technology. Until we pay attention to the real problems of education (which include ineffectual teachers, inept administrators, irrelevant curricula, and weak leadership), there is no reason to expect educational technology to make much difference.
References:
Annenberg/CPB. (1988). Teaching Telecourses: Opportunities and Options, A Faculty Handbook. Washington, DC:The Annenberg/CPB Project.
Banathy, B. (1992). A Systems View of Education: Concepts and Principles for Effective Practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Bowers, C. (1988). The Cultural Dimensions of Educational Computing: Understanding the Non-Neutrality of Technology. NY: Teachers College Press.
Brett, A. & Provenzo, E. (1995). Adaptive technology for special
human needs Albany : State University of New York Press.
Burns, H., Parlett, J. & Redfield, C. (1991). Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and Machines. NY: Teachers College Press.
Cyrs, T. & Smith, F. (1990). Teleclass Teaching: A Resource Guide. Las Cruces. NM: New Mexico State University.
Dreyfus, H. (1992). What Computers (Still) Can't Do. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ellul, J. (1990). The Technological Bluff. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co. [Trans, G. Bromiley]
Farr, M. & Psotka, J. (1992). Intelligent Instruction by Computer. Philadephia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Gibbons, A. et al. (1997). Simulation and Computer-Based Instruction: A Future View. In C. Dills & A. Romiszowski (eds), Instructional Development Paradigms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Landauer, T. (1995). The Trouble with Computers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lazzaro, J. (1996). Adapting PCs for Disabilities. Reading, MA:
Addison Wesley
Lesser, G. (1978). Children and Television: Lessons from Sesame Street. New York: McGraw-Hill.<BR>
Lochte, R. (1992). Interactive Television and Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Lovett, M.C. & Walzak, D.P. (Aug 1997). A community-corporate DL partnership: Teaching conflict resolution to middle school students. THE Journal [http://www.thejournal.com].
Moore, M. & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education: A Systems Approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Norman, D. (1993). Things That Make Us Smart. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Papert, S. (1993). Childrens's Machines: Rethinking Schools in the Age of
the Computer. NY: Basic Books.
Perleman, L. (1993). School's Out. NY: Morrow.
Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly. NY: Knopf.
Reigeluth, C., Banathy, B. and Olson, J., Eds. (1993).
Comprehensive Systems Design: A New Educational Technology.
Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Saettler, P. (1990). The Evolution of American Educational Technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Stoll, C. (1996). Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts on the Information Super Highway. NY: Doubleday.
Towne, D. (1995). Learning and Instruction in Simulation Environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Woodward, J. & Rieth, J. (1997). A historical review of technology research in special education. Review of Educational Research, 67(4), 503-536.
Ziggerell, J. (1991). The Uses of Television in American Higher Education. NY: Praeger.
Postscript For a variety of other views on many of the topics addressed in this paper, see the summary of the Ed Tech Summit held in Portland, Sept 1997.