Oppenheimer begins his book by noting observations and questions regarding America's classrooms:
- Classrooms have set the stage for more home sales (computers)
- Classrooms have to have computers. Or do they? Is this the definition of a well-equipped classroom
- How do children really learn?
- What does society really need from schools? From technology? From its students?
- The current god: Standardized tests
- We are currently living in a data driven society
- America's youths' attention span is diminishing, as is their ability to reason, to feel empathy, to listen
Oppenheimer begins in chapter 1 by describing the technologies of the past and the present. Overall, it begins to be clear that technology has been nothing but a gimmick to produce more revenue for the technology industry. He reasons that schools are a ground for technologies to be introduced to a powerful consumer (children).
Oppenheimer mentions several technologies of the past (some of which are still being used): Pascal, BASIC, LOGO, videodisks, the onset of computer aided instruction (Dial-a-Drill), to name a few. He cites several authorities who identified personal computers in the classroom as nothing short of an "avalanche" (Bill Holloway, a professor at the University of Kansas) and Stephen Toulmin, a University of Chicago "Philosopher of Science," predicted (in 1982) that computers would "re-intellectualize the TV generation." According to Toulmin, TV relieved people of the necessity to do anything; computers depend on what you do yourself. Twenty years later, however, Toulmin had difficulties describing how computers accomplished this. Oppenheimer mentions Albrecht, who believes that students and teachers should use the same tools in school that they’re using in the real world. He adds that programs will come and go; some will stick, but most don't. This lends itself to the issues had with the College Entrance Examination Board (CEEB) which first wanted to create AP exams solely for the programming language, Pascal; however, most students had begun learning BASIC, which was more student friendly and accessible. To this day, BASIC is more widely used.
The Digital Divide: refers to underprivileged people receiving less than technology than their wealthier counterparts. Andy Carvin, Benton Foundation Specialist on questions of technological equity, states that the digital divide will never be solved because there will always be a new technology that recreates the divide. The Digital Divide was also described as the "Mercedes Divide ~everyone would like to have one but you can still get where you need to go with a less expensive machine."
Forbes editorial staff writes: "It is the poor who will be chained to the computer; the rich will get teachers."
Oppenheimer continues on in the following chapters to include observations seen at various school locations which feature technology usage. Primary mention was made of the following schools: Harlem NY (IS 275), Ralph Bunche ES in NYC, Hundred in WV, Blair in Maryland, and New Tech High in Napa Valley.
Oppenheimer discusses various technologies used in each setting and the variety of ways it was used. For the most part, in each school, however, they were all plagued by the similar obstacles: little to no technical support, connectivity issues, no teacher training, compatibility issues, distractibility concerns, working computer to student ratio, and diminished creativity and imagination of the students, despite the differences in money being allocated to each school.
Comments which really struck a nerve:
· Degrasse case overturned by then NY governor Pataki
· Computers were seen to "take up the slack teachers are leaving now" (Bob Wallace-IBM manager of education industry marketing).
· Patrick Suppe's comment about teachers: "There's a lot of bullshit about teachers. Let's not think they're all beautiful flowers about to bloom. We'd all like to be tutored by Aristotle. But that's not possible."
Degrasse decision appealed and reversed based on the reasoning that "society needs workers in all levels of jobs. The majority of which may very well be low level."
When we both read this case, we were both mortified to think that the government could so easily manipulate society. As society is already faced with discrimination and prejudices, it was incredible to read about a 2002 appeal that is contributing to the demise of a society. What are we saying to the citizens of this country? That we might as well not instruct you beyond the 9th grade because that is clearly the amount of education we are willing to provide you regardless of whether you want it or not? If this is the case, why bother keeping those children in school? To be babysat? Of course, this is not where we stand on this issue. We instead believe that people should have choices. As taxpayers, we are not granting the government the power to decide who gets the opportunity for better paying jobs. There's always someone willing to not go that extra mile and end up with a low paying job--regardless of socioeconomic status. Pataki, a son of a Hungarian immigrant himself, should take a better look at how he got to where he is.
Drill and Kill the Teachers:
Suppe's own company, CCC, created "drill and kill" programs that were marketed to teachers as programs to make their lives easier. Businesses have continued to sell their wares to schools by marketing them in this manner. Yet, how it's incorporated into the reality of the classroom is left to the imagination of the teacher. Therefore, unless teachers effectively integrate the technology in the curriculum, it will continue to not be a factor in raising student achievement.
We believe that all good teachers know that technology is most beneficial if used accordingly and in moderation. Again, we mention moderation. Research is pretty clear that it's not the sole effects of the technology that have helped with student's scores. If anything, they have shown a stagnant effect regardless of whether it took place in a privileged school or an underprivileged one. What does make a difference are additional teachers, smaller class sizes, appropriate funding allocated evenly, and better parenting.
As teachers, we are not looking to find tools that will "take up the slack." We became teachers because we wanted to make an impact on children's lives, the way they learn. But we are also constantly being bombarded with new and ever-changing initiatives that trickle down from way above (No Child Left Behind, for example) which demand excellence yet provide no plan of action. It is with these types of innovations that technologies are born and are thrown into schools with no directives but instead with the promise of a new tomorrow.
Personally, the question left unanswered still remains (revised): How do today’s children learn?
Kerri and Marcy
14 comments:
You make a lot of interesting points. You seem to buy into Oppenheimer's views with one exception. You say, "We believe that all good teachers know that technology is most beneficial if used accordingly and in moderation." I think that Oppenheimer is really challenging this point. He says that teachers think they know this, but when it comes to using technology appropriately, it simply doesn't happen 85% of the time. I think he would say that, in those 85% of the cases, "moderation" is a waste of time.
In response to "We believe that all good teachers know that technology is most beneficial if used accordingly and in moderation" I'm not sure how many good teachers are out there then. Even if there are good teachers, and know this I think the hard part is "standing up" and showing/telling what you know or believe to be true. How many administrators say to their staff "Please only use technology accordingly and in moderation. Make sure you are not just using technology for technology's sake"?
Like you I found the fact that the government could easily manipulate society to be shocking but as I thought more about it I suppose it really isn't a surprise in general. In our world, most take everything for face value. We believe what we read and see on tv and the Internet. Think about commercials and how they influence the general public. Part of what I have taken from both Postman and Oppenheimer is to think, examine, and reflect.
I like your revised question- "How do today’s children learn?" I think it's important to take into account, just as you would evaluate your class each year you get new students.
I think that teachers should make sure they are not using technology just for technology's sake. However, isn't that just what the government and school districts are doing by buying technology for the schools without thinking about how they will be used? Oppenheimer talks about California's spending spree in the 90's (p.43) and how the school officials felt pressured from all sides to computerize. Therefore, their attitudes were buy now and plan later.
I think that we are still doing this today. I can remember having to use the Windows on Science in the classroom just because the county bought it. I remember the difficulties we had and how no one knew how to remedy this.
Currently PG County has databases that are being paid for but not sufficiently utilized. Therefore, I am trying to train the interested staff on how to use them. The county has threatened that they will not pay for them if they're not being used. However, when they were purchased they did not send out any real information or training on these databases. This is yet another example of buy now plan later-if they have time (which apparently they didn't). So it all falls on the teachers.
Both Postman and Oppenheimer state that schools that succeed have high expectations and a purpose. You need to think "What is that doing for the students?"
I think David, Ellen, and Dawn all make valid points and I agree with most comments made.
First, I completely agree with Dawn's reactions as a teacher who uses technology and is in the position of leading the way in her own school. It is the same situation here in Anne Arundel County, where each school has an E-coach who is designated as the liaison between the Dept of Technology for the county and the teachers. This individual is responsible for training a staff on software for which he/she has also received minimum training. (Quite frankly, this issue has been brought up numerous times in our classes and it’s like beating a dead horse). We are provided with a vast amount of technology yet very little training on how to use it effectively in the classroom. There is quite a difference from hearing the sales pitch coupled with the “razzle dazzle” of the software and actual use in the classroom.
David mentions, “You say, ‘We believe that all good teachers know that technology is most beneficial if used accordingly and in moderation.’” What I’m trying to say is that eventually teachers learn when the use of a new tool is appropriate or not. That isn’t saying that there aren’t teachers who only use technology for “bells and whistles” during observations but for those who consistently use it, I believe they reach a point of being comfortable with its use and are efficient at using it. Continuous use of the technology does make them more comfortable and at ease and therefore, becomes natural to integrate it into lessons. Unfortunately, as mentioned in this book, something newer and better is always coming out, whether it’s technology or a new innovation.
Marcy,
I do think that teachers who are comfortable with technology can integrate it with ease. However, the question we keep coming back to is, "Is the technology that teachers are integrating really necessary? Is it helping to improve student achievement or is it just for fun? Is it just being used because it is there? Could a pen, pencil or book have done the same thing? Is is for drill and practice? etc...
Dawn,I agree completely we have to ask these necessary questions when using technology in the classroom and I want to pose another question...Are "drill and kill" programs always a negative? I mentioned in class that in high school I took a typing class that used a "drill and kill" program daily and I found it very beneficial. It is because of this program that I know how to type correctly today. With today's 5th graders having to take the Science MSA on the computer I am wondering if it would be benefical to use the same type of "drill and kill" program (possibly Type To Learn 3)to teach the students how to type correctly. Another "drill and kill" program that might be beneficial is a program that helps students master their basic math facts. I am not saying these programs should be used daily or used to replace the teacher but I think they should be used. My point with the "drill and kill" programs are even though technology is not a necessity(flashcards could be used)it is still helpful when learning certain skills.
You're absolutely right, Dawn. Of course, we keep coming back to those questions. Aren't they really the basis of Oppenheimers research/book?
Personally, it has really made me reflect as a teacher and a proponent of technology. As I do, I recall that I have noticed that people just use it "for fun" and there there isn't really much academic substance to activities at times. Part of the reason, though, and I go back to what I've said before, is that we're constantly being bomarded with "bigger and better." Do we ever really give anything a chance to work and eventually see the fruits of our labor?? I think that is one of the reasons for such a variation in results found in studies and observations. Is there much validity in the studies?
Quite frankly, as much as I appreciate technology in my classroom, I too, believe to some extent in the "flickering mind." I think that's part of the reason why we're teaching a new breed of students.
Sara S. mentioned the use of "drill and kill" programs to teach basic skills. While I agree that these types of programs have a place in the classroom, I do not understand the need to teach fifth grade students how to type just for Science MSA. I also teach fifth grade and we are under the same pressures from above. What exactly are we testing on this assessment? I believe that students need to learn how to type. It is a skill that will no doubt benefit them in the future. I also think that we could be spending this valuable time actually teaching science instead of basic typing. Obviously, this is a testing issue we can not control. It seems that the creators of the Science MSA need to look at what is being assessed in this situation? Science is definitely an area that requires hands-on instruction for genuine meaning to take place. I truly believe that this is a case of using technology for technology’s sake.
Kerri and Marcy mentioned that technology alone does not positively effect student achievement, but what does make a difference are additional teachers, smaller class sizes, appropriate funding allocated evenly, and better parenting. I agree with their point completely. I do think all of these other factors have greater influence on student achievement than technology. The area that I think many educators including myself get hung up on is the area of parental involvement. Many students in schools are having problems making progress, so what do many teachers say the problem is, the parents. It couldn't possibly be the teacher, or the lesson that they had prepared that didn't meet the needs of the student. Maybe in many cases it's not the teacher, but is blaming the parents really going to solve the problem? I think teachers have to do what they can to try and work with parents to become involved in their child's education. Unfortunately, as I've seen in some cases, no matter what some teachers do, parents want nothing to do with their child's schooling. At that point, I think teachers need to accept that they are not going to get the support that they expect from home. If the child is going to make progress, than it's going to take some extra effort from the teachers at the school. This relates to technology because just like teachers will experience problems with parents, they will experience problems with technology. Instead of blaming the lack of technology, in some cases, or the lack of teacher training, teachers need to realize that their students need them either way. Therefore, if everything is not perfect, as it commonly seems to be in education, than the teacher must accept the position that the students are going to make progress, despite the obstacles.
I wrote a review on this book a few years ago that you might find interesting. It is at: http://www.eduquery.com/jaet/archives/JAET2-1.pdf.
Oppenheimer addresses the assumption that technology alone can fix education problems and improve the system. Not surprisingly, he finds many examples where this is true. Too often educational technology is used to support rather than change the current paradigm of public school instruction. Since this paradigm is failing to adequately educate our students, it not surprising that he can find many examples of technological failures. A more interesting tack would have been to examine technology initiatives that are aimed at changing our public school paradigm of instruction.
J. Beal, Ed.D.
Sara posed the question “Are "drill and kill" programs always a negative?” I would have to agree with points made by both Sara and Melissa that these types of programs have a place in the classroom. However, I feel that they can not be used in isolation to truly be effective. Simply putting the students on the computer and having them complete an activity is not going to be beneficial. I couldn’t agree more with a statement made by Brenda Williams. When talking about why students scores rose she said, “teachers found ways to combine the computer drills with non-technological activities” (Oppenheimer, 2003, pages 117-118). I feel that for “drill and kill” programs to be effective in the classroom, this must always be the case. An example of this being used in the classroom, could be having first grade students use manipulatives to learn their basic math facts and then have them use a “drill and kill” program to reinforce what they learned.
The use of "drill and kill" programs boils down to purpose. Manipulatives are an ineffective and inefficient way to learn facts. However, manipulatives are a great way to understand what those facts mean and how they apply to the world. If our goal is simply to learn facts, then the drill alone beats the drill with manipulatives. However, the simple learning of facts is rarely our purpose.
For example, if I want to learn my times tables, I get out my flashcards (or some electronic equivalent). Playing with manipulatives would be a waste of my time. If I want to get a deep understanding of how numbers work, the manipulatives are very powerful tools.
Think about where you are going before suggesting methods to get there.
In response to Dawn and Marci, I agree that the school systems are placing a burden on the teachers by dropping technology in a school and telling the teacher to run with it. For Example in PG County in the past two years they have given each classroom teacher a laptop & LCD, & Printer and give the school 12 mobile lab units and 6 desktops for each HSA teacher. Some of this equipment has been designated specifically for HSA courses yet no training, software, or information has been given to teachers to utilize the equipment in an effective manor. Just as Oppenheimer noticed the unused computers collecting dust in the corners of classrooms that same thing is happening here in my building.
Effective or not I do think in some instances it is better for a teacher to use technology and become familiar with computers, and try to see how things could work rather than letting it collect dust. Familiarity and being comfortable are important if teachers are going to buy into what technology can do in the classroom. I know Oppenheimer would not agree, but if there is extra time at the end of class time or the school year is there any harm?
Jackie,
I absolutely agree with what you're saying about teachers taking time to become familiar with the technology in their classroom. I recently was at an inservice that promoted the use of United Streaming. There is no way that I could be efficient and effective with it just by listening to a speaker and practicing it a couple of times at the inservice. I would need to take some time and play around with it outside of the school day to become effective with United Streaming before I would ever use it with the students. In relation to this point you also said, "I know Oppenheimer would not agree, but if there is extra time at the end of class time or school year is there any harm?" I'm not sure if your talking about the teacher trying out the programs on the computer, or if you are talking about the students at this point. If your talking about allowing the students to get on the computer and try out programs that have not proven to be effective, or if there is no connection to a lesson being taught, I think this could be harmful to the students. Students will most likely browse the program and get no educational benefit from the activity because there was no underlying purpose to begin with. A better use of this time at the end of class, or at the end of the school year, might be to do extension projects on topics that have been taught in class.
Post a Comment