Education and Technology: Future Visions

September 1995

OTA-BP-EHR-169

GPO stock #052-003-01454-8
Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Education and

Technology: Future Visions, OTA-BP-EHR-169 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, September 1995).
iii

oreword

omputers, telecommunications networks, and other technologies have become increasingly central to the American way of

life. The nation’s schools are also investing substantially in

technologies for education. What will be the impact of these

technologies on schools in the near future? Will there be dramatic

changes in teaching techniques, curriculum, staffing, and even the concept of school as a result of investments in these tools? What kinds of

visions can we foresee for education over the next decade, if technology

use is supported? What factors affect the likelihood of meeting these visions? What role might the federal government play?

In the fall of 1994, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) commissioned five contractors to write papers dealing with these issues. In

June 1995, the contractors and a number of other prominent educators

were invited to OTA for an all-day workshop to discuss these papers and

the issues more broadly. This background paper summarizes the workshop discussion and contains the commissioned papers in their entirety.

OTA gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the individuals who

participated in these efforts.

ROGER C. HERDMAN

Director
iv

roject Staff

Clyde J. Behney

Assistant Director, OTA

Denise Dougherty

Program Director

Education and Human Resources

PRINCIPAL STAFF

Kathleen Fulton

Project Director

Isabelle Bruder-Smith

Analyst

Ethan T. Leonard

Research Analyst

Kathleen McCormally

Research Assistant

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

Rebecca Erickson

Office Administrator

Linda Rayford

PC Specialist

Nanette Rushing

Secretary

CONTRACTORS

Nancy Kober

Editor

Madeline Gross

In-House
v

Education and Technology: Future Visions

June 9, 1995

Ted Kahn, Workshop Chair *

Institute for Research on Learning

Jonathan Betz

Thomas Jefferson High School

Senior

James J. Bosco*

Western Michigan University

Luyen Chou

Learn Technologies

Larry Cuban

Stanford University

Christopher Dede

George Mason University

Bruce Goldberg

Bolt Beranek and Newman

Nancy Hechinger

Industry Consultant

Beverly Hunter*

Bolt Beranek and Newman

Robert Kozma*

SRI International

Matthew W. Lewis

The RAND Corporation

Stephen Marcus*

National Writing Project

Technology Network

Arthur Melmed*

George Mason University

David Mintz*

National Center on Education and

the Economy

W. Curtiss Priest

Center for Information

Technology and Society

Margaret Riel*

InterLearn

Richard Wertheimer

Pittsburgh Public Schools

________________

*These individuals also reviewed the background paper.

orkshop Participants
vii

Education and Technology: Future Visions 1

Background for this Study 1

Summary of Key Points and Workshop Discussion 3

Technology and School Reform: Setting the

Context 4

Key Issues for Future Visions of Educational

Technology 9

Is There a Federal Role? 18

Will Promising Visions Become a Reality? 20

Choosing a Future 22

APPENDIXES

A Schooling and Learning in an Information

Society 25

Current Conditions in Schools 27

Purpose and Focus 28

The Three Great Codes and the Creation of Human

Culture 28

The American Public School as an Institution 38

The Human as a Natural Learner 45

The Future of Learning and Schooling in American

Society: Conclusions and Implications 49

Appendix A References 55

B Learning and Teaching in 2004:

The BIG DIG 57

Vignette: “The Big Dig” 58

Teaching and Learning: Underneath The

Big Dig 67

Discussion: Getting from Here to There 71

Summary 81

Appendix B References 82

ontents
viii

C The Future of Teaching 89

Planning Office of Central Elementary 89

Visit to the Oceans Learning Center 94

Visit to the District/School Offices 105

D Year 2005: Using Technology to Build

Communities of Understanding 121

A Vision of the Year 2005 123

Implications 139

Conclusion 142

Appendix D References 143

E Public School Teachers Using Machines in

the Next Decade 147

The Spread of Computers in Schools: Confusion Over

Access, Use, and Innovation 148

Technologies and School Reform 149

Impulses for Using Latest Technologies in

Schools 150

Three Scenarios 152

Which is the Least Likely Scenario? 155

How Likely are the Preservationist and Cautious

Optimist Scenarios? 156

Which Scenario is Most Likely? 157

Summary 160

Appendix E References 160

F Contractor Reports 163
Education and

Technology:

Future

Visions

BACKGROUND FOR THIS STUDY

Several times over the last decade, Congress has asked the Office

of Technology Assessment (OTA) to examine the status of

technology in American education from various perspectives. In

the 1988 study Power On! New Tools for Teaching and Learning,

1 OTA looked at the use of computers and other technologies

in K-12 schools. In the 1989 study Linking for Learning,2 OTA

focused on distance learning technologies, including improvements in their affordability, flexibility, and educational applications. In the 1993 study Adult Literacy and New Technologies,

3

OTA looked at technologies for providing literacy instruction to

adult learners. And in the 1995 study Teachers and Technology:

Making the Connection,

4 OTA examined how teachers learn

about and use technologies and how various technologies can

help teachers improve their teaching and grow professionally.

Although each of these studies gave some attention to new or

emerging technologies and factors affecting their adoption, the

1 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Power On! New Tools for Teaching

and Learning, OTA-SET-379 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1988).

2 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Linking for Learning: A New Course

for Education, OTA-SET-430 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1989).

3 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime, OTA-SET-550 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1993).

4 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Teachers and Technology: Making

the Connection, OTA-EHR-616 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

April 1995).

| 1
2 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

studies focused primarily on the present, not the

future. But as technology advances more and

more rapidly, the future seems to arrive ever more

quickly. Decisions currently facing Congress

about telecommunications policies, funding for

education, and education program continuations

and consolidations will have impacts on schooling that could last several years, or even decades.

To make wise decisions, it is important that Congress consider the long-range potential and impacts of technologies for education. Where is the

nation’s educational system headed, how will we

know when we get there, and what opportunities

or difficulties may lie along the road?

In keeping with its role as an “early warning

system” for Congress, OTA commissioned several papers on the topic “Technology Trends and

Their Impacts on Teaching in the Future.” OTA

asked the authors of the commissioned papers to

consider future visions of schooling over the next

five to 10 years, taking into account recent trends

in technology, school reform, student demographics, and telecommunications regulation. What

might schools of the near future look like? Which

factors or incentives will influence the direction of

change? What might be the positive and negative

implications of different future scenarios? What

are the roles of the various players in the educational system? How can schools help shape

technology decisions to acquire the resources they

need? How might the federal government help

achieve the most promising of these visions?

In response to OTA’s request, five contractors

prepared papers in the fall of 1994. Each took a

slightly different approach to envisioning the future of education:

 James Bosco’s paper, “Schooling and Learning

in an Information Society,” reviews the historical impact that various developments in communications have had on learning. Bosco also

examines past changes in the institution of the

school and, rather than sketching a scenario,

discusses the effects of technology on learning

inside and outside of school, today and in the

future.

 “Learning and Teaching in 2004: The Big Dig,”

by Beverly Hunter and Bruce Goldberg, lays

out a scenario in which students, teachers, and

the entire Boston community develop an extensive body of learning experiences based on an

actual, major urban construction project, the

Central Artery Tunnel Project, currently slated

for completion in 2004. Hunter and Goldberg

envision fundamental changes in the nature of

schooling and lifelong learning and describe

how technological applications can bring together school, work, family, and neighborhood

in new learning environments.

 Margaret Riel’s paper, “The Future of Teaching,” is told through the voices of educators in

2005 as they explain their school’s philosophy

and program to the district’s quality review

team. The paper describes a new school organizational and physical structure, explains how

technologies support this system, and addresses staffing, educational, and community concerns.

 “Year 2005: Using Technology to Build Communities of Understanding,” by Robert Kozma

and Wayne Grant, uses scenarios to tell the

story of a “community of learners” from three

perspectives—connections from school to the

outside world, to the workplace, and to the

home—and analyzes the social, pedagogical,

and technological implications for each perspective as demonstrated by the scenarios.

 Larry Cuban’s paper, “Public School Teachers

Using Machines in the Next Decade,” discusses three possible outcomes of technological integration in schools: that of the

technophile, the preservationist, and the cautious optimist. Cuban assesses the likelihood of

each occurring and discusses the basis for his

prediction.

To supplement the information and ideas in

these papers, OTA convened a workshop on June
Education and Technology: Future Visions | 3

9, 1995, on the topic “Education and Technology:

Future Visions.”5 At this workshop 17 educators

and researchers, including the authors of the contractor papers, met with OTA staff to explore in

more detail the issues raised in the five papers and

to discuss other future scenarios and their policy

implications. Also discussed at the workshop was

a sixth paper, by Chris Dede and Matt Lewis, entitled “Assessment of Emerging Educational

Technologies That Might Assist and Enhance the

School-to-Work Transition.”6 Although this paper was written for OTA’s assessment Learning to

Work: Making the Transition from School to

Work,7 it is also relevant.

This OTA background paper synthesizes the

major themes and ideas from these futures papers

and the workshop discussion. It summarizes the

views of the contractors and workshop participants about possible future visions of schooling

over the next decade. The paper considers technology and school reform in the context of the demands of the information age, changing views of

learning, and conflicting roles of schools. It considers some key issues for these future visions, including changing curriculum and assessment,

changing roles for teachers and staff, an expanded

view of community, and considerations

associated with the potential negative impacts of

technology.

This background paper does not endorse any

particular vision. Instead it analyzes various factors likely to influence the different future scenarios and lays out possible courses of federal action

and potential state and private roles as discussed

in the papers and workshop.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS AND

WORKSHOP DISCUSSION

 Many factors are pressuring schools to make

substantive reforms in curriculum, organization, and teacher roles. Employers are calling

for individuals who can manage large amounts

of information, solve complex problems, adapt

to changing requirements with flexibility and

creativity, and work in teams.8 New research on

learning supports school environments in

which students can acquire advanced skills and

knowledge by working on meaningful problems.9 And parents, business, and students—

the “consumers” of education—are asking

schools to fill many roles, yet expressing dissatisfaction with how schools are carrying

them out.

 Technology can be an impetus for major school

reform or an instrument for making the current

school system more efficient and productive.

Many educational futurists advocate seizing

5 See page v for the roster of workshop participants.

6 Chris Dede and Matthew Lewis, “Assessment of Emerging Educational Technologies That Might Assist and Enhance the School-to-Work

Transition,” OTA contractor report, May 1995.

7 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Learning to Work: Making the Transition from School to Work, OTA-EHR-637 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1995).

8See, for example, What Work Requires of Schools: A SCANS Report for America 2000, Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, June 1991); William B. Johnston and Arnold H. Packer, Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for

the 21st Century (Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute, 1987); Anthony Patrick Carnevale, America and the New Economy (Washington, DC: The

Program and Freedom Foundation, 1994); Committee for Economic Development, Connecting Students to a Changing World: A Technology

Strategy for Improving Mathematics and Science Education (Washington, DC: Committee for Economic Development, September 1995);

Lawrence Mishel and Jared Bernstein, The State of Working America (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1994).

9 See, for example, Ronald D. Anderson et. al., Issues of Curriculum Reform in Science, Mathematics and Higher Order Thinking Across

the Disciplines (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1994); Barbara Means (ed.), “Using Technology to Advance

Education Goals,” Technology and Education Reform (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1994); and Joan Bissell et. al., “National Geographic Kids Network and Language Minority Students (Irvine, CA: University of California, Department of Education, July 1994).
4 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

the former opportunity, suggesting that major

reform is required and that technology offers a

unique and powerful resource to bring about

such change.

 One of the most promising aspects of technology for education is how it can link schools,

homes, workplaces, and neighborhoods into

innovative communities that value learning

and offer rich learning experiences. This enhanced network of human resources that can

participate in educating students may be the

most significant technological offshoot. As the

institutional framework shifts from an emphasis on “schools” to one on “learning communities,” and as learning is distributed across

multiple locations, questions about education

governance and the traditional school structure

will need to be addressed.

 Technology teaching and learning tools allow

students and their teachers to contribute to the

information base with their own research and

products. If teachers and students are considered not just consumers of information but also

creators of information, new opportunities

could be made available for funding educational activities through the products and services

they provide to the broader community.

 Schools and communities will have to confront

concerns about the “down side” of technology,

including possible reductions and changes in

teaching staff, disparities in technology access,

potential exposure of students to harmful material, and a de-emphasis of traditional instructional methods that work well for some

children.

 The federal government’s role could be most

important in articulating a vision of how

technologies can support improved communities of learning. Federal support could take the

form of seeding innovation, showcasing the

most promising local initiatives, and helping to

cross-pollinate the best practices. Telecommunications and other technologies can themselves be resources for showing, sharing, and

discussing innovation. Support from all segments of society, public and private, will be required if these resources are to be made

available to all learners regardless of location

or economic situation.

TECHNOLOGY AND SCHOOL REFORM:

SETTING THE CONTEXT

The future visions discussed in most of the papers

and at the workshop assume a strong and symbiotic relationship between educational technology

and educational reform. The contractors and

workshop participants view technology not so

much as a means for making the existing education system more productive or efficient than as a

means for encouraging and facilitating broader reforms in school structure, curriculum, teaching,

and learning. Schools grappling with how to incorporate technology and how to encourage teachers to use it effectively can treat these primarily as

engineering challenges—which can be remedied

with more equipment and training—or, as the

OTA commissioned papers suggest, as school design and organization challenges to be remedied

with substantive reforms. They maintain that

technology creates an impetus for major transformation in the institution of schooling, and it

also offers new tools for carrying out this transformation in ways not possible before.

Several forces are converging to encourage

school reform though technology. These include:

demands and tools of the information age, changing views of learning, and the conflicting roles of

schools.

❚ Demands of the Information Age

A major driving force in school reform is the

transformation of the American economy from

one based on industrial production to one based on

information creation and exchange. In their paper,

Dede and Lewis describe this change:10

10 Chris Dede and Matt Lewis, op. cit., footnote 6.
Education and Technology: Future Visions | 5

In the past, preparing learners to compete effectively with other Americans in our domestic

economy was sufficient to ensure their prosperity. However, the evolution of world-wide markets means that U.S. employers and employees

must be more adept than their global competitors at meeting the needs of a very diverse range

of customers. In this new economic “ecology,”

each nation is seeking a range of specialized

niches based on its financial, human, and natural

resources. Developed countries, which no longer have easily available natural resources and

cheap labor, have difficulty competing with rising-star developing nations in manufacturing

standardized industrial commodities. However,

America is utilizing her strengths (technological

expertise, an advanced industrial base, and educated citizenry) to develop an economy that uses

sophisticated people and information tools to

produce customized, value-added products.

In the popular book Future Shock11 and subsequent works,12 futurists Alvin and Heidi Toffler

use the metaphor of waves to describe the historical transformation of American society from an

agricultural society (the First Wave), to an industrial one (the Second Wave), and most recently, to

an information society (the Third Wave)—each a

revolution of major proportions. Many, including

some of the OTA authors and workshop participants, would agree with the Tofflers’ view that the

current school system, with its factory-like organization and inflexible boxes of space and time,13

is a vestige of the Second Wave industrial society

and is quickly becoming outdated by the Third

Wave technological world. Without major reforms in school organization and missions, they

maintain, schools will continue to prepare students for a world that no longer exists, developing

in students yesterday’s skills for tomorrow’s

world.

A shift to Third Wave schooling is reflected in

the kinds of institutions described in most of the

contractors’ scenarios. These new kinds of

schools have a “flat” organizational structure,

whereby clusters of teachers and students work in

groups on substantive group projects, bringing in

information and expertise from resources outside

the organization, with more shared responsibility

for decisionmaking and initiative—a stark contrast to the closed, bureaucratic, hierarchical structure found in many of today’s school districts,

buildings, and individual classrooms with their

production line approaches to education.

❚ Developing Views of Learning

Other influences on school reform and the adoption of new technologies are emerging views from

research about how children learn. Increasingly,

attention is being paid to one strain of cognitive

theory known as constructivism, a view that:

. . . advanced skills of comprehension, reading,

composition, and experimentation are acquired

not through the transmission of facts but through

the learner’s interacting with content. This

constructivist view of learning is the wellspring

of ideas for many of the current curriculum and

instruction reform efforts, calling upon schools

to teach basic skills within authentic and, hence,

more complex contexts in order to model expert

thought processes and encourage the use of collaboration and external supports so that students

thus can achieve intellectual accomplishments

they could not attain on their own.14

Authentic learning is emphasized in the scenarios presented in several of the commissioned papers. Hunter and Goldberg describe what they

mean by authentic instruction:

15

11 Alvin Toffler, Future Shock (New York, NY: Random House, 1970).

12 Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave (New York, NY: Morrow, 1980); Alvin and Heidi Toffler, op. cit., footnote 8.

13 See, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Teachers and Technology, op. cit., footnote 4.

14 Barbara Means (ed.), op. cit., footnote 11, p. 5.

15 Beverly Hunter and Bruce Goldberg, “Learning and Teaching in 2004: The Big Dig,” OTA contractor report, November 1994.
6 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

 Working on projects and problems of intrinsic

interest to the learner or a group of learners,

rather than learning what everyone else of the

same age is expected to learn at the time.

 Working in a hands-on mode with the physical

and social world, in addition to and in interaction with abstract symbols and words and electronic representations.

 Learning something at the time a learner is

ready and motivated to learn it—perhaps

because it is needed to solve a problem or complete a project, or perhaps just from developmental readiness, or curiosity, or social

pressure—rather than in a preset curriculum sequence.

 Continual learning.

 Learning in an interdisciplinary context, rather

than in separate subjects and isolated topics;

working on a project in depth, rather than covering many topics superficially.

 Working directly with people from other places

and cultures, rather than only indirectly

through books.

 Learning through teamwork.

 Producing something of real value to someone.

 Using the real tools for intellectual work that

are used in the workplace, rather than oversimplified textbook techniques.

 Basing assessment of student progress on performance of real tasks, rather than artificial

tests.

Contructivism also takes advantage of the student’s natural inclination to learn through experience and to “create mental structures. . .which

organize and synthesize the information and experience which the individual encounters in the

world.”16 Workshop participants discussed

whether constructivism might just be another

educational fad, but most agreed that the abilities

to construct knowledge, value complexity, and

solve complex problems are skills that all students

will need to succeed in an information-based society. It was suggested that constructivism is flexible enough to co-exist with other instructional

philosophies. As Nancy Hechinger said, “It’s not

either direct instruction or contructivism or collaborative [work] . . . we know a lot about learning and sometimes one is appropriate and

sometimes another is appropriate.”17

The importance of nurturing in children the

kind of learning that they undertake naturally outside of school is not a new idea. Eighty years ago

John Dewey said:

What is learned in school is at best only a

small part of education, a relatively superficial

part of education; and yet what is learned in

school makes artificial distinctions in society

and marks persons off from one another. Consequently we exaggerate school learning compared to what is gained in the ordinary course of

living. Rousseau was almost the first to see that

learning is a matter of necessity; it is a part of the

process of self-preservation and of growth. If we

want, then, to find out how education takes place

most successfully, let us go to the experiences of

children where learning is a necessity, and not to

the practices of schools where it is largely an

adornment, a superfluity, and even an unwelcome imposition.18

Futurist George Leonard described learning as

an “ecstatic” process that changes the learner.19

Believing that this kind of learning occurs naturally, Leonard saw no reason why schools cannot

produce “ecstatic education,” a view shared by

several OTA workshop participants who noted

that their views of education had been strongly influenced by Leonard’s work. These beliefs are

central to several scenarios presented in the OTA

commissioned papers.

Some reformers have taken these ideas to the

extreme of suggesting that education can and

16 James Bosco, “Schooling and Learning in an Information Society,” OTA contractor report, November 1994, NTIS No. 95-172227.

17 Transcript of OTA workshop, June 9, 1995, p. 173.

18 John Dewey, School of Tomorrow (New York, NY: E.P. Dutton & Co., 1915), cited in Bosco.

19 George Leonard, Education and Ecstasy (New York, NY: Delacorte Press, 1968).
Education and Technology: Future Visions | 7

should occur independently of schools. Lewis

Perelman, for example, suggests, “If learning is

everything, everywhere, how do we confine it to

the box of a classroom? We can’t. Then what’s the

point of having schools at all? There isn’t any.”20

The commissioned papers and workshop participants rejected this concept, primarily because

it ignores the teacher’s role in guiding learning

and helping students put their understanding in

context. Furthermore, to say that schools are extraneous ignores other inherently valuable features of the institution of school and neglects the

opportunities that schools provide for students to

learn and work together as a community. Workshop participant Bruce Goldberg said, “We forget

that schooling is a whole lot more about working

with people than it is about working with

ideas. . .the only value of an idea is in a community.”21

❚ Conflicting Roles of School

Throughout history, public schools have been

asked to assume many social and cultural roles in

addition to their academic functions. As one educator has stated, schools are “the mainstay of our

publicly determined means of rearing our children

. . . our all-purpose institution for children.”22

Over the years, schools have struggled to assimilate a large immigrant population into the American culture, prepare all students for the roles that

they will play in society, and provide a level playing field for economic attainment through equal

access to education. American schools have been

remarkably successful in meeting these goals,

considering the vast challenges involved.

Today, schools are being asked to assume still

more responsibilities and are blamed unfairly

when they cannot solve all social problems. Workshop participants identified the following important, but often conflicting, roles of schools:

 Custodianship—giving parents a safe place to

send their children, a nurturing home away

from home.

 Credentialing and work preparation—preparing graduates to meet the requirements of higher education and employment.

 Cultural conservation—transmitting the values

and shared traditions of the society.

 Intellectual nourishment—producing people

with well-rounded minds, a love of learning,

and a sense of themselves as creative, lifelong

learners.

These multiple and sometimes conflicting

roles create tensions among educators who are

having trouble satisfying any of them fully. Many

suggest that schools are not fulfilling these roles

when:

 children bring weapons to school and are shot

on playgrounds;23

 American students no longer score at the top of

international academic comparisons;

 high school and even college graduates find it

difficult to find jobs using the education and

skills they learned in school;

 individuals and communities cannot agree on a

common set of values; and

 many children are no longer being challenged

in school.

20 Lewis J. Perelman, School’s Out: Hyperlearning, the New Technology, and the End of Education (New York, NY: William Morrow and Co.,

1992), p. 55.

21 Workshop transcript, p. 78.

22 Patricia Graham, “Assimilation, Adjustment, and Access: An Antiquarian View of American Education,” Learning from the Past, Diane

Ravitch and Maris A. Vinovskis (eds.) (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995), p. 4.

23 See, for example, Office of Technology Assessment, Adolescent Health, OTA-H-467 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

June 1991); and U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Risks to Students in Schools OTA-ENV-632 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1995).
8 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

These perceptions exist in public discourse and

the popular press and are causing many people to

question the mission of schools today.

Workshop participants agreed that the protective, custodial function is often the most central of

the various demands placed on schools. Today,

with most parents holding jobs outside the home,

schools are the places children go while their parents work. But as crime and violence have increased, infiltrating the schools in many

communities, confidence in the schools’ ability to

provide quality care has dropped. As one workshop participant said, “They’re not safe enough,

and if you put in more metal detectors, that’s not

going to help it. And if [students] get to school and

there is no social fabric within the school itself, the

parents aren’t going to believe in the inherent conserving guardianship, custodial nature of

schools.”24

Schools are also charged with providing students with the knowledge and skills they need to

succeed after graduation. Education has long been

the key to the American dream, and a high school

degree a passport to a decent job. Increasingly, this

is not the case, as even college graduates struggle

to find jobs commensurate with their credentials.

As the value of the educational credential becomes less clear or less potent, the educational

system as a whole is called into question. James

Bosco explained this dynamic as follows:25

If they are there [at a university] because they

believe that if they do it right and follow the

rules, that somehow or other, good things happen as a result of this, then many of them are in

for a very, very disconcerting realization. What

happens when there is a growing realization that

the currency that we issue in schools no longer

has value?

This issue of diminishing value is even more a

problem for the high school graduates who do not

go on to college. There is widespread concern that

many high school graduates do not possess the

academic and entry-level occupational skills necessary to succeed in the changing U.S. workplace.26

Schools are also responsible for transmitting

the social and cultural values of society, the customs and “rational myths” that define the community.27 Today this is increasingly difficult, with so

many different views of what our culture is, has

been, or should be. As Robert Kozma observed,

“The culture is becoming fractionated and so

schools are going to be fractionated. There’s less

consensus and there’s less impetus to move forward in some kind of systemic way.”28

Finally, as discussed above, schools have a

mission to help children learn, in the purest sense

of the word—to acquire knowledge for its own

sake, build good habits of mind, develop a passion

for learning. This function of schooling has sometimes taken a back seat to others.

Questions of educational reform are compounded not just by the multiple roles of schools,

but also by the multiple “customers” for schooling, as workshop participant Stephen Marcus explained:29

To the extent that we talk in terms of the

schools providing a custodial function, it seems

that the customer for the school is the parent

somehow, whereas if we talk about schools

building community, then the customer for the

school is the student somehow. . . . To the extent

that we talk about preparing students for the

work force, sometimes it seems as if we’re talking about the good of the employer a little

24 Workshop transcript, p. 77.

25 Workshop transcript, p. 101.

26 See, for example, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Learning to Work, op. cit., footnote 7.

27 James Bosco, op. cit., footnote 16.

28 Workshop transcript, p. 54.

29 Workshop transcript, p. 109.
Education and Technology: Future Visions | 9

more. . . . Who’s the key customer in the

school? Whom is the school there to serve?

KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE VISIONS OF

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

The scenarios in the commissioned papers and the

workshop discussion suggest that technological

advances could ease the transition toward a form

of teaching and learning more appropriate for the

information age. The technologies that can facilitate this change are available today; however, the

future scenarios assume a much more seamless infrastructure of computer, telecommunications,

and connecting technologies that allows students

and teachers decentralized control over their

educational environment. The commissioned papers and workshop discussion focused on ways in

which technology could affect such key reform issues as: changing curriculum and assessment,

new teacher roles and staffing patterns, and expanded views of the learning community. They

noted, however, the importance of paying careful

attention to the potential “dark side of technology.”

❚ Technological Advances and Their

Potential for Education

In their paper, Christopher Dede and Matt Lewis

defined several categories of technologies (basic

as well as more advanced) that can help with the

school-to-work transition process; these are

equally applicable to the general teaching and

learning process:30

 Presentational computer-based training and

computer-assisted instruction. These programs are predominantly tutorial or drill-andpractice and use the computer to display

information and monitor student reaction.

 Intelligent tutoring and coaching systems.

These mimic some of a teacher’s cognitive abilities. These systems rely on artificial intelligence, which appears to “understand” who,

what, and how it is teaching.

 Multimedia and hypermedia programs. Multimedia programs are designed to present information in the way that the mind assimilates

it, then allow the student to interact with the

material. In addition, hypermedia programs interrelate data through concept maps based on

related ideas and material.

 Computer-supported collaborative learning

technologies. Although these technologies are

“not as effective as face-to-face group learning,” according to Dede and Lewis, they “provide a strong surrogate for actual cooperative

learning.”

 Modeling and experiential simulations. These

range from “models that mirror the simplified

essence of reality to elaborate synthetic environments that place students inside alternate

virtual worlds.”

 Computer-based tools as learning enablers.

According to Dede and Lewis, these tools seek

to develop “distributed intelligence, in which

the learner is free to focus on the concepts and

skills to be acquired” because the technology

assumes part of the cognitive load.

 Central to all the visions of expanded technology use for education are affordable, user-friendly, telecommunications networks to which all

students and teachers have easy access.

The visions discussed in the futures papers depend on technologies that, by and large, are already available today (e.g., personal digital

assistants, small cellular phones and integrated

personal communications systems, simulation

and modeling systems, collaborative computing

environments, high performance work stations,

and extensive use of networks) or are under development and likely to be affordable for schools in

the not-too-distant future (e.g., interactive digital

video and large flat-screen display technologies).

However, a major difference between the present

30 Chris Dede and Matt Lewis op. cit., footnote 6.
10 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

state of technology and the future visions is the extent and fluency of integration among various

kinds of technologies. For example, in “The Big

Dig” vignette, Hunter and Goldberg use a variety

of technological tools that are present today; what

distinguishes their vignette from the present reality is the “seamless environment of technology

and information infrastructure and the fluency

with which these tools are used to design and enhance learning experiences.”31 In “The Big Dig”

scenario administrative and instructional technologies are integrated in ways that enable decentralized learning communities to access information

(be it student health records or electronic student

portfolios) where and when they need it.

Students in the Kozma and Grant scenario use

a combination of technological and social supports to “scaffold” their efforts to solve new kinds

of problems or address new content domains.

Much like the learning enablers in the Dede and

Lewis typography, the computer-based project

tool in the Kozma and Grant paper “steps students

through the planning process, asking them to define their goals, prompting them to select activities to accomplish these [goals], guiding them to

resources, and structuring their assessment.”32

The tool also gives guidance and feedback on the

design, development, and execution of their projects. This tool uses embedded coaching and intelligent critic capabilities that are currently being

developed for advanced technologies. The tools

keep plans and goals visible so students do not

lose track. As students learn the process, they are

expected to internalize the necessary skills. The

teacher is the important social “scaffold,” prompting, encouraging, and guiding the students

through the process, and helping them put the

learning in context.

Integrated digital and wireless telecommunication technologies are also key in the Kozma and

Grant model, as their first scenario shows:

33

As he does every morning, Steve Early eats

breakfast in front of the teleputer. While he

watches a program in one window, his personal

communication service relays a video message

from his South African friend, Nelson, in another window. . . . This software agent presents the

story as it originated in Nelson’s community and

then goes off to search for additional information about the train accident on GlobalNet. After

Steve checks out the Net pointers, he constructs

his own agent to search the local and national

video news service to find video clips that run

less than three minutes, sort them chronologically, and store them on the school server so he

can access them later.

Access to technology in school is particularly

important in light of increasing disparities in

technology access outside of school. Families that

can afford to purchase computers are giving their

children an educational advantage, through supplementary learning activities and additional opportunities to do school work at home. Today

about half of college graduates and two-thirds of

those with incomes higher than $50,000 report

that their children use a computer at home,

compared with 17 percent of parents with a high

school education or less.34 The papers commissioned by OTA deal with this challenge by advocating increased support for technologies for all

students and teachers that facilitate better links between school and home and increased parental involvement. These could include take-home

computers for students, voice mail in schools and

homes, dedicated school video channels and interactive video links between school and home, per31 Beverly Hunter and Bruce Goldberg, op. cit., footnote 15.

32Robert Kozma and Wayne Grant, “Year 2005: Using Technology to Build Communities of Understanding,” OTA contractor report, November 1994, NTIS No. 95-172235.

33 Ibid.

34 Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press, “Technology in the American Household,” Washington, DC, May 24, 1994.
Education and Technology: Future Visions | 11

sonal digital assistants, and wireless modems. To

be fully integrated now would require each student or family and classroom to have these

technologies. Further developments of integrated

computing and communication systems may obviate the need for this variety of separate components.

❚ Changing Curriculum and Assessment

Just as the future visions are based on information

technologies that already exist (even if they are

not widely available in schools and homes), most

are also based on changes already underway in the

areas of curriculum and assessment that are tied to

developing views of learning. Many states and

professional organizations have developed curriculum standards in many subjects that incorporate

the skills of gathering, assessing, and handling

complex information and that call for instruction

based on challenging tasks and complex problems

grounded in the real world. These approaches

often require students to work in teams on projects

that cross traditional curriculum lines and to develop collaborative problem-solving approaches.

As schools are attempting to provide more “authentic” instruction, many states and school districts are also developing new methods of

“authentic” assessment designed to provide more

in-depth demonstrations of what students know

and can do than traditional standardized tests.

These performance-based assessments often require the use of technological tools from simple

wordprocessing to advanced multimedia.35

The scenario in “Year 2005: Using Technology

to Build Communities of Understanding” by Kozma and Grant is based on authentic, or “projectbased,” learning, in which teams of students with

different strengths work together on real-life issues of their choosing. By collaborating with

people in the working world on specific issues,

students expand their pool of resources and information. In this scenario, information technology also opens communication between schools

and parents and provides new forms of documentation and products that can be used to assess student progress.

In Riel’s scenario, the traditional classroom

would be replaced by learning centers, which take

advantage of what Riel calls the most significant

technological off-shoot: a rich network of human

resources. Multi-aged groups of students would

work in these centers, each of which would have

a specific theme, and would learn to draw on their

varying strengths for success. Assessment is

based on a final exhibition of student works that

is attended by the school and community. Riel’s

fictional narrator explains the process:36

We find that creating a museum exhibit that is

enjoyed by the community provides more intrinsic motivation to learn. At the end of every session, the students spend time reflecting on their

work as they get ready for the exhibition. They

select their best work to display in the exhibition. But they also have to see how they measured up to the goals they set for themselves. The

exhibition provides a time for parents and community members to see what students have accomplished. Parents can see how their child’s

work compares with that of children of different

ages and abilities. The exhibition provides students an opportunity to teach their parents.

In “The Big Dig,” Hunter and Goldberg propose

another kind of model built around project-based

learning, interdisciplinary studies, and group activities, many of which use technological tools.

Students, educators, parents, the community, and

the workforce collaborate to complete a real project and prepare exhibits about particular aspects of

the project. Students in this vignette are assessed

on the basis of their performance of real tasks and

the students’ contributions to the team. Teachers

also develop assessment plans that are evaluated

35See, for example, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Testing in American Schools: Asking the Right Questions, OTA-SET-519

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1991).

36 Margaret Riel, “The Future of Teaching,” OTA contractor report, November 1994, NTIS No. 95-172219.
12 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

by the outside experts who work with the students.37

One of the teachers, the student assessment

specialist, and one of the children form a group

to review and formalize the evaluation plans.

They begin by locating the assessment archives

from last year’s Tunnel Team exhibition. They

see there were some complaints from parents

last year that the evaluators had too narrow a focus and missed some important evidence of the

team’s creativity and communication skills.

They decide to avoid that problem by having

two levels of evaluation of the exhibition. They

call the two levels “Quick” and “Deep.” The

“Quick” evaluations will be made by interviewing visitors to the exhibition who would have

unpredictable kinds of backgrounds, skills, and

interests but who would represent a wide range

of viewpoints. The “Deep” evaluations will be

made by a panel of ten people chosen from the

school communities’ database of teachers and

expert reviewers. In creating the evaluation

plan, the group makes links in the database to the

individual Tunnel Team students’ personal development plans, the Tunnel Team’s educational goals, and the emerging exhibit component

plans. From these sources, they create packets of

background information and draft assessment

assignments tailored for each of the ten panelists—depending on their specialty areas—

learning, basic competence, communications

and collaboration, personal management, information management, mathematics, engineering, inquiry methods, etc.

The students then evaluate the plan and make

suggestions to ensure that it reflects all of their

work. Without the technology, it would be much

more difficult to collect, manipulate, and draw

upon these databases of information and personal

development plans.

Despite their emphasis on authentic, projectbased learning experiences, Hunter and Goldberg

recognize the need for other kinds of instructional

experiences:38

Learning is not always fun, engaging, or relentlessly faithful to the real world. It can on occasion require the repetitive performance of

tasks or intellectual battle with concepts and

theories that are unfamiliar, removed from

“reality,” even somewhat contrived. That is one

reason we believe that paying attention to standards, to what students are expected to know and

be able to do, is critical. Unlike past attempts at

making education “relevant,” contemporary

preoccupation with authentic learning is

grounded in the belief that there should be explicit habits of mind, competencies and core

knowledge that all student are expected to master.

❚ New Roles for Teachers and Other Staff

Extensive use of technology in the classroom typically changes teachers’ roles.39 Some futurists

have even maintained that technology, by allowing students to interact directly and individually

with content, makes it possible to eliminate the

teacher.40 Some teachers themselves fear that limited educational resources may be used to purchase technologies in the expectation that fewer

human resources will be required. However, the

OTA commissioned papers and workshop participants suggest that technology will always be just

one part of the learning equation. While technological advances may make it possible for students to progress at their own pace with materials

geared to their individual learning style, interests,

understanding, and needs, teachers are the crucial

link between students and technology.41 Without

the teacher’s guidance and enthusiasm for tech37 Beverly Hunter and Bruce Goldberg, op. cit., footnote 15.

38 Ibid.

39 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Teachers and Technology, op. cit., footnote 4.

40 See, for example, Lewis Perelman, op. cit., footnote 20.

41 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Teachers and Technology, op. cit., footnote 4.
Education and Technology: Future Visions | 13

nology in the classroom, technology in schools is

little used and poorly used.42 If education is to be

reformed with support from technology, and if investments in technology are to pay off, OTA finds

that more, rather than less, attention should be

paid to teachers and their roles.

This is not to say that teachers’ roles should not

change. Margaret Riel gave one major reason why

changes in this area are needed: “Teachers right

now do about six different jobs, and there’s no reason why one person has to do all six of those

jobs.”43 Carrying out custodial and disciplinary

tasks, collecting milk money, completing reports

and paperwork often take more time than the more

intellectually challenging functions that attracted

people to teaching in the first place—inspiring,

guiding, advising, and coaching students and imparting expertise.

Most of the experts consulted by OTA recommend significant changes in teacher roles and

school staffing patterns. Some commissioned papers envision a transformation in the relationships

between teacher and student, and some call for a

complete reconfiguring of instructional and administrative personnel. Several commissioned

papers also propose that people in the school’s local community (or networked community) play a

much larger role in teaching and learning by contributing their talents, knowledge, and energies to

working with students and teachers. All the commissioned papers demonstrate how technology

can bring local or distant experts, advisors, parents, colleagues, or friends into the school setting

to provide additional teaching and learning resources.

Student-Teacher Interactions

The Kozma and Grant paper describes a new kind

of interaction between teachers and students:44

To fulfill our vision, teachers would need to

learn not only to use the various technologies described in our scenarios, but also to design,

structure, guide and assess progress in learning

centered around student projects. This kind of

teaching, which most teachers have rarely experienced in their own education, requires wideranging subject matter expertise, creativity and

intellectual confidence. Teachers need to be

comfortable letting their students move into domains of knowledge where the teachers themselves lack expertise; teachers need to have the

intellectual confidence to be willing to model

their own reasoning process when they encounter phenomena they do not understand or questions they cannot answer. Teachers must be able

to roam from group to group physically and

electronically, providing stimulation and coaching without dominating the group process.

Workshop participant Stephen Marcus remarked that we all have mental images of the

“bad” teacher (the school marm or pedagogue) but

questioned why there are no “indelible iconic

images for the best kinds of education.”45 In response, Bruce Goldberg related a story about

changes in student perceptions of teacher roles. In

a collaborative project with Boston College, researchers at Bolt Beranek and Newman worked

with a classroom over the course of a year, integrating a range of technology-based innovations.

At the beginning of the year, the students had

drawn pictures of their classroom that featured the

teacher as the dominant figure. By the end of the

project, the students drew themselves—working

in groups and helping each other—as the dominant figures, although in discussion with the researchers, the students also identified the teacher

as exceedingly important. “The visual image of

what their life was like was not dominated by the

teacher, and that’s the distinction,” Goldberg ex42 Ibid.

43 Workshop transcript, p. 247.

44 Robert Kozma and Wayne Grant, op. cit., footnote 32.

45 Workshop transcript, p. 257.
14 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

plained. “The world that they inhabited was not

teacher directed, but the world that they inhabited

was impossible to conceive of without the facilitating work and nurturing care of that teacher.”46

School Staffing Structures for Instruction

Margaret Riel’s model calls for major changes in

school staffing structures for instructional positions. She sets forth four new levels: learning

guides (para-professionals), entry-level teachers,

mentor teachers, and master teachers.47

Learning guides don’t require a great deal of

academic preparation, but they need to have

good skills in working with and motivating students. . . . We wanted to arrive at a system that

included those who wanted a fast entry into

working with kids, but also provided a system of

rewards, a career ladder that would attract talented men and women into the challenge of continually assessing and evolving the best possible

educational system....

Entry teachers are beginning teachers. In

practice, most have full credentials, but they can

be hired with a provisional credential and finish

their credential work while they teach. . . . The

difference between a learning guide and an entry

teacher is time rather than money. Entry teachers have much more time for planning and for

developing ties in the professional community

of educators. It is these ties that will lead to professional work and pay.

The transition to mentor teacher will be

based on the productive use of this time....

Mentor teacher positions are very different than

traditional teaching positions—one-third of

their time is free for them to take on other tasks

that are related to their developing area of expertise. These might be consulting contracts, district resource positions, foundations and

government grants, or work at the university in

either research or education....

After five years of teaching as a mentor

teacher, a teacher can request or be recommended for a peer review for the position of

master teacher. . . . There is no pressure for all

mentor teachers to be master teachers. . . . You

have to be at the rank of master teacher to be a

member of the principal or superintendent

teams. But master teachers don’t have to be administrators.

Riel’s approach is designed to allow instructors

with different motives and capabilities to work at

the level of their interest and to create opportunities for teachers to advance without giving up

classroom instruction.

Community Involvement

Beverly Hunter and Bruce Goldberg predict a very

high degree of involvement by community members in learning and teaching. In their scenario, the

concept of lifelong learning is valued by all members of the community and almost every job involves a great deal of teaching and learning. In this

setting, teachers are responsible for coordinating

learning both inside and outside the traditional

school environment and gain greater respect from

the community. Hunter and Goldberg note additional benefits that occur when teachers work with

teacher colleagues and other community members:48

In all these instances teaching roles are richer

and more vibrant than teachers now occupy.

Teachers are guides and mentors and learners,

rather than mere dispensers of knowledge. Information resource facilitator, assessment specialist, technology expert, team manager and

facilitator, child development expert, subject

matter specialist—all these multiple roles

teachers are now beginning to assume must be

understood as unfolding within a team environment. Not every teacher need be an expert in

each role. What is necessary, however, are

changed expectations for, and conditions within, the profession of teaching.

46 Workshop transcript, p. 259.

47 Margaret Riel, op. cit., footnote 36

48 Beverly Hunter and Bruce Goldberg, op. cit., footnote 15.
Education and Technology: Future Visions | 15

How Technology Helps

While these changes in teacher roles, staffing, and

pedagogy can occur without technology, they are

all easier to accomplish with technology. On the

most basic level, technology can help with paperwork management, thereby freeing up valuable

time for teachers to work more directly with students. Technology can also facilitate other more

profound transformations by opening the teacher’s world to new experts and resources through

telecommunications networks, by creating new

opportunities for collaborative teaching, learning,

and curriculum design, and by offering creative

learning environments, simulations, and experiences, as shown in the scenarios.

The new roles, techniques, and teaching styles

proposed in the scenarios would require that

teachers receive significant training and continuing support in such areas as project-based learning, authentic assessment, community outreach,

and technology integration. As OTA found in

Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection, this kind of preparation is far from the norm

in most teacher education programs and is seldom

provided as a part of continuing professional development for those already in the classroom.49

❚ An Expanded View of the

Learning Community

An expanded concept of a learning community,

with stronger links among school, home, workplace, and neighborhood, is central to several of

the future visions discussed in the papers and the

workshop. In these future visions, technology

provides schools with access to many more resources beyond the constraints of the traditional

“closed” classroom, to the point that, as workshop

participant Ted Kahn suggested, “the notion of

school as a building drops away. . .the school becomes a consortium of available resources,

people, teachers, and kids who can provide value

to others.”50

In their paper, Kozma and Grant suggest this

definition of community:51

A community is a collection of individuals

who are bonded together either by geography or

by common purpose, shared values and expectations, and a web of meaningful relationships. In

the communities that we envision in this paper—what we call “communities of understanding”—education is the common purpose,

learning is highly valued, and a high level of

academic achievement is expected of students

and their schools. . . . Today, schools, homes,

and workplaces function separately—connected by geography and circumstances but

infrequently by common purpose and collaborative action. But in our vision of communities of

understanding, digital technologies are used to

interweave schools, homes, workplaces, libraries, museums, and social services to re-integrate education into the fabric of the

community.

Margaret Riel, on the other hand, reinforced the

importance of both local and virtual communities:

“I see community in two ways, both the geographic community and the virtual communities that we

can create on-line. In the virtual communities, we

need to bring together the educational community,

find ways for them to talk more with one another

and share what they’re doing.”52 In Riel’s scenario, the local community plays a significant role in

education, connecting the school to the working

world and supporting the teachers through a

school-community council. The global community offers additional resources, accessible through

electronic and telecommunications technology.

49 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Teachers and Technology, op. cit., footnote 4, pp. 165-206.

50 Workshop transcript, p. 224.

51 Robert Kozma and Wayne Grant, op. cit., footnote 32.

52 Workshop transcript, p. 323.
16 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

One of Riel’s fictional narrators explains how

schools interact with both kinds of communities:53

Many of the ideas for our plan have come

from our work on-line with schools around the

world. Working with distant teachers has resulted in many new ideas that I don’t think we

would have had without electronic connections. . . . By making it possible for our teachers

to work with the larger educational community,

they have developed expertise in national and

international arenas which enriches their teaching and brings many rewards to the whole district.

[In the local community] our Community

Council is a combination of our former PTA and

school site council. One of the things we do as

part of the council is to encourage all community members to come to our exhibitions—even if

they don’t have children. We want them to see

the school as their school. Everyone needs to be

involved, not just parents.

The model presented by Hunter and Goldberg

in “The Big Dig” emphasizes how technology can

bring together learning, work, family, and neighborhood in ways that are far from typical in

schools today:54

Ten years ago [in 1995], teachers and students spent all their time in “school buildings,”

sealed away from the vital life of learning and

information their communities offered. On the

other hand, the majority of adults were not a part

of the formal educational system and thus had

little opportunity to participate in organized

learning activities. Advances in communications technology had helped break down some

of the walls.

[As an outgrowth of several federal and state

initiatives] the Boston Metropolitan Education

Region (BMER) was funded by a combination

of these federal, state, industry, and local

funds. . . . As its first pilot project, BMER issued a Request for Proposal to students, teachers, and community members inviting them to

design a nine-week project that would engage

all the participants in collaborative projects

without regard to the political boundaries of

their school districts.

Participants and contractors suggested that

technology is the key to making schools more inclusive and more connected with the home, the

workplace, and the local or global learning community. Otherwise, the scheduling, security,

transportation, and other realities make the concept of an interconnected community of learning

seem “totally unworkable.”55 “The Big Dig” continues:56

[After a few years of juggling schedules to

continue supporting both individual schools and

the new collaborative projects] the very contentious issue of scheduling had come to a head in

the BMER. It had been extremely frustrating to

try to conduct city-wide learning activities that

were constantly competing with the rigid class

schedules of the separate schools. The separate

schools were also at a point of crisis about scheduling because they were also attempting to conduct interdisciplinary project-based learning

activities that could not function in 45-minute

class periods. . . . [T]hey realized that the

technology they were using could free them

from some of the time constraints of their school

traditions.

Telecommunications technology makes it possible to “knock down walls” between schools and

the community. Group projects can involve

people from very different areas, even different

countries, and teachers and students can interact

on more equal footing with others in the outside

53 Margaret Riel, op. cit., footnote 36.

54 Beverly Hunter and Wayne Goldberg, op. cit., footnote 15.

55 Robert Kozma, workshop transcript, p. 82.

56 Beverly Hunter and Bruce Goldberg, op. cit., footnote 15.
Education and Technology: Future Visions | 17

world. In the GLOBE program57 and similar telecommunications projects, students around the

world become researchers, collecting, sharing,

and analyzing data on meaningful topics identified by international scientists, who then use the

data as part of a growing database on scientific

topics such as worldwide ecological change. For

example, one group is analyzing the effects of

ozone layer depletion on various species of pine

trees around the world. When the school and the

community beyond its walls, whether local or

global, become partners in the advancement of

knowledge and understanding of issues of common concern, the work of each of the partners

within the learning community is valued by all

members.

Similarly, in the vision of Kozma and Grant,

technology links students not just to their local

community, but to the global community. In their

scenario, a hazardous railroad fuel spill in South

Africa prompts students in a California school to

begin a project about how to make tank cars safer.

The project has immediacy for the students because they can communicate with people directly

affected by the spill.58

The students decide to make an interactive

multimedia report as their final product. “You

need to think about your audience for the report,” comments Mr. Shepherd, their language

arts teacher, “and what they would want to know

about your topic.”

The students decide they will interview

Steve’s South African friend Nelson [a “telecommunications-pal”] and ask his schoolmates

to collaborate with them by gathering video

images and other local information about the

train accident that can be integrated with the information they create. They will also talk to

community members in the McAuliffe neighborhood and see whether there have been any

fuel spills in the area during the past year. Finally, they will come up with some suggestions for

how to stop fuel spills. They will store their report on the community video server and make it

available throughout the community-access

cable channel and send it to Nelson and his

South African classmates. The report will conclude by taking viewers to the Environmental

Chat Room on the GlobalNet, where they can

talk to scientists, environmentalists, and others

about the problem and potential solutions.

A sense of community, which is fostered and

maintained by technology, drives the interest of

the students in this scenario and pushes them to investigate difficult subjects. Technology makes the

rest of the world newly accessible and newly relevant to them.

❚ Is There A “Down Side” to Technology?

Not all contractors and workshop participants

were fully optimistic about the impact of technological advancements on education. The “dark

side of technology” could include several areas:59

 Downsizing of the teaching force as staffing

patterns are altered. (Many workshop participants felt that major changes in staffing, such

as those proposed by Riel in her paper, would

be challenged by teachers and administrators

who faced possible job loss.)

 Greater inequalities in knowledge and skills

among different groups of students due to differential access to technological resources.

Will adding more technology to the most technologically advanced schools exacerbate discrepancies between the technology “haves”

and “have nots,” creating inequalities in access

to information between students who attend the

“have not” schools and students who attend the

“have” schools?

 Concerns about whether learning through

technology is always the best way for students

57 Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE), 744 Jackson Place, NW, Washington, DC 20503. For more

information contact info@globe.gov.

58 Robert Kozma and Wayne Grant, op. cit., footnote 32.

59 Workshop transcript, p. 150.
18 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

to learn. Will an over-emphasis on technology

mean that students who would benefit from direct, traditional instruction get lost in the

shuffle of changing approaches to teaching and

learning?

 Potential harmful influences from opening the

sheltered class to the outside world. Telecommunications networks could give students easier access to questionable or dangerous

elements, such as pornography on the Internet.

Proponents of rapid technology integration

counter by saying that the education reformers

share this concern to avoid the “down sides” of

technology. One participant noted: “It’s largely

because we understand the dark side of technology that we feel such a responsibility to ensure the

beneficial applications and to try to minimize the

dark side.”60

IS THERE A FEDERAL ROLE?

The viability of many of the future scenarios will

depend largely on value choices and economic investment decisions made by Congress, state and

local policymakers, and the American public.

Realizing the most promising of these future visions will entail a greater commitment to education—in both funding and energy—than the

United States is making today. However, advancements in educational technology and developments in educational reforms are taking place at

the same time the nation is undergoing a very critical debate about government and other institutional responsibilities in education. The next five to 10

years are likely to see major changes in federal,

state, and local roles in education. Congress is

considering decisions that will greatly affect the

amount of federal funding for education, the number and type of federal education programs, and

the nature of federal education requirements. Congress is also making decisions in the area of

telecommunications infrastructure policy and

regulation that will have an enormous impact on

whether schools have access to technology and a

defined place in the National Information Infrastructure.

The current movement in education appears

headed toward decreased federal funding, fewer

federal programs and requirements, and shifts of

education responsibilities from the federal to the

state and local levels. Together these developments suggest the need for policy discussions that

examine the federal role in conjunction with state,

local, and private sector roles and that look at creative options for providing financing and leadership from a variety of sources, not just the federal

level. State and local policies for education, telecommunications regulations, and the policies of

local public utilities commissions are also critical.

Workshop participants devoted much discussion to the roles the federal government might

play in advancing appropriate uses of technology

to support learning. Many of the options mentioned were consistent with the realities of limited

federal funding and fewer requirements on local

schools. The options suggested include supporting and disseminating models of effective

practice, providing research and development activities, assuring equity, and encouraging new

funding sources. These federal options are not

novel. What was unique was the consideration

given to how technology itself might improve

traditional federal models of evaluation, dissemination, funding, and equity.

❚ Support for Models of Effective Practice

One clear federal role suggested by workshop participants was that of evaluating, promoting, and

disseminating the innovative and promising activities already being undertaken by local centers of

technology excellence. The federal government

could support and encourage the “scaling up” of

these kinds of innovative learning communities.

“Innovation is local,” said Beverly Hunter. “We

have to be locally opportunistic about the nature

of innovation. Because each locality has different

60 Beverly Hunter, workshop transcript, p. 156.
Education and Technology: Future Visions | 19

resources and different expertise. . .[consider] the

possibilities of getting synergy from sharing

across localities both know-how and resources.”61

Some participants suggested that the federal

government establish mechanisms that encourage

creation and sharing of local processes in support

of education—empowerment zones—that provide incentives for business to develop stronger

relationships with schools, hospitals, or others;

perhaps relationships in which shared investments in telecommunications networks benefit all

users.

❚ Research and Development Activities

Consistent with the old saying about giving a

hungry man a rod and teaching him to fish, the federal government might subsidize the educational

equivalent of the “better fishing rod” or “special

worms”—development support for technological

tools that help make localized activities more effective, such as software tools for better network

access, curriculum materials using the capabilities

of newer technologies, pornography firewalls, or

new teaching tools such as those used in science

experiments, mathematical reasoning, or design

activities.

❚ Promoting Equity

Participants also expressed concern that issues of

equity remain central to the federal vision. While

most welcomed the developments that are bringing powerful learning technologies into the home,

many pointed out the possibility of even greater

imbalances in learning opportunities among various groups, including parents who can afford a

curriculum-based multimedia learning system for

their children and those who cannot. How can imbalances be corrected between the community that

commits an $8 million local bond to wiring the

schools and the one next door that does not?

❚ Funding Sources

Participants in OTA’s workshop debated where

funding might come from that could provide all

children with equal access to the best available

learning and communication tools. One suggestion was that the federal government provide significant start-up support for infrastructure

development, as was done with the interstate

highway system. Another suggestion was to encourage private sector investment in schools

through innovative tax policy. As Nancy Hechinger suggested, “What if you say to corporations that you could [choose to] not pay 10 percent

of your corporate tax if it goes to education? Or let

every corporation in the community elect, like the

federal income tax check off for Presidential elections, to allow a portion of their taxes to go directly to a school?”62

Others suggested that schools pay for reform

and technology investments the way that businesses have: by reducing labor costs through eliminating teaching or administrative positions,

reshuffling staff, or automating certain duties with

technology, and investing the savings in technology. This option is similar to the funding mechanisms proposed in Margaret Riel’s scenario,

which eliminates some administrative positions

in favor of collaborative teacher leadership and

creates a new salary scale for the four levels of

instructional positions. Her scenario projected relatively low yearly costs for reform despite substantial technology investments.

The Hunter and Goldberg scenario also assumes some cuts in personnel costs through workforce restructuring. The main funding for “The

Big Dig” project, however, is envisioned to come

from a cooperative venture of local, state, and federal governments and private industry, working

through a hypothetical “Boston Metropolitan

Educational Region.” Hunter and Goldberg sug61 Workshop transcript, p. 280.

62 Workshop transcript, p. 295.
20 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

gest that entities such as the BMER could be financed through a combination of such means as:

 money drawn from a “lifelong learning account,” created for each citizen at birth and expended throughout an individual’s life for a

variety of learning activities;

 revenues earned by non-profit educational corporations from the creation and sale of socially

useful products or services and from leasing

space during off-hours;

 income from “entrepreneurial education zone”

activities, in which teachers and students produce knowledge with economic value, such as

selling information on Web pages, working

with local businesses, or generating ideas,

products, and information of value to communities; and

 support from the biotechnology, finance, software, and other industries for learning centers

that train people and provide school-to-work

transition services.

In addition, the Hunter and Goldberg vignettes

presume innovative use of space and facilities, including:

 satellite learning centers, such as the public

educational facilities that businesses in Dade

County, Florida and elsewhere have built on

their premises;

 shared use of public and private facilities, such

as municipal buildings, libraries, and corporate

job retraining centers;

 neglected buildings that could be renovated for

educational use by public-private partnerships,

with incentives from federal enterprise zone

legislation; and

 new and renovated schools designed with advice on best design practices from community

experts, foundations, or federally disseminated

research sources.

Hunter and Goldberg also suggest that research

and development about technology-based learning and cognition could be supported by requiring

a percentage of funding in support of school

reform to be devoted to conducting and disseminating research on the learning outcomes of alternative approaches to teaching and curriculum,

including the integration of technology into these

activities.

WILL PROMISING VISIONS

BECOME A REALITY?

Can the technological changes presented in the

most promising of these visions become reality?

Workshop participants were divided on how much

change can be expected in schooling. They concurred that change usually comes slowly to

schools but they agreed that when required,

schools can and do change.

As one analyst wrote, “Like battleships, the

schools are large, powerful, cumbersome institutions, difficult to maneuver” and slow to change

direction.63 Nevertheless, schools have changed

when there is strong pressure or good reason;

schools today are the result of several generations

of reform in such areas as desegregation, curricular emphasis, and special education. Reform

based on technology presents many unique challenges, however. Past reforms were not dependent

upon instructional technologies, and it was not until the 1980s that school reformers began to seize

on electronic technologies as a way of “unfreezing

the perceived inefficiencies and rigidities of

American schooling.”64

In his early work, Alvin Toffler believed the

educational system would be a leader in embracing technology, incorporating it long before industry and private organizations. He believed that

schools by nature were more likely to embrace

change, citing a “venturesome spirit which stands

63 Patricia Graham, op. cit., footnote 22, p. 4.

64Larry Cuban, “Public School Teachers Using Machines in the Next Decade,” OTA contractor report, November 1994, NTIS No. 95-172243.
Education and Technology: Future Visions | 21

in total contrast to the security-minded orthodoxy

and conformity associated with the organization.”65 This optimism about school change was

misplaced; 25 years after this prediction, business

and industry are technologically far ahead of the

schools, and schools are struggling to keep up despite the benefits that technology offers them.

Workshop participants and contractors cautioned against easy comparisons with business.

“Schools differ substantially from other institutions in their workplace characteristics, in the nature of teaching children, and in public

expectations . . . [school structures are] profoundly difficult to change.”66 Others noted the fundamental difference between business, in which the

goal is to “do” and the bottom line is profit, and

schools, in which the goal is to “be” and the bottom lines are many (e.g., meeting the social mandate). They suggested that schools find their own

models for restructuring and not take their guidance from business.

Larry Cuban explains his view of why the integration of technology will not occur at the rapid

pace many envision:67

Technophiles . . . often minimize the power

of social beliefs that have endured for centuries

and perform important functions in society. Beliefs that teaching is telling, learning is listening,

knowledge is subject matter taught by teachers

and books, and the teacher-student relationship

is crucial to any learning dominate much popular and practitioner thinking. Most parents expect their schools to reflect those centuries-old

beliefs.

Larry Cuban’s paper offers three scenarios of

possible educational change involving technology: the technophile’s vision in which electronic

schools of the future become widespread rather

quickly; the preservationist’s scenario in which

schools maintain their current features but add

technology as an important yet peripheral component; and the cautious optimist’s scenario, in

which schools move slowly toward fundamental

changes in teaching and schooling using technologies. He argues that the time and rate of technology-based school reform may vary by grade and

kind of school. At the high school level, change

may be relatively slow, more in keeping with the

preservationist’s model, in which “policy makers

and administrators put computers and telecommunication technologies into school largely to

improve productivity but not to alter substantially

existing ways of organizing a school for instruction.”68 At the elementary school level, the cautious optimist’s model may be more likely.

Cuban bases these different predictions on

what he sees as fundamental differences between

elementary schools and secondary schools:69

Public elementary and secondary schools differ markedly in the complexity of content students face in classrooms, teachers’ formal

training, allocation of time to instruction, and

external arrangements imposed upon both levels

from other institutions. . . . The point that I wish

to make is that how the age-graded school is organized for instruction at the two levels determines to a large degree which scenario will most

likely occur. The preservationist’s scenario is

most likely in high schools where academic subjects reign, teachers’ training was in disciplinary

content, and the number of classes and students

teachers teach remains high. The cautious optimist’s scenario is more likely to occur in

elementary schools where organizational differences make shifts in practice possible and where

hybrids of teacher-centered and student-centered instruction have, indeed, evolved slowly

over the last century.

65 Alvin Toffler, Future Shock, op. cit., footnote 11, p. 148.

66 Larry Cuban, op. cit., footnote 64.

67 Ibid.

68 Ibid.

69 Ibid.
22 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

The problem, suggested some workshop participants, is not so much in getting schools to

adopt something new, but rather in getting them to

give up the old, thereby creating time, resources,

and enthusiasm for the new. Far too often,

technology is an add-on rather than an “instead

of.” Similarly, in order for teachers to take on new

roles, they must be allowed to drop some of the

old; otherwise, they end up with an unbearable

load of responsibilities on their shoulders.

The papers by Bosco, Riel, Kozma and Grant,

and Hunter and Goldberg anticipate faster change

and more radical revisions in schooling than does

Cuban’s. As described (box 1), the future is difficult to predict, and more promising futures do not

just happen.

CHOOSING A FUTURE

The American educational system is at a crossroads as regards both technology and broader

education reform. More and more people inside

and outside the schools are calling for deep and

fundamental changes in school organization,

instruction, content, and processes. This climate

creates an opportunity for innovation that has perhaps not been present for over a century. Technological advances provide additional impetus for

reform and also offer new tools for implementing

their reform.

Whether the nation will have the vision and

commitment needed to make courageous choices

about education reform remains to be seen. On

one hand, the cumulative evidence over the past

25 years suggests that schools are more resistant

to change and have less of the “venturesome spirit” that Alvin Toffler saw in them in 1970.70 And

on a national level, there is no clear agreement

about the kinds of reforms needed in education,

the level of commitment required to achieve

meaningful reform, or the role of technology in

education reform. On the one hand, there are those

who suggest what is needed are traditional approaches: a return to basics and greater investment

in staff and textbooks rather than investments in

new information technologies. On the other hand,

many communities around the nation are demonstrating how technology and reform can come together and produce effective results.71 The stated

commitment of the Administration to put all the

nation’s schools on the National Information

Infrastructure and the expressed interest of congressional leaders in increasing the use of technologies in education are promising steps, but

whether these goals will be fulfilled remains to be

seen. There is no guarantee that this vision will not

become another casualty of shifting culture and

political winds.

Perhaps the real factor that will determine the

future of technology in education reform will be

the extent of the national commitment to a high

level of learning for all students. As one leading

educator observed, providing only data, even on

an information superhighway, may not be enough.

He distinguished among data, information (data

with a context), knowledge (information with usefulness), and wisdom (knowledge informed by

sensibility and experience).72 How do we Americans define knowledge, let alone wisdom? How

do we recognize it? What kinds of learning do we

really want for our children? How do colleges,

universities, and employers characterize and reward different levels of learning? In 1948 Vannevar Bush and his contemporaries were concerned

with the creation of information, and in that con70 Alvin Toffler, Future Shock, op. cit., footnote 11.

71 For a brief review of the state of the art in technology effectiveness research, see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Teachers

and Technology, op. cit., footnote 4.

72 Stephen Marcus, panel discussion on, “Hypermedia and Lifelong Learning. . .50 Years After Vannevar Bush. . . And Beyond,” National

Educational Computing Conference, 1995.
Education and Technology: Future Visions 123

Technological advances always invite speculation about their impact on the future Often projections about technology are wildly optimistic or utopian, and just as often they vastly underestimate the

impact of a technology An example of the tendency toward optimism IS Thomas Edison’s claim that the

motion picture would result in the elimination of textbooks from schools. ’ And a famous example of the

tendency toward underplaying IS the reaction of the chief engineer of the British Post Off Ice who, upon

hearing news of the invention of the telephone, reportedly told his colleagues, “The Americans have

need of the telephone, but we do not We have plenty of messenger boys “2 More recently, even presidents of major computer companies have failed to foresee the huge demand for computers Shortly

after World War II, Thomas J Watson, Sr., founder of IBM, “predicted that five machines would make up

the world market for computers “

3 And in 1970, Kenneth Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment, stated he

saw “no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home “

Other predictions have been close to the mark; in 1945, Vannevar Bush predicted the invention of

a device he called the “memex, ” in which “an individual stores all his books, records and communications, and which IS mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility’’4—not

far removed from today’s computers with CD-ROMs and Internet connections

Similarly, past predictions about the future of education have also tended toward the utopian or

the dire, and have generally overestimated how quickly schools would change Futurists such as

George Leonard in his 1968 book Education and Ecstasy5 share a view that schools and technologies

wiII advance together Many of today’s education futurists, including most of the OTA contractors and

workshop participants, also suggest that the impact of technology on education could be profound For

example, in his paper “Schooling and Learning in an Information Society, ” James Bosco describes

what he sees as the climate for change set in place by Information technology: 6

There is little reason to believe that information technology wiII bring either heaven or hell to earth, but It IS

clear that information technology IS causing profound changes in how we Iive, work, play, and learn Many wiII

continue to debate whether Information technology IS making our Iives better or worse, but there IS little argument

that information technology IS making our Iives very different than they were before this technology was Invented

The changes caused by Information technology in what and how children, youth, and adults learn are not

something we await in the future, we are in the midst of these changes Information technology IS transforming

the amount and nature of the Information content of civilization as well as the processes whereby this Information

IS acquired The modest changes in the nature and conduct of schooling in recent decades stand amidst monumental changes in how, when, where and what Iearning occurs in our society As Information technology-based

learning opportunities become increasingly ubiquitous and efficacious, schooling, teaching, and Iearning wiII

take on a new character and a new balance between school and non-school Iearning wiII be established

1 Larry Cuban, Teachers and Machines The Classroom Use of Technology Since 1920 (New York, NY: Teachers College

Press. 1986), p. 9.

2 A.C. Clarke, How the World Was Won (New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1992), p. 224, as cited in J. Bosco, p. 1.

3 D. Leebaert, “Later Than We Think: How the Future Has Arrived,” Technology 2001 The Future of Computing and

Communications, D. Leebaert (ed.) (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991), cited in Bosco, p. 2.

4 Vannevar Bush, “As We May Think, “ Life, Sept. 10, 1945.

5 George Leonard, op. cit., footnote 8.

6 James Bosco, op. cit., footnote 33, pp. 2-3.

text, machines are capable of success. But the ulti- These papers and workshop created a basis for

mate goal—instilling wisdom—is a much harder discussion. The issues they raise for the future for

one to meet. America’s children are too important to ignore.
Appendix A

Schooling and

Learning in an

Information Society

“We have now reached the stage when virtually anything we want to do in the field of

communications is possible: the constraints are no longer technical, but economic, legal,

or political.” Arthur C. Clarke (3)

hether one considers it a curse or a blessing to be born in

“interesting” times, such is the plight or good fortune of

the current generation. Events and inventions of the past

several years strain credulity even for those accustomed

to seeing the unlikely occur. There is little doubt that the years at

the later part of the 20th century will provide a rich subject for historians as they explain to future generations the remarkable

events of today. Those of us living amid this period of monumental change are faced with the difficult task of pulling back to gain

perspective to see what is so close to us.

No developments among those of the past several decades are

of greater consequence than those pertaining to information and

communications technology. We have come to the point where

indeed as Arthur Clarke says, “anything we want to do in the field

of communications is possible.” This audacious statement is correct even when we broaden the scope to include information/computer technology; for indeed, the line between communications

and information technologies is sufficiently blurred so that it is

impossible to know where one ends and the other begins.

The relevance for students and teachers of a technology that is

used by scientists, technicians, business people, public officials,

and others as the dominant means to create, store, and distribute

information is obvious. As computer applications for personal

productivity become increasingly powerful and prevalent, and as

networks become the “places” where scientific, technical, and

cultural information is stored, there is little reason to wonder if | 25

by

James Bosco

Western Michigan University
26 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

such technology belongs in schools. Schools, no

less than other agencies, and more than many,

need to take advantage of information technology.

The essence of the issue for schools is this: If anything is possible, what should we make probable

in schools? What should be done to make the immense capability of information technology a

means for improving the lives of our children and

for enabling them to live productive and satisfying

lives in an increasingly complex and changing

world?

Every new technology brings with it speculation about the impact of the technology on the future. Looking back, it is not difficult to find those

who look silly because they badly underestimated

the significance of a major technological advance.

Arthur Clarke tells of the reaction of the chief engineer of the British Post Office upon hearing of

the news of Alexander Graham Bell’s invention.

He told his colleagues, “The Americans have need

of the telephone—but we do not. We have plenty

of messenger boys . . . ” (3). This British Postal

Official made the mistake of thinking that the telephone would fit—or fail to fit—into the world as

he knew it. He did not allow the possibility that the

telephone would generate other developments

which, in a sense, would remake the world so as

to create a place for itself. Similarly the impact of

computer technology has been misunderstood

even by some who we might think would have

been unlikely to do so. Shortly after World War II,

Thomas J. Watson Sr. predicted that five machines

would make up the world market for computers

and, as recently as 1970, Kenneth Olsen, the

founder of Digital Equipment Company, was

quoted as saying that he saw “no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home”(17).

“Solemn prophesy,” J. B. Priestly is reported to

have said, “is obviously a futile proceeding, except insofar as it makes our descendants laugh”

(16).

Speculation about the impact of technology

often takes a utopian tone; the technology is seen

as the means to achieve whatever lofty goals the

proponent espouses. Ralph Waldo Emerson, who

believed that America was destined to be a pastoral republic, hailed the advent of the steam locomotive. Railroad travel, he believed, would

disperse the population to rural communities. As

a result of the invention of the steam locomotive,

Emerson believed that the time was coming when,

in his words, “the whole land is a garden and the

people have grown up in the bowers of a paradise”

(14). Emerson’s prediction reads no more quaint

or mistaken than the statements from computer

proponents which abounded in the early 1980s

about a “computer revolution” which would transform the schools and turn them into their own realization of an educational paradise by the end of

that decade.

New technologies typically also generate a

body of apocalyptic commentary. While Emerson

greeted railroad technology as a means for improving the human condition, his contemporary

Herman Melville was among those who feared

that the machines emerging during this time

would undermine the human condition. The

theme of technology as a nefarious force which reduces human control and denigrates human values

is longstanding. This has been the case with computers and information technology. Many persons

have expressed the fear that computers would depersonalize schools as children sat before a screen

without any human contact from teacher or peers.

The record of past technologies suggests that

the consequences of technology are seldom, if

ever, so consistent or unambiguous to warrant either the utopian or apocalyptic characterization.

There is little reason to believe that information

technology will bring either heaven or hell to

earth; but it is clear that information technology is

causing profound changes in how we live, work,

play, and learn. Many will continue to debate

whether information technology is making our

lives better or worse, but there is little argument

that information technology is making our lives

very different from what they were before this

technology was invented.

The changes caused by information technology

in what and how children, youth, and adults learn

are not something we await in the future; we are

in the midst of these changes. Information

technology is transforming the amount and nature

of the informational content of civilization as well
Appendix A Schooling and Learning in an Information Society | 27

as the processes whereby this information is acquired. The modest changes in the nature and conduct of schooling in recent decades stand amidst

monumental changes in how, when, where, and

what learning occurs in our society. As information technology-based learning opportunities become increasingly ubiquitous and efficacious,

schooling, teaching, and learning will take on a

new character and the establishment of a new balance between school and nonschool learning will

be established.

CURRENT CONDITIONS IN SCHOOLS

In the past couple of decades, the plight of United

States public schools has been documented in

many books and articles; thus, a detailed account

is not necessary here. A brief recapitulation of key

aspects of the current status of schools will provide the context for the ensuing discussion.

 Widespread dissatisfaction. With the publication of A Nation at Risk, concerns which had

been building in the preceding years about the

American public schools coalesced and

achieved prominence. Concerns about declining test scores, the fitness of American young

people to provide the skills required by American business and industry, and the prevalence

of drugs and violence in American public

schools became a major issue in federal and

state political campaigns, as well as a popular

story in the print and broadcast media.

 Federal, state, and local reform efforts. Dissatisfaction about the status of the schools led

to the creation of America 2000 which was the

federal response to the need for a national reform of American schools. Many state legislatures enacted reform legislation of various

types, such as charter schools, mandated school

reform plans from local districts, lengthening

of the school day or the school year, etc. At the

local level, thousands of reform projects were

initiated. While most of these were modest in

intent and scope, a number of more extensive

efforts were launched.

 Privatization. A number of school districts entered into contracts with private corporations to

provide services previously provided by public

employees, such as custodial work, transportation, special education, etc. The most extensive

use of “contracting out” by a public school was

announced in October 1994, when Minneapolis-based Education Alternatives, Inc. entered

into a contract with the Hartford Public School

District to run its schools. The Edison Project

led by Frank Whittle was an even more ambitious plan for school privatization. This project, which began as an effort to develop a

nationwide network of schools under the aegis

of a private, for-profit corporation, more recently has entered into negotiations with school

districts to develop contracts to provide

instructional programs in a manner similar to

Education Alternatives, Inc. By the later part of

1944, fiscal distress in the Whittle empire made

the future of the Edison project tenuous.

 Constraints. Even though school reform laws

have been enacted in states throughout the nation, state law and policy is frequently a barrier

to change. Collective bargaining agreements

also offer a substantial obstacle to change. College entrance requirements form yet another

barrier since entrance requirements play a substantial role in setting curriculum requirements

for high schools. Parents who may support curriculum changes at the high school become less

supportive if it appears that the changes will

compromise their child’s college entrance. The

climate and morale of schools provides yet

another barrier. In some cases teachers and administrators may resist change, but it is not uncommon to find instances wherein teachers

supportive of the need for change “do themselves in” with a self-fulfilling prophesy of failure based on past experiences.

 Technology integration. Much of the discussion about schools and information technology

in the 1980s and 1990s has focused on how the

technology could be integrated with the existing fabric of life in schools. From a political, as

well as from a business point of view, this may

be a plausible stance. If the task is to sell computers to schools or to persuade teachers to use

them, then it is sensible to try to make them fit
28 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

into schools as they are now. If, however, the

task is to use information technology to renovate schools, then the disintegrative aspect of

the technology becomes the focus. Information

technology becomes a means for disrupting existing practices and for creating a new way of

schooling rather than becoming an accouterment to the existing practices.

PURPOSE AND FOCUS

This paper is written for the United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment study entitled “Teachers and Technology.” The purpose of

the paper is to analyze the opportunities, prospects, problems, and barriers for technological

change and its impact on K-12 schooling in the

next five to 10 years. The question which serves

as the focal point of this paper is: What are the implications of information technology for schools

and learning in American society?

The use of the two terms “schooling” and

“learning” in the title of this paper is not a redundancy. The pivotal point in this paper is the distinction between schooling and learning.

Learning refers to the fundamental human process

by which individuals acquire the knowledge,

skills, attitudes, and perspectives which enable

them to function in society. Functionality requires

a range of complex skills such as language, understanding of rules of conduct and social interaction,

life skills such as required by the specifics of the

environment wherein the individual lives, and an

array of cognitive skills such as reading, writing,

etc. Schooling refers to the institution which, for

the past century and a half in the United States, has

been expected to accomplish the preponderance of

learning outcomes for children and youth.

Schools operate within a framework of well-established, and until recently, well-accepted policies, practices, and conventions. The educational

impact of information technology is not confined

to schools, and it is only when the broader implications of information technology for where

and how learning takes place in society beyond the

boundaries of the school are considered that we

can understand what can and should done in

schools.

Information technology, which has caused a

transformation in so much of how life is lived in

the waning days of the 20th century, has not bypassed how learning occurs in American society

and will affect schooling, even though such has

not occurred to any appreciable extent at present.

Many persons have called for schools to be proactive with regard to the implications of information

technology for school practices. There is less reason to be concerned about the lack of proactiveness in schools on this matter than their lack of

reactivity. Teachers, administrators, and policymakers need to understand what is happening all

around them and react to cause the changes to

make schooling harmonious with a new way of

living, working, playing, and learning.

In order to understand the full significance of

the impact of information technology on human

life and learning in particular, it is necessary to

step back and take a quick journey through a half

million years of human existence.

THE THREE GREAT CODES AND THE

CREATION OF HUMAN CULTURE

Over the span of human history, from the dawn of

time to the present moment, there have been three

great inventions which have shaped the development of human culture. Each of these inventions

has been an innovation in communication, and in

each instance a new chapter was begun in the story

of civilization. The current generation is in the

midst of the invention of one of these codes and

is witness to changes of a magnitude which are

rare; only a handful of generations among the

thousands who have walked on earth have ever experienced events such as these.

In the beginning was the thought. Certainly,

there could not have been the word had there not

been the thought. Human beings have an inner life

of the mind. They think, and it is the ability of

homo sapiens to be conscious of what he or she is

thinking about which is the basis for the creation

of human culture. As a human being we can
Appendix A Schooling and Learning in an Information Society | 29

“look” into our own mind and “reflect” on our

thoughts. We see the faces of those whom we encounter, but we are not privy to their inner life unless they choose to tell us about it. Nevertheless,

we know that their minds, like ours, are spinning

a tapestry woven of thoughts and feelings. Writers

such as Proust tried to present a representation of

“stream of consciousness” in their work, but it is

terribly difficult to provide a completely faithful

representation of human consciousness because

of the dynamic and amorphous nature of consciousness.

Human beings had consciousness long before

they had any particularly effective language system to tell others about it unless a scream of pain,

a sigh of ecstasy, or a grunt of approbation is to be

considered a language system. The initial step in

the story of the creation of human culture was the

invention of the first great code which was used to

put what was in the mind into a form which enabled the transmission of the inner world of the

mind to others. Sounds produced in the larynx

were used to represent cognition, and as language

developed, increasing richness and subtlety of expression was possible.

The invention of speech changed the human

condition. Even with the fullest power of our

imagination, it is difficult to get a good sense of

how different life must have been when human beings existed together without the ability to talk to

one another. With speech it became possible not

only for one person to see another’s face, but also

to hear what was in their mind. Unlike the changes

resulting from information technology which are

occurring in the world at present, changes which

are propelling us from one era to a new one in the

span of a generation, the development of speech

occurred over thousands of years. Thus, the

changes in how the increasing sophistication of

speech affected the nature of human existence

were so gradual as to be scarcely noticed.

Speech provided a new dimension to human interaction. Speech made thought a social commodity. With speech it became possible to make public

and to store human cognition. The knowledge of

individuals could be accumulated and the accumulated knowledge of the society was stored in

the brains of the elders. By memorizing the accumulated knowledge of the society and by passing

it to successive generations by word of mouth, the

products of human minds achieved a durability

beyond the life span of the humans “who thought

them up.” Just as a person could leave the product

of their hands such as a bowl or an ax to their progeny, speech now enabled them to leave behind the

products of their mind—their stories, their truths,

their ideas.

Speech was responsible for the first and, in a

sense, the most important information revolution.

The spoken word provided a means for humans to

put structure to thought and to transmit it to others.

By so doing, information was created. Speech

made it possible for one person to tell something

to another person, i.e., for one person to inform

another. Information may be significant or trivial,

true or false, valuable or worthless, but in each

case the transference of information requires a

shared coding system which makes the information intelligible to those who know the code. The

nature of the coding system and the second order

consequences which result from it create distinct

conventions, processes, and beliefs pertaining to

the accumulated information of the culture.

The second great step occurred with the development of a code which made use of graphic symbols to record speech. The earliest known use of

graphics was the cave drawings of the Upper Paleolithic period, c. 30,000 - 10,000 BC, in southwestern France. The earliest use of writing

involved the use of written symbols for numerical

information such as calendars, inventories of

property, etc. These cave drawings were probably

not a primitive form of writing but were representational of important aspects of the life of early humans in a way similar to primitive music and

dance. The first use of graphic symbols as a means

to code speech occurred around 3500 BC after

about 500,000 years of human experience with an

oral tradition (27). The literate tradition was born.

Several millennia later, the advent of printing

providing a means for information to become

more popularized because of the favorable

economics of movable type as contrasted to manuscript production. Early printing simply auto-
30 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

mated manuscript production. The form of the

modern book did not fully evolve until about a

century after the invention of printing. A series of

inventive and generally unknown printers created

the form of the modern book with a title, author,

and publication information page, a table of contents, an index, and page numbers. An additional

line of developments created the modern library,

which initially was private but later (largely stimulated by private philanthropy) became public. As

more and more books become available, it became

necessary to devise ways to retrieve information.

Earlier such was not necessary since a literate person would know of all of the books for which they

had use. The information explosion caused by the

invention of printing necessitated the development of systems for cataloging books, such as the

Dewey Decimal System. The economics of printing along with the invention of new processes for

the manufacturing of paper were sufficiently favorable so as to make printed material—books,

newspapers, magazines, encyclopedias—available to everyone who could read.

For most of the era of literacy, written information was available to only a small number of

people. It is only in the past few centuries that

people other than an educated elite have access to

written material. This fact is generally known.

Less well recognized is the fact that until the development of cheap papermaking processes in the

14th century (a development stimulated by the invention of the printing press) pictures were a

scarce commodity. Artists were available to the

nobility to depict historical scenes as well as portraits. For the ordinary people, pictures in the

stained glass windows of the great cathedrals of

Europe were used to provide information about

the life of Christ and the saints. Pictures, like

words, are means of storing and distributing information, but their value and their use as a communication or learning resource has often been

minimized. Cheap paper opened an iconic as well

as a literate domain to a greater number of people,

but reading pictures requires no training and the

fact that pictures are so universally accessible may

explain why the value of pictures as an information source has been underestimated.

While both the oral and literate traditions are

means of constructing and storing the information

of the society, there are significant differences between oral and literate traditions. Writing made

knowledge much less precarious than it had been

in the era of dependence on the spoken word.

Enormous effort was required simply to maintain

the existing knowledge so that the subsistence

economies of early societies could devote few resources into the expansion of knowledge. In preliterate societies the advances of knowledge, even

substantial advances when they occurred, were

often not noticed. The advancement of knowledge

within the oral tradition occurred though gradual

evolution as it was transferred from person to person or as it was publicly talked out. The advancement of knowledge was a communal process;

there were no Newtons or Einsteins in oral cultures (27).

Writing stabilized, depersonalized, and objectified knowledge. In the oral tradition, the elder is

venerated since it is he who is the source and receptacle of knowledge. There is no such thing as

a fallacy of an “argument to authority” in oral culture. Words, and the information they constitute,

take on a different character in an oral as contrasted with a literate tradition. For example, in

Biblical times:

The Israelite conception of “word” and particularly the “word of God” was not considered

to be the mere verbalization or articulation of

thought. Rather it was God himself, communicating and giving himself in self-realization.

Dabar (the Hebrew equivalent of “word”) is

therefore a manifestation of God. In other

words, “word” to the Israelites was something

extremely personal, so that it would be correct to

say that the communication of the word is actually the communication of the speaker him/herself (32).

Writing existed when Socrates was born in 499

BC, but the sprit of the oral tradition was still

strong. Socrates spoke; Plato wrote. In the Phae-
Appendix A Schooling and Learning in an Information Society | 31

drus Plato recounts how Socrates inveighed

against writing as a means of advancing human

knowledge. Knowledge, for Socrates, was not

something which resided in the inert written word

but only in the minds of humans. Socrates

compared writing to a painting. While the artist’s

portrait stands before us as if alive, we cannot

question it. In the same way, we cannot interrogate

the book. The faces in a good artist’s painting appear alive and:

. . . seem to talk to you as though they were intelligent, but if you question them they maintain a

most majestic silence. It is the same with words:

they seem to talk to you as though they were intelligent, but if you ask them anything about

what they say, from a desire to be instructed,

they go on telling you just the same thing for

ever. And once a thing is put in writing, the composition, whatever it may be, drifts all over the

place, getting into the hands not only of those

who understand it, but equally of those who have

no business with it; it doesn’t know how to address the right people, and address the wrong.

And when it is ill-treated and unfairly abused it

always needs its parent to come to its help.

After several centuries of life within a literate

tradition, the disconnection of words from the living sentient being that produced them is accepted

and even appreciated since it objectifies the information presented. Indeed, as citizens of a literate world we often turn Socrates’ argument

upside-down and tell the person who is concerned

that their message may be misunderstood or misinterpreted to “get it in writing.”

Writing did not eliminate talking but, as Ong

points out, writing caused both an expansion of

talking and a transformation of it. Writing was a

phenomenon of urbanization. Writing occurred in

compact settlements and people in these environments talked with one another more than those in

scattered settlements; writing gave them more to

talk about. Writing also transformed speech. It

made possible highly complex and deeply organized treatises on topics which were not possible

in an oral tradition and enabled a use of language

to manipulate and organize thought in ways which

were quite different and more powerful than that

which could be done with speech. Having learned

to express oneself in the manner which could be

accommodated by writing, individuals could, and

did, emulate these conceptual and semantic structures in speech (26).

The invention of school was a consequence of

literacy. The development of schools as places removed from the primary productive processes of

society is closely connected with the development

of writing. Records of the first known schools date

to 2000 BC in Sumer. These schools were a direct

consequence of the need to teach cuneiform writing to a scribe class (26). Goody speaks about the

creation of schools where children were removed

from their families and placed under special authorities as “decontextualization” (10). In oral cultures, learning was largely experiential and

integrated into daily life. One did not learn by

reading written procedures and instructions but by

observation and practice. A person could learn to

speak by listening to others speak and by imitating

their behavior, but learning to read and write could

not be accomplished in the same way since writing and reading were activities confined to a scribe

class. Thus, schools as places where learning was

decontextualized or disassociated from the everyday natural life tasks of the individuals were required to provide the development of skills which

required extraordinary means for them to be

learned. With the advent of writing, words—both

spoken and written—became more central to

learning in contrast to learning by observing and

doing.

It is fitting that like the invention of the first and

second great codes, the time and place of the invention of the third and most recent code is also

uncertain. The popular choice (at least in the

United States) is Samuel Morse who on May 24,

1844, sent the message “What hast God wrought!”

via telegraph. But there are other candidates in

Russia, Germany, and England. Possibly the first

was in Germany where in 1809 a “chemical telegraph” was displayed in Munich which sent electrical current through wires in a water container
32 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

with each wire indicating a particular letter of the

alphabet.

Around the time that Samuel Morse was working on his invention, an Englishman named

Charles Babbage was deep at work on his Analytic

Engine, the precursor of the modern computer;

however, Babbage’s Analytic Engine operated

mechanically rather than electronically. Babbage

saw a type of telegraphy similar to the one developed in Munich and understood the relevance of

the use of electronics in his machine. But given the

state of the art, this was impractical for him (13).

In a little more than a century, however, the paths

initiated by these two inventions would converge

in the form of the ENIAC computer. This computer, which is generally acknowledged to be the first

digital electronic computer, was developed by

Mauchly and Eckard during World War II at the

University of Pennsylvania. The information age

had begun.

The terms “information society” or “information age” are buzzwords. They are widely used

often with only a casual effort to unpack the meaning from them. Probably, for many, these terms

mean little more than that computers and other

associated technologies are an omnipresent feature of life and that most people will need to use

them with considerable regularity. Yet, it is clear

that a new manifestation of the human condition

has emerged which is of a magnitude comparable

to the two earlier advances in the construction of

human culture.

The rapid advancement of information technology over the past few decades is one of the most

dramatic episodes in the history of human ingenuity. As is well known, the power and performance

of the laptop computer of today which sells for

less than $2,000, is substantially more powerful

than the mainframe computers of a couple of decades which sold for hundreds of thousands of

dollars. Scholarship such as that provided by Ong

(26) and Goody (10) shows clearly that the progression from an oral to a literate and from a literate to an electronic tradition changed the human

condition. Each step has altered the relationship

between the person and his/her own inner mental

life. Also, each step has had enormous consequences on the amount and nature of the information within the culture. It is not difficult to

recognize that a person living in rural Oklahoma

has a different type of existence than one living in

the inner city of Manhattan because of the difference in the physical environments. Similarly,

changes in the intellectual environment of the

magnitude that has occurred with the creation of

speech, writing, and electronic information have

had immense impact in shaping the way in which

humans live their lives.

The most obvious implication of the information revolution is the expansion of knowledge.

Walter Ong estimated that at the beginning of human history knowledge took from 10,000 to

100,000 years to double. Later it took from 500 to

1000 years to double. Currently, it is doubling in

15 years or less (27). Within the oral tradition, one

person could, and did, commit to memory the

totality of the knowledge of the society. Where is

the person who could memorize all of what is

known in our time? Within the literate tradition,

it was possible for sensible people to take on the

task of creating a set of books which contained the

totality of human knowledge in an organized fashion. Who would set out to construct an encyclopedia which purported to be everything which is

known in all fields of human endeavor? As

knowledge expands because of information

technology, it is information technology which offers the means to cope with the massive expansion

of knowledge which is occurring. The knowledge

which an individual has committed to memory, or

the books he or she has read, are less and less a determinant of functional ability. Increasingly, it is

one’s ability to interact with the words, numbers,

and pictures stored in computers in ways which result in informing (in the fullest sense of that word)

him/herself which determines functional ability.

As was the case with the progression from an

oral to a literate tradition, the new tradition does

not replace but transforms the old. Word processing does not merely automate the process of writing; it transforms it. Jay David Bolter provides a

detailed and thoughtful analysis of the impact of

word processing on writing:
Appendix A Schooling and Learning in an Information Society | 33

How the writer and the reader understand

writing is conditioned by the physical and visual

character of the books they use. Each physical

writing space fosters a particular understanding

both of the act of writing and of the product, the

written text. In this late age of print, writers and

readers still conceive of all texts, of text itself, as

located in the space of a printed book. The conceptual space of a printed book is one in which

writing is stable, monumental, and controlled

exclusively by the author. It is the space defined

by perfect printed volumes that exist in thousands of identical copies. The conceptual space

of electronic writing, on the other hand, is characterized by fluidity and an interactive relationship between writer and reader. These different

conceptual spaces foster different styles and

genres of writing and different theories of literature (1).

While epistemology, the study of the philosophy of knowledge, is an active interest of a small

percentage of people, everyone carries with them

a conception of the nature of knowledge. Writing,

and more specifically the technology of the book,

profoundly influenced the way in which people

have thought about knowledge for several centuries. The structure of the book became the structure of knowledge. The book is linear. It is divided

into chapters, each of which contains a unified and

cohesive segment of the totality. The order of the

presentation is governed by logic which yields

one order of presentation. The book has heft and

the words printed on a page have a permanence

and a physical presence. These characteristics of

the book became transposed to the conception of

knowledge with cohesive and distinct disciplines,

with a logical order to the structure of the discipline, and with durability.

Just as the traditions of the literate culture and

the structure of the book shaped the conception of

the nature of knowledge, the emerging traditions

of the information culture are providing a new

conception of the nature of knowledge. The metaphor for knowledge changes from that of the book

to that of a colossal hypermedia stack. Knowledge

becomes a network of concepts with many connective pathways. Linkages between concepts are

formed on the basis of functional utility rather

than on immutable and intrinsic logic. In the context of an electronic information tradition, knowledge is dynamic. Textbooks or reference books

which are used for several years before a new edition is produced seem inappropriate, but editing or

adding to an information in an electronic format

is easily accomplished. The electronic tradition,

like the oral tradition, is much more congenial to

a communal approach to the construction of

knowledge than is the print tradition. Just as there

were no Einsteins or Newtons in oral cultures, the

advance of knowledge in an electronic tradition is

likely to involve fewer advances which are attributable to the work of a solitary genius.

Information technology not only affects what

we know and how we come to know it, it also affects what we do. The need for any particular skill

is contingent on the context of individuals. Information technology is causing some skills to become less valuable at the same time that new skills

are becoming more valuable. Few people in our

society rely on their ability to hunt for food to feed

themselves. Today, one requires skills at being an

effective shopper at the local supermarket. Old

skills pass and new ones emerge. Many factory

workers who worked with their hands and

wrenches, drills, and welding tools no longer require skills with those tools but must now teach

their hands keyboarding skills or work with computer programs that control machines that do what

they once did with their hands. The value of being

able to spell by memory every word a person uses

in writing is less important when the individual

writes on a word processor with spell check. The

task of searching information bases did not exist

in any significant fashion a few decades ago. It is

now a skill of great value.

At the heart of the difference between a literate

and an electronic culture (and certainly at the heart

of the issue as it pertains to learning and schools)

is the shift from a contemplative to an experiential

method of learning. In a writing culture, human

beings learn by pulling away from what is happening around them and reading about events, concepts, facts which another person has abstracted

and structured. An electronic culture, on the other
34 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

hand, puts the person in the midst of the experiences which often are raw, unprocessed and, to use

computer lingo, are real-time. The orderliness and

“one step back” character of reading is in contrast

to the untidy and “plunge into it” nature of electronic experiences. Thus, we do not read about the

Persian Gulf War; we experience it on CNN. The

concern of many is that what comes to the person

in electronic formats are only pictures which may

have no meaning beyond the momentary visual or

auditory stimulation. Such a criticism goes beyond television or multimedia and pertains to experience itself. Experience is nothing more—or

less—than the images, sounds, smells, and feel of

what is occurring. The old saying is: Experience

is the best teacher. But experience is not an infallible teacher. Thinking and reflecting do not go out

of the picture in experiential learning. Thinking,

evaluating, and reflecting are all part of “learning

from experience,” but they are blended into the

learning process in a more subtle, less conspicuous way than in instances of “book learning.” The

texture and rhythm of learning when mediated by

electronic resources is in sharp contrast to that

which occurs in the environment of the printed

word. This is the fundamental “two cultures”

problem of schools at present as literate tradition

teachers try and too often fail to teach electronic

tradition students.

Information technology has substantially elevated the importance of pictures in learning.

Today most people learn about their world in pictorial form through television. Pictures are particularly potent in engendering an emotional

response. A pictures of a starving child in Mogadishu or of students resisting repression in Tianamen Square has an immediacy of impact which

surpasses many columns of print in a newspaper

account of the same story. Increasing attention has

been devoted to the use of visualization as a means

of presenting in pictorial form vast quantities of

information. The user of such information might

drown in the sea of this information in verbal or

quantitative forms. The use of pictures in learning

is troubling to some people since there is fear that

looking at pictures is an act which can be done

without the mind engaged. Picture books are considered acceptable for very young children, but

comic books have been discouraged, usually more

because of their use of pictures to tell the story

than because of the content of the story. Nevertheless, there is a rich tradition of scientists, designers, and artists who think with images, and the

capacity of information technology to present still

and moving pictures expands the palette for developers of learning resources. For those of us who

have lived and learned in a literate culture, there

is something unsettling if not invalid in the migration from learning with text to learning with pictures, but it is quite likely that people in the future

will look back on the limitations of our bias toward text in much the same way that we have observed the bias of earlier generations to the spoken

rather than the written word.

There is little in contemporary life which is not

touched in some significant way by information

technology. Clearly, it has caused a fundamental

transformation of the way people work. In one

sense the computer is the most recent of a long series of machines such as the cropping machines

used in textile manufacturing in the early 19th

century at the outset of the Industrial Revolution.

Cropping machines (which incidentally were destroyed by the skilled workers in England who

were being displaced by these machines in the

Luddite incidents) and other machines such as the

cotton gin, the steamshovel, and the drill press automated work that had required a strong back or a

steady and trained hand. The computer is quite

different from the machines of the Industrial Revolution. To use the words of Shoshana Zuboff

(40), who provided a thoughtful analysis of the

impact of information technology on work, it is a

“smart machine” and as such began a new chapter

with regard to the nature of work.

The “Management in the 1990s Research Program” at MIT issued a report called The Corporation in the 1990s (23). This report contains rich

detail about the nature of the changes at the levels

of production, coordination, and management of

the workplace. The sweeping changes are visible

to anyone who walks on the floor of a factory. One

finds fewer people, and many of the workers are

using robotics, process control instrumentation,
Appendix A Schooling and Learning in an Information Society | 35

and intelligent sensors. Less conspicuous are the

changes in how those responsible for generating

a profit think about their business. There is an expression used by some in the media production

business, “I can give it to you cheap, quick, or

good. Pick two!” What the business person hears

is, “Our company needs to produce a quality product at low cost, and make a profit. Pick three!” Information technology is at the heart of the new

conceptions about how to flourish—or at least

survive—in a world of new expectations with regard to cost and quality. In the words of the editor

of The Corporation in the 1990s, “Information

technology has important general-purpose power

to manipulate symbols used in all classes of work

and, therefore, as an ‘information engine’ it can do

for business what the steam engine did in the days

of the Industrial Revolution.”

Just as information technology is the influential work tool of society, information technology

is also the dominant source of recreation. Parents

and teachers commonly decry the great amount of

time which children and young people spend

watching TV. But looking at a screen, be it a TV

or a video game screen, is the overwhelming

source of recreation for children and young

people, just as TV is the major recreational activity of adults. Video games, like TV, are often criticized. But someone, and the someone is often a

parent, likes video games enough to make Sega

and Nintendo a multi-billion dollar industry (33).

It has been somewhat less than a half century

since the first big and clumsy computers appeared

on the scene, and in the succeeding years there

have been continuing advances and an increasing

pervasiveness of the technology. There is a curious similarity between the purpose of writing at its

inception several thousand years ago and the purpose of the first computers a half century ago.

Both writing and computers began with a limited

role in human conduct. The first writing systems

and the first computers were “number crunchers.”

In both cases, they were used for numerical tasks,

and also in both cases, the power of the symbol

system which was developed gradually moved

writing or propelled computers to a vastly expanded role. Even after several decades of plotting the

growth of the expansion of computer technology,

seasoned pros still can be surprised. Early in 1993

Bill Gates of Microsoft and Andrew Grove of Intel

predicted PC sales of between 35 and 40 million,

which was an increase from the 32 million sales

in a good 1992 sales year. The actual sales were at

50 million, 25 to 40 percent higher than forecasted

(9).

Efforts to predict the world that information

technology will create can fall victim to a fatal trap

if there is the assumption that at some point in the

foreseeable future the process will have been completed. There is no reason to believe that anyone

alive today will see the completion of this process

or the achievement of stability with regard to the

development of this technology, it will continue to

be open-ended for generations to come. Nevertheless, there are several dominant themes which are

likely to shape the expression of the technology in

the years ahead:

 Improvements in microprocessor design and

reductions in cost. The capability of microprocessors continues to increase as costs decrease.

The first microprocessor was built in 1971 and

in less than 20 years, by 1989, the first microprocessor to contain more than a million transistors was produced. By the year 1976, after

five years of transistor production, the total of

all the transistors manufactured by the computer industry was about 100 billion which is

equivalent to the number of neurons in the human brain. Intel scientists predict a single chip

that can hold somewhere between 50 and 100

million transistors will be produced around the

turn of the century. With 100 million transistors

on a chip, it would require only one 1,000 processors to produce a computer with as many

transistors as neurons in the brain. Gelsinger

and his colleagues at Intel contend that when

systems with hundreds of billions of transistors

become available early in the next century, it

will then be possible to ask: “When will we put

the first brain on a single chip?” (8).

Even with the dramatic advances in chip design over the past two decades, the capabilities

of existing hardware is a constraint in applica-
36 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

tions design. There remains a great gap between the way in which the mind processes

information and the way in which this is done

by computers. This gap will narrow with the

improvements in chip design that will soon

make today’s supercomputers reminiscent of

the Apple IIe. As this happens, the price of

computing storage and speed will decrease. No

one knows what a gigabyte of storage or 100

MIPS of processing speed will cost in the year

2000, but everyone knows it will be quite cheap

and probably considerably cheaper than any

current prediction.

Increasing the processing power of chips is

not equivalent to increasing the horse-power of

an automobile which has quantitative significance in terms of the speed with which the vehicle can carry weight. Increases in the

processing power have qualitative significance

in enabling new applications to be developed.

While it is possible to extrapolate from existing

applications and speculate about the improvements that will result from increases in processing power, no one knows what inventors will

build when they can hold the processing power

of hundreds of millions of transistors in their

hands.

 Networks. It was only about a decade ago that

battles were being fought between mainframe

proponents and microcomputer proponents.

With the increased capability of microcomputers, many (myself among them) were prepared

to officiate at the funeral of mainframes. What

many failed to see was the growth of wide area

networks. Ultimately, in the contest between

microcomputers or distributed computing and

mainframes or central computing, the emergence of networks made both winners. The use

of computers to create networks for communication and access to information has moved

from being an important to a dominant theme

in the use of the technology. Acronyms

associated with networks such as BBS and FTP

are migrating from computer insiders to the

general population. By 1993, a little more than

a decade after the first BBS or computer bulletin boards opened up in California and Chicago, there were more than 60,000 nationwide

(34). The massive growth of the Internet demonstrates the rapidly growing interest in the use

of networks. As of late July 1994, there were

3.2 million machines worldwide reachable on

the Internet. This represents an 81 percent increase over the previous year. No one knows

the number of people using the Internet, but it

is many times greater than the number of attached machines.

 Portability. Advances in wireless technologies

in the past few years offer the prospect of making use of the virtually infinite resources of the

spectrum of electromagnetic vibrations. In the

next few years advances in wireless technology

along with the increased installation of fiberoptics will reduce the cost of transmission of information which requires larger bandwidth

such as video and two-way communications.

Andrew Grove of Intel put it succinctly, “You

think computer prices are plummeting. Wait till

you see what happens to bandwidth”(9).

Of course, the elimination of wires also enhances the portability of devices that are already being miniaturized because of advances

in chip technology. Smaller machines which

are not tethered by wires also will be improved

with better display capabilities. The display capability of a typical television set is roughly

equivalent to 62 dots per inch. Screens with 200

to 300 dots per inch (which is equivalent to a laser print) will be available. Just as writing did

not eliminate reading but transformed it, information technology will not eliminate reading on paper, but reading increasingly will be

done using small portable display screens.

Screens which display information at a quality

level that is comparable to a well-printed color

magazine at a cost per word that is substantially

less than the cost of the same word printed on

paper will have the effect of moving much of

what is read to electronic formats. Given the

fact that most of the information that is produced at the present time is already in electronic format, the extra step of printing it on paper
Appendix A Schooling and Learning in an Information Society | 37

will be reserved for those who want paper to

satisfy emotional or particular practical needs.

 “Everything is data.” From our vantage point,

it is ironic that Mr. Morse’s digital invention

was swept away by Mr. Bell’s analog device.

The future for analog signals such as those used

by television does not appear promising. The

bifurcated world of computer data in digital

format and television signals is ending. As one

of my colleagues frequently reminds me: “Everything is data.” The efficiency and utility of

storage and transmission of information, be it

pictures, sound, or words and numbers in digital format is substantially greater than in analog

format. Analog is an appropriate technology

for a 20th-century broadcast world, not a 21stcentury network world. In Life After Television,

Gilder puts it this way, “The computer industry

is converging with the television industry in the

same sense that the automobile converged with

the horse, the TV converged with the nickelodeon, the word-processor converged with the

drafting board, and digital publishing converged with the linotype machine and the letterpress”(9).

 Applications. The first applications for computers were directed in ways to manipulate numerical information. Statistical and other

numeric processing software was the dominant

use of the early computers. The computer was

a super calculating machine. As the technology

developed, new applications emerged. Applications such as word processing and spreadsheets did not represent new ways to do old

tasks, but were new ways to do new things.

Over the next several years there will be new

software inventions which will go beyond simply improving existing applications (i.e., advancing from version 3.0 to version 4.0). New

applications will continue to emerge. For example, there are efforts to develop applications

such as idea processors which can be used to

manipulate concepts, ideas, and thoughts in a

way similar to the manner in which word processing enables the user to manipulate words.

The development of specialized software to exploit the full potential of computer mediated

group-work, generally referred to as groupware, has just begun. This is an area still waiting for the “killer application,” or, more likely,

the “killer applications.” As primitive and

cumbersome as virtual reality is at present, it

will become more and more realistic and adept

at tricking the mind into believing that what exists only in cyberspace exists in real space.

Visual, auditory, olfactory, and tactile perception of environments generated from strings of

data will become so lifelike that the differences

between virtual reality and “real” reality will

seem to be a trivial distinction. There is certain

to be a market for virtual reality for pornography and for violence. The fondest sexual and

homicidal fantasies will be achievable without

fear of criminal indictment. Some educational

applications are obvious, such as the use in language learning by enabling the person to learn

French in virtual France, or to learn about astronomy by taking a trip through space, or to

understand human biology by engaging in an

expedition into the human body. Beyond such

obvious applications as these there is also an

unknown continent of applications of this simulation and virtual reality for learning purposes

yet to be explored.

 Information technology vs. computers.

Throughout this document, the term “information technology” has generally been used rather

than “computers.” Thinking about the impact

of this technology is inordinately truncated if

one thinks about it in terms of the microcomputer. Microcomputers are only the current and

most prevalent manifestation of the handling of

electronic information. Over the next years,

multiple and diverse machines will emerge and

evolve and it will be increasingly clear that information processing represents a category

rather than an entity.

The American public school has remained generally impervious to the impact of information

technology. Much of the discussions about information technology and schools has focused on

the question: How can information technology

help school personnel to achieve the goals and
38 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

purposes of schools? In this formulation, schools

are the “horse” and information technology is the

“cart.” Yet in reality, the horse and the cart are reversed.

For previous generations, the American system

of schooling was seen as one of the great accomplishments of this nation. Such is no longer the

popular perception, but in reality, it is not that

schools have deteriorated but that the world has

changed around them, making much of what occurs in schools anachronistic. The impact of information technology on schools transcends what

schools do and affects what schools are.

THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOL

AS AN INSTITUTION

Few aspects of life are as commonplace as

schools. School buildings are the one place where

everyone in society has spent time, some as much

as 20 or more years. If a person becomes a parent,

he or she is back in school again as they tend to the

education of their child. Everyone knows what

goes on in schools. In this context, it might seem

quite peculiar to ask the question: what is the

American public school? This question needs to

be answered, not it terms of an inventory of what

students and teachers do inside of classrooms, but

in terms of what the American public school has

meant to people in American society with regard

to the learning and socialization required by children.

The American public school is an institution,

and the term “institution” is key to understanding

what it is as well as grasping the changes which

impinge on schools as a result of information

technology. Connotatively, the term “institution”

carries with it a vague honorific meaning suggesting something of importance and permanence.

Often there is little more than superficial use of the

term institution as an explanatory concept, even

though understanding the American public school

as an institution is very helpful in any effort to

make sense of what the public school is, why it is

what it is, and how it fits into American society.

Many who believe that the school must be reformed, restructured, reengineered, or reinvented

draw upon the recent experience of American

business and industry to indicate what needs to be

done. There is, however, an important distinction

between the school and the firm. Both the school

and the firm are organizations. As such, both are

cohesive entities comprised of elements, each of

which performs a specialized function necessary

to accomplish the goals for which the organization

was formed. Yet, the firm and the school represent

two different types of organizations. John Meyer

and his colleagues have provided a helpful analysis of the difference between organizations in

technical contexts, such as the firm, and organizations in institutional contexts, such as the school:

Formal organizational structures arise mainly through two processes. First, complex

technologies and social environments with complex exchanges (such as markets) foster the

development of rationalized bureaucratic structures to efficiently coordinate technical work

. . . Second, institutional structures emerge that

define given types of roles and programs as rational and legitimate. . . . The emergence of the

factory reflects the first process, and the emergence of the school reflects the second (22).

The “technical organization” exists to do something. The purpose of the firm as an organization

is to produce goods and services in a profitable

manner. The term “bottom line” (which has become a popular metaphor) is far more than a figure

of speech for the firm. The figure at the bottom of

the accounting ledger is the critical criterion, accepted by all within the firm, of the organizational

health of the firm. The organizational structure is

effective to the extent that the organization is able

to do what it needs to do, i.e., produce marketable

goods or services at a profit. While the firm is affected by social values which go beyond the specific production or service goals of the firm (such

as environmental concerns or racial or gender equity), these are not the raison d’être of the firm,

but facts of life with which it must contend, grudgingly or willingly.

The school as an organization exists in an institutional context. The “institutional organization”

exists to be something. It is in this sense that Meyer and Rowan point out that “modern schools pro-
Appendix A Schooling and Learning in an Information Society | 39

duce education for society, not for individuals or

families” (21). This is not to deny that individual

teachers or administrators strive to—and do—

provide services for children and their parents.

Rather it means that for the school, unlike the

firm, the beliefs shared by members of the society

of the role it plays for the perceived well-being of

society is of critical importance. The extent to

which it is perceived to be meeting its social mandate is the “bottom line” of the organizational

health of the school.

Shared beliefs are more than a desired feature

of a society, they are an absolute necessity. Community or society disintegrates in the absence of

a core set of accepted beliefs. Sociologists refer to

the shared beliefs as the “rational myths” of society which are the structural framework of institutions (22). They are myths, not in the popular use

of that term as being untrue, but in the sense of being widely and deeply held by members of the society. The myths are the ideological sinew which

hold together the individuals as a community. The

issue of the truth or falsity of the myths is irrelevant since the myths are value statements which

do not lend themselves to empirical validation.

“The beliefs are rational in the sense that they

identify specific social purposes and then specify

in a rule-like manner what activities are to be carried out (or what types of actors must be

employed) to achieve them” (37).

One of the most important tasks of society is to

ensure that each successive generation acquires

the knowledge, technologies, skills, customs, and

affects which they require to maintain the society.

In the last century a belief structure was put into

place which became accepted about the way in

which children would be educated. Schools had

existed from the early days of colonization, but

early in the last century the American public

school as an institution was created.

From 1830 to 1860, the size of the United

States grew by 1,234,321 square miles, and the

population grew from 12,866,020 to 31,443,321.

Only 7.2 percent of the population lived in urban

areas in 1820, but by 1860 this had risen to 20 percent. In 1820 there were only 12 cities with a population of 10,000 or greater. By 1860, there were

101 United States cities with a population of

10,000 or greater, and eight of them were larger

than 100,000. In 1826, 10,837 immigrants were

admitted to the United States. Of the 10,837, most

(7,708) were from England or Ireland. During the

decade of the 1850s, more than 3,000,000 immigrants entered the United States, with large percentages from Southern Europe.

Industrialization, urbanization, and immigration transformed American society and spawned

problems for a nation in transition. Cities became

engines of productivity with concomitant disease,

poverty, and crime. Many persons felt that homelessness, vice, and alcoholism were out of control.

In the 1830s, there were numerous acts of mob

violence. The objects of the wrath of mobs were

often immigrants or Catholics. By mid-century

the Know-Nothing Party, with its platform of bigotry, was the fastest growing political party in

America. The success of the Know-Nothing Party

was a consequence of the widely held opinion,

even by many who did not affiliate with it, that the

“American way of life” was in jeopardy.

Coincidentally, with the great social distress in

the nation, a fever for reform swept through the

country. There has never been a period of more intense reform spirit in America than the second

quarter of the 19th century. The reform agenda

ranged across a wide range of causes: abolition,

temperance, women’s rights, vegetarianism, prisons, and treatment of the insane. Organizations

sprang up which reflected the fervor and optimism

of those who began them: Society for the Suppression of Vice and the Promotion of Good Morals;

The Friends of Universal Reform; The Boston Society for the Moral and Religious Instruction of

the Poor; The New York Association for the Relief

of Respectable, Aged, Indigent Females; and the

American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society to

name but a few. Dorothea Dix traveled thousands

of miles in her efforts to reform the treatment of

the insane. Susan B. Anthony worked for the

cause of women’s rights and temperance. William

Lloyd Garrison took up the cause of abolition.

The theme which transcends the specifics of the

reforms of the 19th century was the establishment

of social institutions to create a more perfect
40 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

society. They believed that the welfare of the individual was enhanced and protected by social institutions rather than threatened by them. The

optimism of the reformers was extended over a

wide-ranging array of new institutions. The insane asylum was created not as a last resort to lock

away the disconcerting and frightening specimens

of humanity; rather the asylum was a manifestation of the belief that a properly constructed asylum could cure virtually any incidence of mental

illness (35). Other institutions such as the reformatory and the penitentiary were based on the

same optimistic beliefs about the potency of these

organizations to change people and solve social

problems.

Education was one of the focal points of the early 19th-century reform movement. The more perfect society which the reformers sought to

construct had clear and obvious educational implications. Though the educational reform movement was centered in New England, there were

persons throughout the United States who dedicated their lives to the creation of a new and better

way to educate American youth. James G. Carter

and Horace Mann in Massachusetts, Henry Barnard and Thomas H. Gallaudet in Connecticut,

Calvin Stowe in Ohio, John D. Pierce in Michigan, John Swett in California, Calvin H. Wiley in

North Carolina, and Robert J. Breckinridge in

Kentucky were some of the most prominent

educational reformers. They were joined, not only

by common cause, but by association and interaction. They read one another’s books and speeches,

corresponded, and came into contact with one

another in the many educational organizations and

associations which flourished.

The 19th-century reforms were a reaction to the

approach to education which had prevailed in the

United States from the earliest days of colonization to the early years of the 19th century. Education was an important theme in the earliest days of

American colonization. The first European settlers in America came to the New World at a time

of a great information revolution in Europe. They

had left England in the midst of an information explosion. In the century prior to the emigration to

America there had been a tremendous expansion

of the literacy with the rapidly spreading availability of books in the vernacular. As a consequence there was less dependence on the oral

tradition and a greater reliance on books for every

facet of life. There was a profusion of books pertaining to all aspects of life, from agriculture to

personal conduct. The cost of books was such that

for the first time in history the recorded word was

accessible to a mass market. The abundance of

valuable information which became available

through the advances in printing technology

placed increasing importance on literacy. Literacy

was required if one was to be able to read the various manuals, almanacs and technical information

in all fields which was becoming increasingly

abundant.

The attitude of people in the 16th century toward their information revolution was similar to

the attitude of people in the 20th century to our

own. Some rued it, some were oblivious to it, but

many, especially middle class townspeople, saw

it as a basis for a better life. Robert Ryece, a friend

of John Winthrop, the great Puritan leader, wrote

to him on the eve of his trip to American on the

Arbella, “How hard it will be for one brought up

among books and learned men to live in a barbarous place where there is no learning and less civilization” (4). As they left civilized England for the

untamed New World, there was fear of losing the

culture of the homeland. Education was the prophylactic against barbarism. Thus, the Puritans

brought their books with them to the New World,

but of even more significance, they brought with

them a belief that education was an important

means in achieving prosperity on earth and salvation in heaven.

The home was the prime educational agency of

early American society, and the prime agent for

education in the Puritan community was not the

state or the church but the family. This did not

mean that the parents were the sole teachers of

their children; rather, many arrangements were

made, depending on the circumstances, for education to occur, and indeed the colonists were prone

to establishing schools. In essence, everyone in
Appendix A Schooling and Learning in an Information Society | 41

the Puritan community was potentially a teacher.

Children acquired instruction:

Anywhere and everywhere, not only in

schoolrooms, but in kitchens, manses, churches,

meetinghouse, sheds erected in fields, and shops

erected in towns . . . pupils were taught by

parents, tutors, clergymen, layreaders, preceptors, physicians, lawyers, artisans, and shopkeepers . . . (4).

The manner in which education in the home or

the workplace occurred was informal and had to

be worked into one’s own life as the rhythm of daily life permitted. It was common for children to

learn to read, write and cipher within the home

with parents, older brothers or sisters, other relatives, or neighbors providing the instruction. For

example, as a young child near the beginning of

the 18th century, Horace Mann learned to read by

following his sister around the house as she did

her chores reciting from a copy of Noah Webster’s

grammar (20). Ministers, who had skills in classical languages, would frequently tutor children

who sought entrance to college since knowledge

of classical language was the 19th-century equivalent of the SAT for college admission.

Proprietary schooling abounded. There were

many persons available to those who were able to

pay for schooling or tutoring. Tutoring could be

purchased for primary instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic, and for more advanced

instruction in Greek, Latin, geometry, surveying,

navigation, and bookkeeping. Wealthy parents

might hire a teacher to extend, supplement, or replace their own instruction. The private master

would provide instruction for all of the employer’s children along with the children of other relatives or friends. Those who wished to advance

their position through more advanced learning

could secure the services of a teacher, either as a

private student or in a school in the tutor’s home

or business.

Apprenticing was also a very important means

of professional and vocational training. Apprenticeship was the way in which persons were

trained in agriculture, shopkeeping, manufacturing, the skilled trades, and the professions of medicine and law. In the case of medicine, there was

a rather standard form of apprenticeship. In the

case of law, the apprenticeship was varied depending on the proclivities of the master (5).

Thus, the flavor of education in the 17th and

early 18th centuries was characterized by two elements: personal responsibility and diverse means.

It was up to the individual to determine the extent

of education necessary for self and children. It was

incumbent on the individual to achieve the required education in a manner which provided the

best fit between one’s life circumstances and

educational goals. Writing about the colonial and

early national era, Cremin says, “Variegation,

then, was the rule, and with it improvisation,

imitation, trial and error—whatever historical development there was ended up anything but uniform and linear” (6). But then over the span of 30

or so years at the mid-point of the 19th century a

radically different form of education emerged in

America:

The haphazard arrangements of the 17th,

18th, and early 19th centuries cannot be considered true progenitors of the school systems we

know today. For by the latter part of the 19th

century the organization, scope and role of

schooling had been fundamentally transformed.

In place of a few casual schools dotted about

town and country there existed in most cities

true educational systems: fatefully articulated,

age graded, hierarchically structured groupings

of schools, primarily free and often compulsory,

administered by full-time experts and progressively taught by specially trained staff. No longer casual adjuncts to the home or apprenticeship,

schools were highly formal institutions designed to play a critical role in the socialization

of the young, the maintenance of social order,

and the promotion of economic development

(15).

The 19th century reformers saw the variegated

educational situation of the 18th century when

education occurred in many venues in many ways

as dysfunctional. Yet, the approach to education

which had prevailed from the earliest days of the

colonial era through the first years of the republic

had served the American people well. The dissatisfaction with the old approach to education was
42 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

a consequence of the great changes which were

occurring in the nation and the emergence of new

beliefs, a new rational myth, about how children

should acquire the cultural legacy of their forebearers. If there was one word which caught the

essence of the changes the reformers sought to establish it was “system.” In the words of one of the

reformers, James Carter, the reform movement

sought a “consistent system fully developed” (2).

The 19th-century reformers created “the school

system” not only in the jurisdictional sense as

used to refer to a particular school district but also

as the system of schooling which was to be the

manner in which the society would handle the

commonalities of human action associated with

the transmission of the knowledge, skills, dispositions, and sensibilities required to maintain the society.

Nineteenth-century Americans were greatly influenced by European education which in the late

18th century was in the early stages of the educational reform which would spread to the United

States. A number of reports written detailing the

successes of European education achieved a wide

and influential readership in the United States.

The fundamental conception of the reform movement in Europe was the establishment of the

school as the primary social agency for education

of the young. This belief grew out of the concern

about the neglect of education of the children of

the peasants. Concomitantly, there was a shared

belief among those involved with school reform

that schooling, if systemic and systematic, could

produce young people with the knowledge and

disposition which were requisite to ensuring economic prosperity and domestic tranquillity. There

was, they believed, a pedagogy which rested on a

scientific foundation which could ensure that the

content the state needed to inculcate in each child

could be accomplished. The weak laws requiring

parental or citizen support of schools were replaced by laws which established state support of

schools and, by the turn of the 20th century, compulsory school attendance.

The idea that the school has had more responsibility thrust on it over the years is inaccurate. The

broad nature of the mission of the school was not

constituted by accretion but by charter. Calvin

Stowe, the husband of Harriet Beecher Stowe,

was one of a number of Americans who went to

Europe to examine European education and to report on it to the Ohio legislature. His report was

presented to the governor of Ohio in 1837. It was

widely distributed and became quite popular. He

wrote as follows:

The children must be given up implicitly to

the discipline of the school. Nothing can be done

unless the teacher has the entire control of his

pupils in school hours, and out of school too, so

far as the rules of the school are concerned. If the

parent in any way interferes with, or overrules

the arrangements of the teacher, he may attribute it to himself if the school is not successful

(38).

Similarly the words of Horace Mann from his

third annual report to the Massachusetts Board of

Education express the conviction that the school

was the instrument to be used by society to maintain society:

Common Schools derive their value from the

fact that they are an instrument, more extensively applicable to the whole mass of the children,

than any other instrument ever yet devised.

They are an instrument, by which the good men

in society can send redeeming influences to

those children, who suffer under the calamity of

vicious parentage and evil domestic associations. The world is full of lamentable proofs,

that the institution of the family may exist for an

indefinite number of generations, without mitigating the horrors of barbarism. But the institution of Common Schools is the offspring of an

advanced state of civilization, and is incapable

of coexisting with barbarian life, because,

should barbarism prevail, it would destroy the

schools, should the schools prevail, they would

destroy barbarism (19).

The belief that the school could accomplish the

intellectual and socializing functions of education

was quite functional to a nation increasingly industrial and urban. The conception of schooling as

the place rather than a place where children acquire the knowledge and skill they will require to

become effective members of society has remained the prevalent belief for a century. Even
Appendix A Schooling and Learning in an Information Society | 43

though the existence of many nonschool learning

resources exist, and even though many individuals can speak of the impact of these resources in

their own lives, they have typically been perceived as ancillary to schooling as the means for

educating children and youth. The educated person has been the schooled person. We even lack

good terms to refer to the array of educational resources such as books, TV, clubs, movies, friends,

parents, and other adults which may make important contributions in terms of the individual’s

knowledge, skills, and attitudes. They are referred

to as “nonformal education” and are thus defined

in terms of what they are not in reference to

schooling. Even those who do not esteem their

schooling tend to answer the question, “Where did

you get your education?” by naming a school. Life

is divided into two segments. The first segment is

the period of schooling. Then there is a commencement or a beginning of the second segment

when the individual is expected to become an active and productive member of society.

Much as the economic structure of society rests

on the belief that coins and bills are more than bits

of metal and paper, so too a sustaining belief maintaining the school structure is that certificates, diplomas, and degrees are more than attractive

documents and that they certify competence. The

issuance of official certificates as social passports

both validates the school and is validated by the

school. Certification informs the individual of his

or her abilities as assessed by the school, but also,

and most importantly, informs society. As long as

the school is empowered to issue certificates

which affect social status and economic mobility,

the school will need to be taken seriously whether

or not the individual or their parent perceives he

or she has received adequate services. The power

of schools to “mint” social currency is significant

only as long as the currency is valuable. The accreditation of schools, state certification of teachers, and standardization of the curriculum

constitutes the ways in which the state attempts to

ensure the value of diplomas.

The reformers believed that a critical requirement for an effective system of education was

teacher training. In one of the most important of

the European reports which were so widely read

by educational and political leaders, Victor Cousin, who had been commissioned by the French

government to produce a report on Prussian

schools, provided a laudatory description of the

Prussian school system and included a lengthy description of teacher training. Cousin argued that

teacher training was an essential aspect of the effectiveness of their schools. The skill and demeanor of the teacher was the critical element in

achieving the change which was required.

The effort to establish state-supported normal

schools in the United States began in the 1820s

and many engaged in the reform effort saw this as

the keystone of the reform movement. James Carter, a member of the state legislature in Massachusetts, was one of the leaders in the establishment

of normal schools in that state. In 1824 and 1825,

Carter published a series of essays in the Boston

Patriot arguing for normal schools and explaining

why state support was appropriate and necessary.

In his words:

It will do but little good, for example, for the

legislature of the State to make large appropriations directly for the support of schools, till a

judicious expenditure of them can be ensured.

And in order to [do] this, we must have skillful

teachers at hand. It will do but little good to class

the children till we have instructors at hand. It

will do absolutely no good to constitute an independent tribunal to decide on the qualifications

of teachers, while they have not had the opportunities necessary for coming up to the proper

standard. And it will do no good to overlook and

report upon their success, when we know beforehand, that they have not the means of success (2).

The champions for teacher training did not

come from the ranks of the current teachers and

administrators but rather were a cadre of politicians and religious leaders. One very conspicuous

figure in the history of normal schools was the

Rev. Charles Brooks, who traveled from town to

town in Massachusetts lecturing for state support

of normal schools. Brooks organized a series of

conventions and provided a platform for notables

such as Daniel Webster and John Quincy Adams,
44 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

who also spoke to the need for normal schools.

Rev. Brooks, who had campaigned tirelessly for

normal schools, stated the underlying conviction

that had motivated him and the others who created

the normal school: “As is the teacher, so is the

school” (18).

The campaign in the Massachusetts legislature

for state support of schools to prepare teachers

gathered considerable momentum in the late

1820s. In 1827, Rep. Carter, who chaired the

House Committee on Education, presented a report to the legislature that called for establishing

a “Seminary for the Instruction of School Teachers.” Carter’s proposal failed by one vote. The debate continued, and 10 years later, on April 19,

1837, the legislature established a Board of

Education. Creation of the board proved significant in the development of normal schools because Horace Mann (who was then serving as

President of the Massachusetts Senate) was chosen to lead the board. Mann believed in the need

to create a system to prepare teachers, and he committed himself without reserve to the success of

the normal school venture. At one point, when

funds for the normal school effort were short, he

sold books from his personal library to raise the

needed money.

There was considerable opposition to the

founding of normal schools, but with Mann’s

leadership, and with a gift of $10,000 from Edmund Dwight, a member of the state board, the

forces in the legislature arrayed against normal

schools were neutralized. A year later, members of

the Massachusetts legislature attempted to end

state support of normal schools. The opponents of

the normal schools considered them unnecessary,

arguing that anyone who had been taught would

know how to teach (18). In a letter to Henry Barnard in 1851, Cyrus Pierce, the principal of the

first normal school at Lexington, Massachusetts,

explained what he had hoped to accomplish. He

agreed that teachers may be able to acquire by trial

and error over time the skills and powers they need

to teach effectively, “but while teachers were thus

learning, I was sure that pupils must be suffering”

(34). The normal school would ensure that “teachers may be prepared to enter on their work, not

only with hope, but almost with assurance of success” (34) A substantial effort in the Massachusetts legislature to rescind the normal schools and

to return the unused portion of Dwights’s fund to

him failed, and they continued to spread throughout Massachusetts and to other states.

At its inception, teacher training was disassociated from higher education. The normal schools

were more like secondary schools than colleges,

and considerable emphasis was placed on equipping students with knowledge of the content they

were expected to teach. While a number of normal

schools would eventually evolve into colleges and

universities, the initial connection between teacher education and higher education came through

a different route. Chairs in didactics or pedagogy

began to be established in American universities

in the last quarter of the 19th century. By 1892 the

United States Commissioner of Education reported that there were chairs of pedagogy in 31

institutions, chairs of pedagogy combined with

other disciplines such as philosophy or mental science in 45 others, and lectureships in an additional

eight universities (28).

As early as 1890, New York University had established a School of Pedagogy which offered

courses leading to a Master of Pedagogy and Doctor of Pedagogy degrees (28). The introduction of

chairs and coursework in pedagogy was met with

staunch critics in the university who considered

such to be insubstantial or inappropriate for university study. Abraham Flexner, who had led efforts to reform medical education, became

involved in efforts to install the study of pedagogy

at the university level. In 1919 he was successful

in securing foundation funding for the founding of

a graduate school of education at Harvard. A decade later, however, Flexner had come to agree

with critics that the instruction being provided at

schools of education lacked academic rigor and

had degenerated into a focus on simple practical

problems which could be solved by “experience,

reading, common sense, and a good general

education”(30). Flexner worried that the nature of

programs in schools of education would dissuade

the intellectually competent from entering. Despite the efforts of critics, teacher training and oth-
Appendix A Schooling and Learning in an Information Society | 45

er related programs such as those for school

administrators, counselors, curriculum specialists, etc., continued to develop in universities, and

many normal schools continued on a path which

was to make them into universities. The goal of

people like Mann, Carter, and Brooks for universal teacher training was realized, but the benefit of

the training in terms of the improvement of

schooling has been an issue of considerable debate

from its inception to the present time.

So it was that the great reforms of the 19th century institutionalized schooling. Eventually all of

the major aspects of the changes they sought were

achieved. State departments of education were established which regulated school programs by establishing curriculum requirements and the

licensing of teachers. States required local districts to provide free elementary and secondary

schools and enacted compulsory attendance laws.

Standards for the school buildings and their furnishings became established. Specialized training

and licensing was required for those seeking to

work as teachers. Districts developed standardized and age-graded curricula. Grouped instruction replaced the method of recitation. Textbooks

were provided to students. Centralized control at

the district level over building school sites was inaugurated. The concept of a public school system

was new and strange to many a 150 years ago. It

came to be taken for granted, even axiomatic. Yet,

new beliefs about the nature of knowledge, which

were a consequence of information technology

(discussed above) and changes in understanding

about learning, which also are stimulated by developments in information technology (discussed

below), both challenge the structure which Mann

and his colleagues put in place.

THE HUMAN AS A NATURAL LEARNER

There have been many answers to the question:

What distinguishes human beings from other

forms of animate life? For Plato, the human was

characterized as a featherless biped. For the English essayist William Hazlitt, the human was the

only creature that laughs and weeps. In technical

terms, the human species is called homo sapiens,

man the wise. The capability of the human to

think, learn, and acquire knowledge was determined to be the characteristic that distinguished

the human being from other primates. Other animals learn, as is evident from any trip to the circus,

but no other form of life on earth exhibits cognitive capability comparable to the human being.

Humanness resides in the central nervous system.

The ability to learn is not an acquired but a natural capability for humans. The human being is a

learner from the moment of birth until the moment

of death unless such is precluded by some brain

abnormality. In the first hours after birth, the infant learns to suckle at the breast or bottle. Very

quickly, the baby learns to discriminate his or her

mother’s face from other faces. The child will

learn motor skills such as eating with table utensils, walking, and cognitive skills such as speaking, and social skills such as acceptable and

nonacceptable ways of dealing with others as well

as distinctions in behavior appropriate for the different people with whom he or she comes into

contact. The small child learns a language, and, in

many societies, may learn more than one language. Children acquire information and skills

whether or not they are prodded or deliberately assisted by parents or other adults. Anyone who has

spent any time watching a child cannot help but

conclude that learning is a natural process.

In thinking about the human as a natural learner

it is important to keep two things in mind. First,

“learning” is not an honorific but a descriptive

term. To say that the human being is a learner is

not per se to pay a compliment. People learn bad

things as well as good things. Children learn language, mathematics, how to play the piano, etc.,

but they can also learn prejudice, pot smoking,

how to hot wire and steal cars, etc. Learning the

wrong things is not necessarily a less impressive

task when judged from the complexity of the

learning task. It is, for example, probably easier to

learn the occupation of a sales person in a fast food

restaurant than to learn the occupation of a successful car thief. Second, to say that individuals

are natural learners is not to imply that all demonstrate this capability to the same extent. People do
46 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

learn how to learn and can become more or less interested in learning and more or less effective in

the process.

In the past century there have been thousands

of studies of human learning. The vast preponderance of these studies has focused on learning in

schools, and since a substantial proportion of the

population of school-aged children have problems learning in school, it is understandable that

much of the literature has been directed to the nature of learning pathologies. Much less attention

has been devoted to understanding natural learning, or learning in those instances when the process is not structured and regulated by others but

is woven into the life situation of the person. In

these situations, learning occurs even though

there is not someone formally designated as teacher directing the process.

In a small book written three decades ago called

How Children Learn (12), John Holt discusses

how children learn when there is minimal or no

adult intervention. Holt drew upon his experiences as a teacher in a fifth-grade classroom, but

he was less interested in understanding how children learn when the process is prescribed to them

by their teachers than in observing how children

learn when they are not required to follow rules of

the process established by the adults in their environment. Holt sums up his conception about the

natural learning style of young children in the following passage from his book:

The child is curious. He wants to make sense

out of things, find out how things work, gain

competence and control over himself and his environment, do what he can see other people doing. He is open, receptive and perceptive. He

does not shut himself off from the strange, confused, complicated world around him. He observes it closely and sharply, tries to take it in.

He is experimental. He does not merely observe

the world around him, but tastes it, touches it,

hefts it, bends it, breaks it. To find out how reality works, he works on it. He is bold. He is not

afraid of making mistakes. And he is patient. He

can tolerate an extraordinary amount of uncertainly, confusion, ignorance. He does not have to

have instant meaning in any new situation. He is

willing and able to wait for meaning to come to

him—even if it comes very slowly, which it usually does (12).

One of the places where there is substantial and

serious work currently underway to understand

learning as a natural process is the Institute for

Learning Sciences at Northwestern University.

The Institute was established in 1989 with sponsorship provided by Anderson Consulting and

Ameritech. The staff includes 21 faculty and researchers, 42 content specialists and programmers, 50 graduate students, and 20 interns and

visiting staff. The Institute is dedicated to the task

of investigations of human learning as a natural

process and to make use of the knowledge obtained from these investigations to construct new

means for improving learning in the workplace

and then in the schools.

Roger Schank, the Institute director, along with

Chip Cleary, one of his graduate students, authored a “hyper-book” which is available on the

World Wide Web titled “Engines for Education.”

This book presents their ideas about what is wrong

with education, and the role of educational

technology in reforming schools. The book’s perspective on natural learning is similar to Holt’s.

Like Holt they see the type of learning which occurs in schools as dysfunctional:

In public schools from first through twelfth

grade, much of the classroom routine is shaped

by an emphasis on rote learning, a strict adherence to standardized textbooks and workbooks,

and a curriculum that is often enforced with drill

and practice. The methods and the curriculum

are molded by the questions that appear on the

standardized achievement tests administered to

every child from the fourth grade on. Success no

longer means being able to do. Success comes to

mean “academic success,” a matter of learning

to function within the system of learning the

“correct” answer, and of doing well at multiple

choice exams. Success also means, sadly, learning not to ask difficult questions. When we ask

how our children are doing in school, we usually

mean, “are they measuring up to the prevailing

standard?” rather than, “are they having a good

time and feeling excited about learning?” (36).
Appendix A Schooling and Learning in an Information Society | 47

Some caution must be exercised in overdrawing the distinction between school and non-school

learning or in romanticizing the child as Holt

does. There are classrooms where what is happening for children looks much like a natural learning

situation, and it is much easier to know what is

wrong about schools than it is to do what is right.

Nevertheless, the conditions listed by Schank and

Cleary such as standardized curriculum, grade

level expectations, as well as an increasingly extensive amount of information which teachers are

expected to “cover” create an environment for

learning which, too frequently, does create a situation where there is so much to teach that there is

no time to learn.

It is not a coincidence that two recent books on

learning and technology, one by Donald Norman

and the other by Seymour Papert, give considerable attention to informal or natural learning. For

those accustomed to “cruising the Internet,” “just

in time learning,” hypermedia, and virtual communities, school or formal learning is far too confining. Interest in using technology in

instructional applications is not new. Sixty-eight

years ago S.L. Pressey published a paper called “A

simple apparatus which gives tests and scores and

teaches” (31). In this paper Pressey described the

plan for a machine which would be used as an “automatic teacher.” It makes use of a typewriter apparatus to display questions and to provide

feedback for correct or incorrect answers. Computer technology enables the production of more

sophisticated versions of Pressey’s “automatic

teachers.” These applications, while employing

more elaborate graphics and more advanced interactive procedures, are fundamentally similar to

Pressey’s “automatic teacher” and many come out

of a behaviorist, programmed learning, orientation. Increases in storage, display, and processing

power of computers systems provides developers

with the capability to go beyond the design of

teaching machines and to create “learning machines” or, to use Papert’s term, “knowledge machines.” Such applications put in the hand of the

user a rich informational environment which is accessible in a way which accommodates the interests of the user. “Learning machines” are based on

an orientation which put the learner in control of

the learning process and which is compatible with

the orientation of natural learning. Early examples

of these applications have appeared in the past few

years in the form of various multimedia applications.

In his book called Things That Make Us Smart

(24), Donald A. Norman cautions that multimedia

technology can be used to provide applications

that epitomize the worst of what is wrong with

school learning or the best of what is possible with

natural learning. Norman distinguishes between

school learning and natural or informal learning

(Table 1).

Norman cites the work of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi who writes about “flow experiences.” Flow

experiences occur when the person is totally engaged in the task at hand. Teachers may tell their

students to “Pay attention!,” and while such an admonition may cause the student to look attentive,

there is no assurance that the student will be attentive. The flow experience can only happen when

the goals and challenge of the task captures the

attention of the individual. Many observers of life

in classrooms as well as teachers have expressed

concern about the lack of engagement of students

in what they are being told to learn. The lack of engagement of students in their instruction evident

in many formal learning situations, kindergarten

through college, is the antithesis of the “flow experiences.”

Seymour Papert’s book, the Children’s Machine (29), is subtitled “Rethinking School in the

Age of the Computer.” Papert contrasts two different orientations to education—“instructionism”

and “constructionism.” Instructionism is the belief that the way to achieve better learning is to

teach better. Constructionism, on the other hand,

conceives of learning as a manipulative and building process. It draws a direct connection between

construction in the physical and mental domains,

and sees learning to be an activity involving the

creation of mental structures by the learner which

organize and synthesize the information and experience which the individual encounters in the

world. Papert, similar to others who have dealt

with the topic of natural learning, emphasizes con-
48 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

crete or experiential learning. He calls for learning

which is rooted in concrete experiences rather

than that which exists as free-floating abstractions. Perhaps one of the most radical of the assumptions of this perspective is that children can

be trusted to find the knowledge they need. If one

conceives of learning as an activity which is repugnant to the individual or if one believes that

that there is a package of content which can and

must be installed into the minds of all students,

then trust in the learner is unwarranted. If these

two conceptions are rejected, as they are by people

like Papert, Holt, and Schank, then trust in the

learner is quite appropriate. The task for those involved with the education of the young, as Papert

presents it, is to see to it that children are supported materially, psychologically, and intellectually in their efforts to learn. He contends, “The

kind of knowledge children need most is the

knowledge that will help them get more knowledge”(29).

Holt, Schank, and Papert are only the most recent of a long line of persons to be aware of the discrepancies between school learning and learning

as a natural human phenomena. Rousseau published Emile in 1762 and Pestolozzi opened a

school at Yverdon in 1805. Rousseau as a theoretician and Pestolozzi as a practitioner gained a high

degree of recognition for their work. In both cases,

they presented a conception of learning which

placed emphasis on the interest and experience of

the child and saw the learning of the child rather

than the didactics of the teacher as the key to the

process. Pestolozzi’s school was visited by the

czar of Russia and by the kings of Spain, Holland,

Prussia, Denmark, Wurtenberg, and Saxony.

John Dewey, who had the misfortune of having

his work become popular mainly in the form of interpretations developed by his disciples who “watered-down” and sanitized his ideas, saw this issue

clearer than most and presented it as forthrightly

as anyone almost a century ago:

What is learned in school is at best only a

small part of education, a relatively superficial

part of education; and yet what is learned in

school makes artificial distinctions in society

and marks persons off from one another. Consequently we exaggerate school learning compared to what is gained in the ordinary course of

living. We are, however, to correct this exaggeration, not by despising school learning, but

by looking into that extensive and more efficient

training given by the ordinary course of events

for light upon the best ways of teaching within

school walls. The first years of learning proceed

rapidly and securely before children go to

school, because that learning is so closely related with the motives that are furnished by their

own powers and the needs that are dictated by

their own conditions. Rousseau was almost the

first to see that learning is a matter of necessity;

it is a part of the process of self-preservation and

of growth. If we want, then, to find out how

education takes place most successfully, let us

go to the experiences of children where learning

is a necessity, and not to the practices of schools

where it is largely an adornment, a superfluity,

and even an unwelcome imposition (7).

It is not remarkable that the contrast between

learning inside and outside of schools has been

observed by a long line of educational practitioners and theoreticians since the differences are

conspicuous to the reasonably careful observer.

John Dewey’s disciples, most notably William H.

Kilpatrick, attempted — and generally failed — to

have their cake and eat it too. They sought to implement the conceptions of Dewey about natural

and experiential learning while keeping intact the

essential conventions of the system of schooling

which by the early part of this century was well accepted. As information technology causes more

and more of the agenda for learning in our society

to transcend the domain of school, the orientation

expressed by Dewey a century ago or by people

like Papert and Schank in recent months becomes

ever more plausible as a basis for the design of

learning experiences. The constraints of formal

education do not hamper the person who is designing learning opportunities for individuals in

the workplace or the home.

This brief summary of thinking on natural

learning leads to three key points. First, schools

do not own the child’s learning. Children are continuously engaged in learning, and even though

the learning which occurs in their life outside of
Appendix A Schooling and Learning in an Information Society | 49

school may be woven into their environment in

ways which may make it less conspicuous than

when they are sitting in a classroom with a teacher

standing before them presenting some concept or

information, it is learning nonetheless. Through

the span of civilization schooling has been only

one of the ways by which humans have learned

what they needed to learn in order to function. Until quite recently (when put in the context of human civilization) the extent of the schooled

population was quite limited.

Second, information technology has generated

interest in natural learning and provided means to

create new learning environments. While there is

one cadre of developers and vendors of information technology who are intent upon developing

uses of technology that fit into the existing conditions, traditions, and procedures of schools as they

are, there is another and more important cadre who

are attempting to make use of the technology to

promote learning with less commitment to where

the learning takes place or how well it conforms

to expectations of the educational establishment

as to its validity. This orientation emphasizes the

motivational, attitudinal aspect of learning. The

student may not be able to walk out of the boring

class, but he or she can certainly switch off the boring multimedia program. Information technology

is particularly compatible with the nonlinearity

and experiential texture of natural learning.

Third, many who are inadequate learners in the

school context seem to have no particular disability when they are learning in out-of-school contexts. The ability to learn is not an esoteric human

characteristic; it is quite normal. The high incidence of learning pathologies in schools has

much, much less to do with any organic or function disability of learners than it does with what

students are told to learn and how they are told to

learn it. Designers of educational materials using

information technology can focus their attention

on the learning requirements of the users rather

than on the needs and requirements of the organizations within which the learning is supposed to

take place.

THE FUTURE OF LEARNING AND

SCHOOLING IN AMERICAN SOCIETY:

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The 19th century was a period of institution building. It was a time of a great changes in the United

States and a time when men and women believed

in their power to create institutions to solve the

pressing problems caused by the changes. Prisons

would eliminate crime. Insane asylums would put

an end to mental illness. Reformatories would

abolish juvenile delinquency. Schools financed

by the state would stamp out ignorance, create a

literate populace, and mold upright citizens for the

Republic. The state-supported system of schools

would be the “melting pot” where children from

diverse backgrounds would meet and be

instructed in a manner which would ensure the

maintenance of the “American way of life.”

The reformers were successful in realizing their

vision of schooling throughout the United States.

They enacted the laws and policies which were required to institutionalize public schools. As a result of the work of the reformers, schools became

the place—rather than a place—designated by society to transmit the cultural tradition to each

successive generation. Public policy tolerated, but

did not encourage, the formation of alternate approaches such as parochial or private schools. The

basic features of the schools put in place by the

19th-century reformers have endured, much to the

chagrin of scores of later-day reformers. The durability of the American system of schooling is a

function of an architecture which was particularly

harmonious with the ideological context of the

times. But times have changed.

Information technology is the principal force

generating the great transformation of economic,

political, and social life in recent years. Information has become central to every domain of human

life and pervasive in every venue of human existence. Human beings have always had the task of

obtaining, integrating, and using information as a

basis for their thoughts and actions, but at no point

in human history has day-to-day life for the pre-
50 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

ponderance of the population put them in such

proximity with the informational resources of the

culture. The economic and social value of being

informed was never greater than it is now and

there is no reason to expect this to abate. The printing press did not turn everyone into an author, but

it did substantially expand the number of such persons. Not even desktop publishing and networks

will turn everyone into information producers, but

we are already experiencing an explosion in the

numbers of persons who are producing and publishing information, and more access to these

tools can only further expand the percentage of the

population who will produce as well as consume

information. Within this context, schooling and

learning take on a different character than has been

the case in the past. The role of schooling in general and the American public school in particular are

being changed.

As discussed earlier, one of the consequences

of literacy was the establishment of schools as enclaves separated from the ongoing economic and

social life of the community. Learning was “decontextualized” and provided in terms of generic

skills or as information to be stored in one’s mind

for later use when the individual was again engaged in activities outside of school. The fundamental implication of an information technology

culture for learning and schooling is that learning

becomes “contextualized” and becomes part and

parcel of daily life. This does not mean that

schools will disappear, but it does mean that they

will no longer have the dominant presence in society with regard to the transference of the culture

from one generation to the next. Schools personnel who do not understand this new world of learning within which they live are likely to lead their

own organizations into oblivion or irrelevance.

More specifically with regard to the American

public school, it is becoming ever more clear that

we are experiencing a deinstitutionalization of

education in the sense that the public school is less

and less accepted as the essential and principal

instrumentality of educating American youth.

While home schooling is not a mass movement,

a considerable number of children are being educated in their homes. Charter schools have been

established in a number of states. Television has

become the dominant source of learning about the

world. Millions of people are using the Internet as

a means of accessing information and learning

about an almost infinite variety of topics. There

seem to be few people, beyond the circle of public

educators, who contest the idea of establishing

schools apart from the control of local educational

authorities.

The belief in the power of institutions is not as

prevalent among the citizens of the later part of the

20th century. Much of the rationale for the establishment of the American public school sym

stemmed from the belief that a state-supported

system of schooling which educated the rich,

poor, immigrants and established middle class

was the means to insure a common culture congenial to American political, social and economic

life. The extent to which the American public

school achieved this mission is a topic of debate

between those who believe it did serve to bring the

diverse sub-groups of American society into a

cohesive entity, and those who believe it served

the purposes of a white Anglo-Protestant middle

class. The optimism of people in the 19th century

about the power and value of institutions overstated the case, but the pessimism of the current

generation about institutions probably is also

overstated; nevertheless, the “melting pot,” “the

common school,” and standardization are not

themes which resonate in contemporary America.

Now “choice,” “diversity,” and “deregulation” are

the bywords.

The landscape of American education in the

later part of the 20th century is looking more and

more like it was in the colonial period through the

early days of the Republic. The variegation which

so characterized the approach to education appears much more compatible with the nature of an

information society than does the uniformity and

linearity of the conditions engineered by the 19thcentury reformers. The parent who is concerned

about his or her child’s intellectual development

is able to buy learning materials at the mall or

through a network service. School personnel who

are committed to the welfare of the young people

they serve need to be comfortable working with
Appendix A Schooling and Learning in an Information Society | 51

other organizations and purveyors of learning resources as partners rather than as the agent incharge.

Most people realize that information technology needs to become part of the schools in some

way. People expect to see computers in classrooms and believe that students should spend

some of their time in schools working with them.

School boards and parent groups have seen to it

that there are computers in schools. There are few

schools in the United States where one does not

find computers in classrooms, media centers, or

computer labs, and it is not difficult to identify

teachers, here and there, who are making interesting, and in some cases, powerful instructional use

of computers. Unfortunately, there are still an appreciable number of proponents of technology in

the schools who seem to focus more on getting

computers used in schools than they do on the

educational value of how the computers are used.

Success ought not be measured by how many

computers there are in schools, how often they are

used, or how well they can be integrated into existing curriculum content—much of which is irrelevant or antiquated. There is nothing to be gained

by using information technology in the schools to

become a more efficient anachronism. The danger

of this is real since many proponents of technology in the schools have a 21st-century conception

of technology and a 19th-century conception of

knowledge and learning. The challenge is to use

information technology to create in schools an environment conducive to the development of individuals who have the capability and the

inclination to use the vast resources of information technology in their own continuing intellectual growth and skills expansion. Schools

should become places where it is normal to see

children engaged in their own learning.

Bringing schooling into an information

technology culture is a much more difficult task

than doing so for businesses or factories. What

was required of American industry to make the

changes necessary to survive in an information

age was for the leaders of corporate America to

understand the nature of what needed to be done

and to work with others inside the organization to

implement the changes. This was not an easy task,

but corporate leaders did not have to get the general public to accept the fact that they would find a

strikingly different environment when they

walked into an automobile manufacturing plant in

1990 as contrasted with how the plant would have

looked in 1950. The general public does not have

detailed beliefs about what it means to be a good

factory apart from the belief that a good factory

turns out a good product. The general public does

have beliefs (or, to use the terminology of the earlier discussion, “rational myths”) pertaining to

schools which are often strongly held. The beliefs

about the nature of schools and schooling held by

parents, citizens, and policymakers whether articulated or not set the parameters for what is perceived to be legitimate and appropriate activities

in classrooms. The crux of the crisis for schools is

the discordance between existent beliefs about

schools and schooling and the conceptions of

knowledge and learning engendered by developments in information technology. A new rational

myth needs to be created.

The history of audio-visual technology in

schools has established a precedent that needs to

be overcome. Radio, telephones, audio tape, filmstrip projectors, slides, television, etc., were all

seen as means to be used by teachers to assist them

in improving teaching. A popular shibboleth is

that the computer is a “tool.” While computer applications are tools, the idea that computers are

just means to an end is a serious misunderstanding

about the extent to which information technology

represents essential changes in the creation and

transmission of the culture. Those who wish to determine the extent to which schools are using information technology to change more than merely

the cosmetic aspects of schools need to begin by

asking school personnel what they no longer do or

what they have eliminated from the school because of their use of information technology. The

next question is: What is happening in this school

which did not, or could not have happened, in the

past without the use of information technology?

The least important question is: What was done in

the past and is now being done in a different way
52 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

because of the availability of information technology?

At the heart of the way schooling has been carried out for the past century and a half is a conception of knowledge as an historic product. In this

formulation, knowledge is something which

comes from the past work of scholars, scientists,

and artists rather than being a work in progress.

The dissemination of knowledge using print has

obscured the dynamic and even disorderly nature

of the process by which it is created. The school

curriculum carves knowledge into subjects and arranges the content of the subjects in a sequential,

hierarchical order corresponding to the grade levels. Teachers in the first grade know what math,

language skills, etc., they are supposed to teach

and they understand that they are not to infringe

on what will be taught in second grade. The systematic processes of curriculum standardization

and age grading of instruction, as well as the establishment of diploma requirements, is based on

the assumption that there is a collection of facts,

concepts, and skills which need to be installed into

the minds of students and that this needs to be

done in a orderly manner which conforms to the

logic of the discipline.

Information technology shifts the conception

of knowledge from something one has learned to

something one uses. This is not a new way of

thinking about knowledge. The great philosopher

and mathematician Alfred Whitehead referred to

knowledge as only something one had to learn and

which had no utility for the individual as “inert

knowledge.” Whitehead wrote with great passion

about the need for learning to have connection to

the lives, interests, and contexts of the learner.

“Ideas,” he wrote, “which are not utilized are positively harmful. By utilizing an idea, I mean relating it to that stream, compounded of sense

perceptions, feelings, hopes, desires, and of mental activities adjusting thought to thought which

forms our life” (39). In Papert’s terms, this is a

constructionist point of view. The work of individuals such as Whitehead and Dewey make it

clear that a dynamic and utilitarian conception of

knowledge is not a recent understanding, but information technology elevates the need to recognize this reality because there is less benefit

gained by remembering knowledge and more

benefit to those who can produce it, find it, or use

it.

The 19th-century reformers were inventors.

They saw themselves in the tradition of the other

great inventors of their day who had constructed

machines to do wonderful things. The conception

of schooling which they established involved the

invention of a social mechanism which they believed would do what it was constructed to do with

the same assurance as the other inventions which

were transforming American life. Their social

mechanism was a carefully crafted system which

would produce an educated populace for society.

System is no less a popular word in educational

parlance in 1994 than it was a 150 years ago, and

the term “systemic reform” is also fashionable.

Yet, the analyses presented in earlier pages of this

paper suggest that it is time to move beyond the

system metaphor. Certainly, from a social science

perspective, the concept of the school as a social

system remains a useful analytic framework with

which to define the key structural elements and the

roles and relationships of the people who maintain

the system. Yet, system, in the context of schools,

brings with it much “baggage” which is dysfunctional. It keeps us linked with the 19th-century reformers’ belief that it was possible to create a

system of schools within which a proper arrangement of the elements of the system and an effective pedagogy could ensure the accomplishment

of the expected instructional objectives. There is

nothing to be served by continuing a quest for the

Magic Fountain of Schooling, since there is none

to be found. The time has come to abandon the

idea that it is possible to create a social mechanism

which can act on the students who are in it in ways

which ensure the desired outcome.

Efforts which approach the task of school reform from the perspective of the design of environments offer a better footing for an attack on the

problem than those which set out to figure out how

to substitute one system for another. More of the

mentality of the architect is needed to design environments which incline those who share these

places to create learning communities which take
Appendix A Schooling and Learning in an Information Society | 53

full advantage of personal productivity and networking resources. Ironically, the surest way to

increase the likelihood of desired outcomes may

be to concentrate on the design of environments

which make desired processes more likely. Thinking about schools in this way requires less compulsiveness with regard to content objectives and

more focus on the factors which support learning

activities. Such environments would be places

which no longer fought the losing battle to enforce

an unnatural form of learning. Touting this

orientation would be an act of futility (as it was for

Dewey and Whitehead) were it not for the fact that

there are serious and increasing efforts to develop

learning processes which understand the centrality of the learners’ own interest and involvement

in their learning and which respect the natural processes of learning. These efforts are centered

mainly outside of formal education and are led by

those who are interested in reaching the market for

learning in the home and the private sector. Those

concerned about learning for children in our society should also participate in the exploration of

new forms of learning environments and resources.

In the 1950s and 1960s, in the era of the ascendancy of broadcast technology, there was fear of

an informational monolith as three powerful television networks emerged and as fewer cities had

more than one newspaper. In the 1990s, in the era

of network technology, these fears no longer prevail. Developments in the use of information

technology over the next years provide a growing

number of new educational alternatives. There is

no doubt that there will be great progress in the

next decade in the development of learning resources which make use of the capabilities of the

technology. Commercial networks such as Prodigy and America On-Line carry educational offerings for young children. They will be joined by

other networks bringing learning opportunities

wherever there are children. The quality of the offerings will vary. Some, possibly many, will be

poor, but there are certain to be very appealing and

effective resources as well. With increasing capability in networks and with the development of

small, inexpensive devices with multimedia capability, designers of learning resources will have

the resources they need to develop attractive and

effective learning environments. The federal government, states, and the private sector need to

work together to support the development of network resources for children and youth. Children

of reasonably affluent parents will have access to

network resources, but the concerns, frequently

addressed, of a bifurcated society based on information access are real. There is no one solution

to the problem of the gap between the rich and the

poor with regard to access to information, but public policy needs to be continuously attentive and

responsive to this problem.

It is impossible to conceive of how to bring

schools into the information age without a very

substantial expansion of equipment available to

learners. Computer labs or the availability of a few

machines in classrooms are hardly adequate.

Many schools have had to struggle to provide a

relatively small amount of equipment, and they

have been provided little funding for applications

software, support, maintenance, training, or upgrades. Unless one expects very significant new

money to come to school districts (an expectation

which few hold), the money needed to make information technology a dominant element in the

lives of children in classrooms is not available

given existing conditions in school districts. Special millage or bonding initiatives to purchase

hardware represents a way for schools to take a

significant step forward, but special funding does

not address the issue of maintaining information

technology as a major and continuing element in

the operation of the schools.

The option of having a sufficient deployment of

information technology so that it becomes mainstream in schools while maintaining everything

else schools currently fund is unrealistic. The

funding for substantial increases in technology on

an ongoing basis can only be accomplished by

changing the way the existing funds are being

spent in a substantial way. This may also include

labor costs. The painful reality faced by other organizations which have moved to make information technology a major aspect of how they

function is that the technology is purchased with
54 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

the money recovered from reduced labor costs.

Any changes in the way in which school districts

spend their money will be sharply contested by

teacher unions and, in many cases, by parents and

other residents of the district. If public schools do

not find ways to move in this direction they will

find themselves in competition with other educational entities such as private schools, charter

schools, educational networks, and the other new

organizations which provide technology-based

educational services for children. The restructuring of the public schools and especially the restructuring which entails the effective use of

information technology can only occur if school

leaders have the courage and political skill to accomplish the task of fiscal restructuring.

The availability of applications software with

regard to learning opportunities for children and

young people is a mixed situation. There are two

kinds of applications which children and youth

need to encounter. One type is the various productivity and information utility applications such as

word processing, quantitative modeling, bibliographic and informational data bases. Of course,

the quality of these applications continues to improve and children and young people need to have

access to them as a conventional element in their

education. The only problem which needs to be

solved with regard to this type of application is

seeing to it that children and youth have access to

the same tools as those being used in the world beyond the schools and not antiquated applications.

The other type of applications pertains to those

programs which are devised as learning resources

for children and youth. Most of the programs

which are marketed as learning resources for children and youth are of poor quality, even when

judged on their own terms as quite conventional

drill-and-practice or tutorial programs. Even more

problematic is the situation with regard to innovative materials which begin to exploit the design

opportunities provided by equipment of increasing capability. Private as well as public funds need

to be provided to support the development of applications which furnish concrete and usable versions of the type of rich learning environments

discussed earlier.

The creation of colleges of education was a

consequence of the school reform movement of

the last century. The perceived value of colleges

of education was contentious at the point teacher

training entered the university and has remained

so to the present. The radical changes which information technology is generating in American

education creates a need and opportunity for colleges of education. Within colleges of education

through-out the United States there are individual

faculty members who are involved in efforts to

make new technology improve the lives of children and youth. Unfortunately, there are fewer

examples of colleges of education which have

grasped the significance of information technology for how they are to function and for the viability of their future.

There are two elements to the formation of a future for colleges of education. The first is that colleges of education need to be involved in the

development and use of information technology

as it improves the educational opportunities for

children in the broad array of venues wherein this

will occur. For the most part, colleges of education

have been “colleges of schooling.” The economics and ideology of the past have forged a tight

connection between them and schooling, which

was usually public schooling. The value of colleges of education will be even more suspect if

they attempt to hold to an orientation to education

which is less and less an accurate depiction of reality. A misplaced sense of loyalty to formal education will not even serve the needs of schools since

schools are faced with the need to function within

a new educational world. Colleges of education

need to be seen as places where knowledge and

skills reside to assist schools in making effective

use of information technology. If colleges of

education are “on the sideline” on the unfolding of

informational technology in teaching and learning, then the future of colleges of education may

be increasingly tenuous.
Appendix A Schooling and Learning in an Information Society | 55

The second element pertains to the long-standing complaint about the disconnection between

the training which occurs in colleges of education

and the realities of life and learning in the places

where teachers and other educational personnel

work. Information technology provides a basis for

a reconstruction of teacher education. There are

obvious but not fully realized implications of the

use of networking as a means of establishing linkage between colleges of education and schools

and other places where education occurs. Also,

colleges of education which produce credible and

useful research or development products can

make use of information linkages to enable their

products to be used.

A new era of the human condition has begun.

This transformation will bring with it problems

and opportunities. No area of human existence

will be more affected than the processes of education. The question of how well the resources of information technology will be used to improve the

lives of our children is as yet unanswered. The responsibility to begin the construction of the

answer to this question falls upon this generation.

APPENDIX A REFERENCES

1. Bolter, J.D., Writing Space: The Computer,

Hypertext, and the History of Writing (Hillsdale, NY: L. Erlbaum Associates, 1991).

2. Carter, J.G., Essays Upon Popular Education

(New York, NY: Arno Press, 1969).

3. Clarke, A.C., How the World Was Won (New

York, NY: Bantam Books, 1992)., p. 224.

4. Cremin, L.A., American education: The

Colonial Experiences, 1607-1783, 1st Ed.

(New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1970).

5. Cremin, L.A., American Education, The National Experience, 1783-1876, 1st Ed. (New

York, NY: Harper and Row, 1980).

6. Cremin, L.A., American Education, The Metropolitan Experience, 1876-1980 (New York,

NY: Harper & Row, 1988).

7. Dewey, J., School of Tomorrow (New York,

NY: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1915).

8. Gelsinger, P., Gargini, P., Parker, G., and Yu,

A. “2001: A Microprocessor Odyssey” Technology 2001: The Future of Computing and

Communications, Derik Leebaert, Ed. (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1991).

9. Gilder, G., Life After Television, Revised

(New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co., 1994).

10. Goody, J., The Interface Between the Written

and the Oral (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge

University Press, 1987).

11. Hackforth, R., Plato’s Phaedrus (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1952).

12. Holt, J., How Children Learn, 4th Ed. (New

York, NY: Pitman Publishing Corporation,

1969).

13. Hyman, A., Charles Babbage (Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press, 1982).

14. Kasson, J. F., Civilizing the Machine (Harmondsworth, England, 1976).

15. Katz, M. B., “The Origins of Public Education: A Reassessment,” History of Education

Quarterly 16(4), (1976, Winter, pp. 381-407).

16. Langworthy, H., “Imaging Capabilities in the

21st Century,” Technology 2001: The Guture

of Computing and Communications, D. Leebaert, ed. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991).

17. Leebaert, D., “Later than we think: How the

Future has Arrived,” Technology 2001: The

Guture of Computing and Communications,

D. Leebaert, ed. (Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press, 1991).

18. Mangun, V. L., The American Normal School:

Its Rise and Development in Massachusetts

(Baltimore, MD: Warwick & York, Inc.,

1928).

19. Mann, H., Third Annual Report, Together

with the Report of the Secretary of the Board

(Washington, DC, 1940).

20. Messerli, J., Horace Mann: A Biography, 1st

Ed. (New York, NY: Knopf, 1971).

21. Meyer, J. W., and Rowan, B., “The Structure

of Educational Organizations,” Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality,

J. W. Meyer and W. R. Scott (eds.) (Newbury

Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1992).
56 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

22. Meyer, J. W., Scott, W. R., and Deal, T. E.

Institutional and Technical Sources of Organizational Structure: Explaining the Structure

of Educational Organizations, Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality

(Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,

1992).

23. Morton, M.S. (ed.), The Corporation of the

1990s, (New York, NY: Oxford University

Press, 1991).

24. Norman, D.A., Things That Make Us Smart:

Defending Human Attributes in the Age of the

Machine (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

Publishing Co., 1993).

25. Norton, A. O., The First State Normal School

in America: The Journals of Cyrus Peirce and

Mary Swift (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926).

26. Ong, W. J., Interfaces of the Word: Studies in

the Evolution of Consciousness and Culture

(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1977).

27. Ong, W. J., Knowledge and the Future of

Man; An International Symposium (New

York, NY: Holt, Rinehard and Winston,

1968).

28. Pangburn, J. M., The Evolution of the American Teachers College (New York, NY: Columbia University, 1932).

29. Papert, S., The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer (New

York, NY: Basic Books, 1993).

30. Powell, A. G., “University Schools of Education in the Twentieth Century,” Peabody

Journal of Education, 54(1), October, 1976,

pp. 3-20.

31. Pressey, S. L., A Simple Apparatus Which

gives Tests and Scores—and Teaches, School

and Society, 23(586), 1926, pp. 373-376).

32. Proclaim the Word: The Lectionary for Mass

(Washington, DC: United States Catholic

Conference).

33. Provenzo, E. F., Jr., Video Kids: Making Sense

of Nintendo (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991).

34. Rheingold, H., The Virtual Community

(Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1993).

35. Rothman, D.J., The Discovery of the Asylum;

Social Order and Disorder in the New Republic (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1971).

36. Schank, R. and Cleary, C., Engines for

Education (Institute for the Learning Sciences, Worldwide Web, 1994).

37. Scott, W. R., “Introduction from Technology

to Environment in John Meyer and W. Richard Scott,” Organizational Environments:

Ritual and Rationality (Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage Publications, 1983, pp. 13-17).

38. Stowe, C.E., Report on Elementary Public

Instruction in America. In Knight, E.W. (Ed),

Reports on European Education, (New York,

NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1930, pp.

248-316).

39. Whitehead, A. N., The Aim of Education

(New York, NY: The Macmillan Co., 1929).

40. Zuboff, S., In the Age of the Smart Machine

(New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc., 1988).
Appendix B

Learning and

Teaching in 2004:

The BIG DIG

hen we consider the confluence of trends and pace of

change in the economy, society, and technology, it is

relatively easy to envision systems of schooling, learning, and teaching a decade hence that are very different

from those of the past 100 years. It is not clear, however, whether

all current educational reform movements are consonant with

such a vision.

Our vision of teaching and learning 10 years hence is informed

by current and past experiences of technology-using innovators

within education, combined with trends outside of the educational system that drive the requirements and opportunities for learning and teaching. One set of external drivers includes global and

national trends in economy and demographics (31,32,79). Another set of external drivers includes the rapidly changing information technologies and information infrastructure (11).

These changes in the larger society are imposing requirements for

change in the skills, knowledge, and learning capabilities of citizens (17, 78, 83). Consonant with the requirements is the trend

within education toward constructivist approaches to learning

and teaching (65, 80).

Nearly every element of our future vision exists today for some

people at some times and in some places. What makes our vision

different is the pervasive extent of participation and the seamless

interaction of the human, institutional, and technological components. In reality, the shape this convergence of trends takes will be

the result of political leadership and policy decisions over this

coming decade.

A general theme of our vision is that learning, teaching, and

schooling all will have a closer relationship and interaction with

people, places and knowledge outside of schools than has been | 57

by

Beverly Hunter and

Bruce Goldberg

Bolt Beranek and Newman
58 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

typical in the past 100 years or so (103). The

“learners” and the “teachers” are people of all

ages, in all walks of life (17, 40). In this vision, every person considers himself both a learner and a

teacher. Some people will play a teaching role

only part of the time, while others will be

employed as professional teachers.

Numerous reports from stakeholders as varied

as mathematics teachers and industrial leaders

have directed our attention to various facets of this

general theme. Most recently, for example, the

U.S. Congress, in the School to Work Opportunities Act of 1994, addressed many of the cultural,

economic, technological and cognitive factors in

its findings:

 three-fourths of high school students in the U.S.

enter the workforce without baccalaureate degrees, and many do not possess the academic

and entry-level occupational skills necessary to

succeed in the changing U.S. workplace;

 a substantial number of youths in the U.S., students of diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural

backgrounds, students with disabilities and especially disadvantaged students, do not complete high school;

 the workplace in the U.S. is changing in response to heightened international competition

and new technologies, and such forces, which

are ultimately beneficial to the nation, are

shrinking the demand for and undermining the

earning power of unskilled labor;

 the U.S. lacks a comprehensive and coherent

system to help its youths acquire the knowledge, skills, abilities, and information about

and access to the labor market necessary to

make an effective transition from school to career-oriented work or to further education and

training;

 students in the U.S. can achieve high academic

and occupational standards, and may learn better and retain more when the students learn in

context, rather than in the abstract; and

 the work-based learning approach, which is

modeled after the time-honored apprenticeship

concept, integrates theoretical instruction with

structured on-the-job training. This approach,

combined with school-based learning, can be

very effective in engaging student interest, enhancing skill acquisition, developing positive

work attitudes, and preparing youths for highskill, high-wage careers.

In an increasingly globalized environment,

both public and private enterprise must be agile to

deal with rapid changes in markets, customer and

client, and community requirements. Innovation

requires rapid adaptability. Agility must be

achieved by a combination of technological and

organizational changes. One important change is

the delegation of substantial autonomy to reconfigurable, relatively autonomous teams of workers

(46). Work reorganization and new technologies

propel employees and citizens to take more responsibility, cooperate more with each other, understand their roles in the production system, and

act on that knowledge (17, 40, 79). Rather than the

predetermined curriculum sequence of the industrial era, people need to learn new subjects and

skills at the time they are needed on the job or in

civic life.

VIGNETTE: “THE BIG DIG”

We illustrate key elements of our vision through

a vignette that takes place in the year 2004 in metropolitan Boston. The Big Dig is a real project.

Boston’s Big Dig—or Central Artery Tunnel

(CAT) project, as it is officially known—is the

largest single civil construction project ever undertaken in the United States. A 10-year, $7.7-billion effort, it will include depression of the Central

Artery an elevated highway through the heart of

Boston construction of a new system of off and on

ramps, and the construction of a third tunnel under

Boston Harbor. Today, in 1994, the project is

scheduled for completion by the year 2004.

The “Big Dig” educational vignette presumes

that in the mid-1990s, educators began to build a

significant body of exemplary learning resources

and activities based upon the Central Artery Tunnel project. Through existing and emerging

educational reforms, telecommunications net-
Appendix B Learning and Teaching in 2004: the BIG DIG | 59

works, and the evolving National Information Infrastructure (NII), an educational collaborative of

teachers and learners of all ages was built.

❚ Vignette Prologue

It’s a beautiful spring morning in April 2004. Ten

years ago, Massachusetts began its evolutionary

effort to restructure the entire way it organized, delivered, and financed education. It’s also a special

day in Mercedes Banzon’s life.

Crossing the street to the Boston Museum of

Science, Mercedes reflects on some of the changes

she’s seen and undergone over the past 10 years.

She smiles and shakes her head. Ten years ago,

she was “just a teacher”—a self-disparaging

phrase she often replied with when asked what she

did for a living. Nowadays, in 2004, almost every

job involves at least some teaching and a lot of

learning. Every industry and public organization

now routinely employs teachers. Mercedes recalls

one of the most revolutionary aspects of Massachusetts’ belief statements of the Goals for the

Next Century document: “In the world of the year

2000, there will no longer be possible or desirable

the radical separation of civic life, work and continuing education. Education must cease to be an

institution, and become instead, a way of life.”

Mercedes is now proud to proclaim that she is

an “educator.” The transformation telescoped in

her mind. Ten years ago, she volunteered on a

Goals 2000 school/community committee in Dorchester. Today is her first day as Chief Education

Officer for the Boston Metropolitan Education

Region (BMER). Her visit to the Boston Science

Museum will help remind her how all the changes

in education over the past ten years have taken

root in the lives of students, teachers, parent and

community members—in short, everyone.

Mercedes remembers that 10 years ago, teachers and students spent all their time in “school

buildings,” sealed away from the vital life of

learning and information their communities offered. On the other hand, the majority of adults

were not a part of the formal educational system

and thus had little opportunity to participate in

organized learning activities. Advances in communications technology had helped break down

some of the walls. That was what first got Mercedes going. As technology coordinator in her

school, she worked on a project initiated by the local phone company to start the first school voicemail system in the Boston area. The system

enabled parents to more easily communicate with

their children’s teachers. The next step was a logical one- connecting this phone system with computer dial-up access. At that point, parents could

use their computers to access local social service

agencies, discover employment possibilities, and

enhance their own education. In the late 1990s,

businesses in Massachusetts had begun donating

and loaning computers to workers and parents as

part of a major “ lifelong learning” initiative that

evolved out of a convergence of federal and state

programs. These programs included: Goals 2000,

statue and urban systemic initiatives, enterprise

zones, and a bipartisan Massachusetts industrial

competitiveness effort to make the state more attractive to business and industry.

The creation of the Boston Metropolitan

Education Region (BMER) was an institutional

outgrowth of these initiatives. Many school system jurisdictions found common ground with the

“lifelong learning” initiative proposed by industry-education partnerships and coalitions in the

area. The BMER was funded by a combination of

these federal, state, industry, and local funds. It is

highly dependent upon the CWEIS (Community

Wide Education and Information Services)

formed in 1994 to take advantage of computer networking in the region.

Mercedes recalls that as its first pilot project,

BMER issued a Request for Proposal to students,

teachers and community members inviting them to

design a nine-week project that would engage all

the participants in collaborative projects without

regard to the political boundaries of their school

districts. Mercedes organized a group of teachers,

parents, community center leaders and professionals from health and human services. This

group developed a winning proposal and conducted a successful community-wide educational
60 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

project called “Using Your Brain,” that took advantage of many resources across the area including television, radio, computer networks, and

newspapers. This was one of several projects that

achieved city-wide citizen awareness of the

educational value of many different institutions

and groups.

❚ The Tunnel Team

Mercedes walks through the front door of the Boston Science Museum and sees the brightly colored

sign “To the Dig” directing her down the hallway

on the left.

Fourteen-year-old Azikwe Jackson-Hu has

also arrived early at the Boston Museum of Science this Monday morning. There’s a special allday work session with his Tunnel Team. By 9 a.m.

about 30 people have arrived.

The session facilitator is Elaine Corzini, a

teacher from the Mather school in Boston. She

introduces the goals for today’s work—preparing

for their Tunnel Team exhibition at Big Dig Week

to be held next month. Several thousand visitors

are expected at this Boston-wide event. It will also

be viewed by many more people through television and computer networks.

To set a high standard and expectations for the

Tunnel Team’s exhibit, Elaine shows a brief video

of last year’s exhibition. In it, one team had developed a mathematically interesting analysis of

hourly carbon monoxide and temperature readings at several points in the tunnel, over an eightyear period. The large poster display of their

insightful charts and graphs had resulted in extensive publicity and, eventually, in improvements

being made in the tunnel ventilation systems.

Elaine reminds the group that this exhibition is

an important opportunity to get feedback and

evaluation for their work on the tunnel project.

They need to make careful plans to take advantage

of this opportunity to assess their progress in

learning.

Although this project team has been working

together for many weeks, there are as usual some

newcomers at this session. They begin with

introductions:

 20 children, ranging in age from about 10 to 16,

who attend three different schools in Boston,

Charleston, and Somerville;

 an undergraduate teacher-in-preparation from a

local college;

 a graduate student in engineering from MIT;

 an engineer from Bechtel, the Big Dig contractor, and parent of one of the children;

 another teacher from Elaine’s school;

 a member of the exhibit staff of the Boston Science Museum;

 a staff member from the Metro Boston Transit

Authority (MBTA);

 a faculty member and student from Roxbury

Community College;

 a member of the Urban District Assessment

Consortium, who specializes in student assessment; and

 also present via video conference are teachers

and students from four schools in the Boston

area, and Azikwe’s mother who is on travel at

her company’s office in another city.

Because Azikwe’s mother has to leave the

meeting by 10 a.m., it is agreed that they will begin with the demonstration. Azikwe is impatiently

waiting to get started. His mother says,

“Azikwe and I would like to show you some

parts of the tunnel simulation and control system

that I have been working with as an engineer for

the CivTech company. We are subcontractors to

Bechtel for tunnel monitoring and maintenance.

By the way, Calvin is our contract monitor—Hi,

Calvin. Calvin might explain to you later how we

managed, after three years of fighting our bureaucracies, to get permission to make this tunnel

simulation software publicly available on the network.”

While his mother is talking, Azikwe has been

operating the computer, getting the tunnel simulation program up on the large screen in the front of

the room next to the video conference screen. The
Appendix B Learning and Teaching in 2004: the BIG DIG | 61

teachers and students at the remote locations use

a shared workspace tool on their computers so

they can see the same computer screen that

Azikwe is demonstrating.

She continues, “Azikwe, if you will put the

main screen up there, I’ll explain the four main

components of this system. Then we’ll take a look

at the structural design part that I use in my work.”

About 20 minutes into the demonstration, one

of the children asks, “Mrs. Hu, can I ask you a

question? How come your tunnel looks really different from our tunnel simulation? Isn’t this the

same tunnel? The only thing that looks the same

to me is that the tunnel is made of 300-foot-long

tubes.”

Azikwe’s mother replies, “Meera, you ask an

excellent question. Azikwe has shown me your

team’s tunnel simulation many times, and I know

that these programs do look very different from

each other. This is because we have different purposes, and are using different software. Your team

has been building your tunnel simulation to help

you learn and understand and share your understanding of the design principles, and the mathematics and physics needed to understand the

design. My program, on the other hand, is used by

professional engineers responsible for monitoring

and maintenance. So we engineers need different

information than you do. Azikwe, would you

show the cross-section view again? Notice, for example, that we have much more detail about the

electrical system in this cross-section than you

would need in your simulation.”

Several children, and adults, are now waving

their hands for attention. Andy preempts the others. “Mrs. Hu, I have an idea for our exhibition.

We could have two screens side by side where we

show the differences between yours and our simulation.”

Mrs. Hu starts to reply but Jewelle interrupts,

“But we can’t do that! Her program is too complicated! I don’t even know what any of those icons

mean up there.” She runs over to the screen and

points to the icon menu across the bottom.

The community college professor speaks up, “I

have some students in my classes who are technicians with the transit authority. They could really

sink their teeth into this program. Is it okay for me

to introduce it to them?”

Mrs. Hu says, “I think that that’ll be okay...I’m

sorry, I have to leave for another meeting right

now. I’m sure Azikwe will tell me tonight what

you decided. If you do decide to work on this,

there is a new engineer here on our staff who is just

learning this system. He might volunteer to help

you learn along with him. Bye, all. See you at the

airport at six tonight, Azikwe.”

The session suddenly becomes chaotic, exploding with a dozen simultaneous conversations.

The teachers and students on the video screen look

confused, since they can’t understand what anyone is saying. Mrs. Corzini tries to get more discipline into this creative firestorm.

“Let’s capture all these ideas in the collaborative notebook, right now,” she says. “Make groups

of four or five people and enter your ideas into the

notebook file Tunnel Session Nine.”

About eight small groups form spontaneously,

entering their ideas into their notebook computers

at the work tables. One of the students gets the collaborative software up on the large screen so everyone can see the emerging comments. Mercedes

notices one small group that includes only younger children and asks Lew Girshalt from the

MBTA and Ana Julia, a teenager from Somerville,

to join them.

The teachers and students at the remote sites

join in from their own computers, so everyone can

share in the swirl of ideas, exclamations, arguments, sketches.

Here is a sampling of the comments the groups

are entering into the collaborative notebook:

“What about our traffic data? We wanted to

make a game where people have to correlate traffic

statistics with days and times.”

“Mrs. Hu’s program is too complicated for the

younger kids.

“We could connect her tunnel program to our

GIS maps of the neighborhood.”

“I could help the students ferret out assumptions in Mrs. Hu’s model about the structural

properties of the tubes and compare it to the one

they’ve been using.”
62 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

“We were going to videotape the inside of the

tunnel and show how to image process a comparison with our simulation.”

“We don’t have enough time to learn her program before the exhibition. And besides,

Azikwe’s just showing off.”

“Does anyone realize that that system cost the

taxpayers two million dollars to develop?”

“That program will not demo well at a public

exhibit. The screens are too busy and complicated,

the user interface is arcane, we’d need a full-time

engineer to handle the booth, who could explain

it?”

“We wanted to show the hypermedia we made,

where we took that old Big Dig video from 1994

and showed how things really are now, and all the

mistakes they made back then.”

“We built a model of traffic congestion, and

compared the behavior of our simulated traffic

jams to real traffic jams in the tunnel. We want to

make an exhibit of our program.”

Mercedes observes with pride the skills, knowledge, creativity and insight reflected in these

spontaneous comments. She walks from group to

group, observing the contributions being made by

different members of the team. She reflects upon

those early attempts at project work 10 years ago.

So many of the prerequisite skills-both so-called

“basic” as well as metacognitive skills—were

simply not present back then, in either teachers or

students, so project work was painfully slow and

often unproductive. Attention to “basic” skills

came first. Clear and concise formulations of

what students should know and be able to do-standards—were combined with strong strategies for

implementing these ideas within school settings.

This prompted more complex assessments and enabled teachers to tie instruction to the diverse

needs of their students. Now, even the youngest

member of this team has had several years of experience and training in teamwork, investigation,

observation, analysis, synthesis, and communication. Even the oldest adult had by now several

years’ experience in using many computer-based

tools including those they used for writing, multimedia creation, data storage and analysis, modeling, communication and collaboration, and many

specialized tools for their particular work and

pleasure. In 1996, the BMER had recommended a

common core suite of tools, and had taken steps to

make the software available at very low cost

across the area, in all community centers, schools,

libraries, homes, government offices. This action

was the landmark event that enabled the rapid development of fluency in computer use and information literacy among most people.

After lunch, Elaine facilitates as the group discusses the goals for the exhibit. On the large

screen she points one by one to each of the comments made earlier in the collaborative notebook.

As the group discusses the merits of each of those

ideas, they record these additional considerations.

As Mercedes sits back and watches Elaine’s

skillful facilitation and recording of the group’s

discussion, she recalls the BMER meeting four

years before when the very contentious issue of

scheduling had come to a head in the BMER. It

had been extremely frustrating to try to conduct

city-wide learning activities that were constantly

competing with the rigid class schedules of the

separate schools. The separate schools were also

at a point of crisis about scheduling because they

also were attempting to conduct interdisciplinary

project-based learning activities that could not

function in the 45-minute class periods. It was at

that meeting, while they were recording their discussion in the BMER collaboratory notebook,

that they realized the technology they were using

could free them from some of the time constraints

of their school traditions. Nearly everyone—

teachers, students, administrators, many parents—had become fluent in using project

databases, collaboratory notebook, videoconferencing, project management tools, people directories. Thus it was now thinkable for people to

participate in project teams without having to be

physically present at all face-to-face meetings. If

everyone would take responsibility to ensure that

all project discussions, decisions, materials and

products were carefully documented, they could

free themselves from some of the tyranny of sched-
Appendix B Learning and Teaching in 2004: the BIG DIG | 63

ules. So, for example, at today’s Tunnel Team

workshop only 40 of the 100 members of the team

are physically present, another 40 are present via

video conference, and the others would have to

use the electronic recording to participate vicariously at a time convenient to them. Hence,

Elaine’s careful attention to the recording of all

discussion here at the workshop.

The group decides on four main themes for

their exhibition, then divide into four smaller

groups to hammer out a plan of work for each of

the parts. Mercedes and the other teachers each

work with one of the groups. Mercedes’ main concern is that each member of the team make a contribution to the exhibition, and that the evaluation

plan addresses at least one of the learning goals of

each team member. She helps the group address

these issues systematically by referring to the

electronic records of their learning development

plans and the BMER assessment guides.

The experts from MIT, Bechtel, the Transit Authority, and the Science Museum rotate among the

groups, serving in their accustomed consulting

roles. They are all volunteering their time and expertise for different reasons. The MIT engineer is

focusing her graduate studies on new methods of

designing supports for underground structures.

She is gaining valuable background knowledge

through her work with various Big Dig educational teams. The Bechtel engineer, rather than opting

for early retirement, has accepted as one of his

new job responsibilities the management of the

Big Dig education programs. He has been invaluable in helping the team locate data, videos, software, and other historical records of the CAT

project’s 10-year history. As lead contractor for

the CAT, Bechtel also oversees a major portion of

the designated educational fund. The Transit Authority technician is working on the Tunnel Team

as part of his continuing education program, and

is receiving community college credit for this

project. All government employees are expected

to spend 5 percent of their time in educational activities. While his own learning objectives are in the

area of data analysis techniques, he has also been

a lively mentor for the children, fascinating them

with stories of his work life underground in the

tunnel. The Science Museum exhibit designer is

working with the tunnel team as part of her official

work duties, as the museum is an educational contractor to the CAT project and is the main organizer of the Big Dig Week.

The groups put their draft plans and sketches of

the exhibit booth in their Tunnel Team workspace

on the network, so that everyone on the team—

parents, teachers, students, and other community

members—can access and work on the plan.

One of the teachers, the student assessment

specialist, and one of the children form a group to

review and formalize the evaluation plans. They

begin by locating the assessment archives from

last years’ Tunnel Team exhibitions. They see

there were some complaints from parents last year

that the evaluators had too narrow a focus and

missed some important evidence of the team’s creativity and communication skills. They decide to

avoid that problem by having two levels of evaluation of the exhibition. They call the two levels

“Quick” and “Deep.” The “Quick” evaluations

will be made by interviewing visitors to the exhibition, who would have unpredictable kinds of

backgrounds, skills, and interests but who would

represent a wide range of viewpoints. The “Deep”

evaluations will be made by a panel of 10 people

chosen from the CWEIS school communities’ database of teachers and expert reviewers.

In creating the evaluation plan, the group

makes links in the database to the individual Tunnel Team students’ personal development plans,

the Tunnel Team’s educational goals, and the

emerging exhibit component groups’ plans. From

these sources, they create packets of background

information and draft assessment assignments tailored for each of the 10 panelists. Each panelist is

asked to evaluate particular dimensions of the exhibition, depending on their specialty areas—

learning, basic competence, communications and

collaboration, personal management, information

management, mathematics, engineering, inquiry

methods, etc. They compose electronic mail messages to the panelists, inviting them to participate,

providing pointers to their packets, and requesting
64 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

a videoconference three days hence to discuss the

plan. The student member of the evaluation team

takes on the responsibility to coordinate with the

panelists and keep all team members informed of

schedules and progress.

Just as they are about to finish their work for the

day, a group of students and a teacher from Somerville High School appears on the large video

screen. “Can we talk about this assessment plan?”

they ask.

“Yes!”

The Somerville teacher explains, “We have

been reading your draft evaluation plan for the exhibition, and the students have a concern about it.

They’ve spent a lot of time the past few weeks

learning how to develop this tunnel simulation,

learning how to use the simulation authoring

tools, and they fear your assessment instructions

to the panelists do not reflect this.”

The assessment specialist replies, “I’m not sure

I understand you...aren’t the students using the

same simulation program that was used by last

year’s Tunnel Team?”

“No, that’s our point. When we started this

year’s Tunnel Team, some of the students had already learned how to use SimMaker, and they

wanted to create their own simulation. Everyone

agreed, but this made the project much more challenging than last year’s. Some people have been

developing some very important skills in modeling and in mathematics that don’t seem to be reflected in this evaluation plan.”

“Would you then please revise the assessment

assignments, and be sure to include a note that you

have provided this input to the plan?”

”Sure. The kids and I will work on this tomorrow morning. It will be a very appropriate activity

for our modeling seminar, and more interesting

than the exercises we scheduled to do anyhow.

When the students reflect on how much they have

learned, I think they’ll be surprised.”

By 4:30, nearly everyone has left after a productive and exhausting day. Mercedes and Elaine

stay a few minutes to exchange some of their observations and concerns.

“Today’s session was productive, but I wish

we’d been able to hold it three weeks ago as we

had originally planned,” Elaine says. “ I just don’t

see how we are going to get everything done in

time for Big Dig Week.”

“I know,” Mercedes agrees. “Until today’s

meeting, I didn’t realize just how much incredibly

rich activity had been taking place in the Tunnel

Team this year. These students have enough material for many high-quality exhibitions. I’ve been

hearing reports of similar progress from other

BMER project groups, like the Harbor Ecology

team and the CAT Economics group.”

“I’d like to hear more about those groups.”

“Next week, WBGH airs on national PBS a

story about the work of the children, teachers and

parents on the ecology of the harbor around the

tunnel. A substantial amount of the material used

in this television show is based on data, videos,

and writings of the students themselves. As follow-up to the PBS story, students in Boston will

take people around the world on a vicarious field

trip through their simulated tunnel and neighborhood, using video archives from the past six

years.”

“What was that you were saying about the CAT

Economics group?”

“You might remember that for several years, in

a social studies course called “Building Consensus,” students from several Boston communities

have been interviewing their parents and local

business people to learn first-hand how the project

has affected their businesses and how they participated in the Big Dig decisionmaking processes

back in the mid-1990s. Today, students are posting on the CWEIS Big Dig forum the results of

their interviews with Haymarket pushcart vendors. Their advisor helps them locate a similar set

of interviews with Haymarket business people

conducted by Globe reporters in 1995, and asks

the students to identify, describe and explain differences between their methods and findings and

that earlier study.

“Some high school seniors who worked a survey of Haymarket vendors back when they were
Appendix B Learning and Teaching in 2004: the BIG DIG | 65

freshmen are writing their senior project on the

economics of the Big Dig. Because they have been

working with Big Dig concepts and data for several years, and because they have personal knowledge of many aspects of this project in which

they’ve grown up, it’s possible for them to tackle

this very complex problem. They’ve identified all

direct sources of funding of the Big Dig construction itself—federal, state, and local governments

and private funds—over the past 15 years, and

also identified several alternative economic models to use in describing effects on jobs, businesses,

industry, individuals and communities. Their

work will be evaluated by a team composed of

teachers, economists, academic standards specialists, and students, as part of their qualifications for

graduation.”

“Well, they do have a couple of Harvard and

MIT students working on it with them. In fact, I

was talking with a world-renown economics professor at Harvard who says this is a precedent-setting analysis of such a large public works project’s

economics.”

“Like the student journalists who stirred up all

the controversy last week with their investigation

of some politically questionable financial records

of the Big Dig?” Elaine grins.

“Adolescents have been stirring up trouble for

years about the Big Dig. Students across the city

have been publishing a weekly newsletter, Big

Digger, on the CWEIS. The students’ material has

contributed to many stories in the Boston Globe

and local community newspapers.”

The Science Museum staffer reappears, listening to their stories and adding one of his favorites:

“A history class has been studying native

American artifacts collected from the Harbor Islands prior to the building of the Harbor Tunnel.

They digitized many of the artifacts such as the

3,000-year-old spearhead found at Spectacle Island, and have put these on the CWEIS Web with

the guidance of a graduate student archaeologist

at a local university. They’ve been corresponding

on-line with several native American historians

and students to discuss the dating and interpretation of these artifacts.”

“Did you ever imagine the day would come

when we would be complaining because our students are doing so well?” Elaine smiled as she said

it. “But it’s true. We’re seeing an explosion in productivity. The ratio of adults to children in the

projects keeps growing, now that all the government agencies, social services, and businesses

have begun actively encouraging or requiring

their clients and employees to show continuing

education progress, and the BMER started awarding formal credit for participating in its projects.

Now that so many more adults are involved in

children’s learning, it is not just a few privileged

students who get to engage in complex, exciting

projects. Nearly every child in the Boston area is

spending at least two hours a day in these challenging activities. Many children spend as much

as six or seven hours a day because they work from

their neighborhoods and homes as well as school.

Most rewarding to me is to see the teenagers who

now get recognition for their energy, creativity

and focus, instead of being thought of as troublemakers.”

“Well, there was that gang that built a videogame in which the winner blows up the tunnel,”

Mercedes sighs, “but two of them got hired away

by a videogame company so I guess they’re out of

our hair for awhile.”

❚ A Few Weeks Later . . .

The Tunnel Team teachers, in a videoconference,

discuss the evaluation results from the Big Dig

exhibition. They are concerned about some

weaknesses in their students’ mathematical

understanding as reflected in their project work.

One member of the teaching team suggests

these students need more work with combinatorial

properties of patterns and representations of threedimensional solids.

Another teacher searches the Big Dig learners’

task bank. The Big Dig educational task bank has

been accumulating over the past nine years, with

contributions from teachers, students, parents,

professionals in the community, and various educators. The task bank began in 1995 with a grant
66 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

to the Metropolitan Boston Community-Wide

Education and Information Services (CWEIS) for

a multi-channel, multimedia educational project.

This project launched the educational Big Dig collaborative that has been growing since that time.

She locates three activities that might be helpful. The others look at the activity descriptions on

their own computer screens. These are geometry

tutorials developed back in the 1980s and they

don’t take advantage of the dynamic three-dimensional solid modeling tools the students are already accustomed to using. The teachers are not

entirely happy with these tutorials, although they

agree they are worth trying.

One teacher tunes her network agent to “geometry education,” and finds the Geometry Forum at

Swarthmore. Live at the Forum at the moment is

a small group of high school teachers talking with

a researcher in math education.

“Excuse me, may we interrupt for just a few

minutes to ask for some advice?” (She types

instead of using voice, so she will make a less obtrusive interruption of their apparently informal

meeting.)

“Sure. What’s up?” they say, using voice.

She introduces herself and her team, and explains their situation.

“Could you point us to a sample of the students’

work, and the panel critiques?”

“Sure. Tell your navigator to go to tunnelteam.bigdig.cweis.boston.ma.us.”

“OK. We’ll take a look later this afternoon and

leave you some notes there. I recall a group in the

Bay Area of San Francisco was working on

something similar with one of the technology

labs. We’ll check it out for you.”

“Thanks! Talk to you soon.”

“You’re welcome. I assume we may point some

other educators to your project?”

“Yes. Our fair use policies are described at the

CWEIS home page.”

“Thanks. Bye.”

The third member of the teaching team, an applied mathematician at the civil engineering firm

working for the city, agrees to follow up with the

Geometry Forum advice, introduce the Tunnel

Team to the new activities, and monitor the students’ progress with the activities over the next

two weeks.

The Big Dig educational task bank has evolved

and accumulated over 10 years. It is a very rich resource, but the quality and appropriateness of the

materials for any given situation or learner’s

needs is variable. Individual teachers often have

difficulty identifying task materials suitable for a

particular learner or group. For instance, spatial

sense, geometry, and visual representations have

been focus of renewal in mathematics curriculum

since the 1989 publication of the NCTM Standards (64, 90). But even in 2004 it is still difficult

to find appropriate learning materials in this

area, especially in an interdisciplinary context.

One of the many issues surrounding the task

bank—and all materials in the Big Dig distributed

information base, including student work—has

been the changing rules and customs about intellectual property rights for these materials. Hence

the “fair use” policies are explicitly explained in

the CWEIS, and each task package includes information about the developers, evaluators, users,

and fair compensation policy.

❚ Same Time, at the Community

Learning Center

Mrs. Maturana, a recent immigrant from Calí,

Colombia, has learned from her daughter that

there are jobs available on the Big Dig project. At

the community learning center where she is taking

lessons in English as a second language, she learns

about the jobs databank that is provided by

CWEIS. High school students in information systems apprenticeships have been working with the

metropolitan Central Artery Tunnel administration to keep the job bank updated. A Spanishspeaking volunteer at the center explains to Mrs.

Maturana the different programs available.

Mrs. Maturana is interested to learn more about

this, both so she might find a job, and because she

would like her high-school age daughter to have

such a learning experience.

The volunteer doesn’t really know much more

about the high school apprenticeships, so she

tunes the CWEIS navigator to the CAT adminis-
Appendix B Learning and Teaching in 2004: the BIG DIG | 67

tration building. The office building is also a project-based center for high school youth in a

school-to-work program for a certain number of

hours a day to work on information systems projects. A receptionist appears not to be very busy, so

the volunteer asks in voice, “Hello, we’re over

here at the Somerville Community Learning Center. Can you tell us about the CAT high school information system apprentices?”

“Oh yes, there are always at least a couple of

them around, day or night. I’ll see if I can get one

of them to talk to you.”

“Wait. Can you find someone who speaks

Spanish?”

“Sure, I think so. Hold on.”

A few seconds later a teen-ager appears on their

screen. In Spanish she describes the apprenticeships and the jobs bank.

The metropolitan planning authority, of which

the CAT is one part, is working on revitalizing the

inner city. It has Big Dig Jobs opportunities

created to permit learning to go on simultaneously

with the work. So, for example, you might get an

unskilled labor job to begin with, and take classes

to increase the skills you want to develop. There

are opportunities to use these new skills so that

you will not be doing menial work without a future prospects once the CAT project is completed.

Mrs. Maturana, still trying to understand all

this news about her new city, asks how such a system of working and learning is possible. Who

pays for it?

The student explains that his is a joint effort of

the city government, private industry, and educational institutions. Industrial firms benefit as well

as government agencies. For example, there are

some job openings at the plant where concrete sections are made for the underground highway. The

workers there are learning a new concrete mold

manufacturing technique from the online

manufacturers extension service (61).

“Well, Sra. Maturana,” the teenager ends,” I

think that you and your daughter Ana Julia should

make an appointment to come down to the CAT

building. I can help Ana Julia apply for an internship here, while you look for jobs in the database.

Let’s find a time next week-I’m here Monday and

Wednesday afternoons !”

TEACHING AND LEARNING:

UNDERNEATH THE BIG DIG

The Big Dig vignette weaves together many

strands of institutional change, learning activities,

teacher roles, and technology applications. All

these components currently exist in some form in

1994, although they are not yet integrated as widely and deeply into a community as the Big Dig vignette portrays.

Why the Big Dig theme? We use this organizing framework because it helps us think in a concrete way about several elements of reform

advocated for education. One set of concepts that

can help tie these elements together is embedded

in the term “authentic.”

❚ The Meaning of “Authentic”

The notion of authentic instruction is related to

our understanding of how people learn. People

bring their prior experience and concepts to new

situations, and construct their knowledge out of

their interaction with the world (4, 12, 65, 80, 91,

102). A community-based scenario such as the

Big Dig spotlights the interaction of everyday life

and learning. The Big Dig as an educational theme

and context, draws on individual and group experiences at home, in their neighborhoods, from

their newspapers and television, so that the

construction of new knowledge flows naturally

from the everyday realities of life.

The CAT project is a very large endeavor affecting in different ways the lives of nearly every person in a metropolitan area. Hence as a theme and

context for learning and teaching, it draws upon

the real-world experiences of children, professionals, parents, workers and politicians across

the diverse neighborhoods of a city. It acknowledges the great diversity of people, and the fact

that they bring different backgrounds and experiences to a learning situation(10). Such an emphasis and respect for diversity is a key step to

equitable educational opportunity in our increasingly multicultural society. A city-wide context
68 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

for learning is not the only possible approach to

creating a culture of lifelong learning that offers

universal and equitable opportunity for everyone.

One could, for example, focus on a global context,

or on a virtual community of people who share a

common interest and background irrespective of

their geographic location (11, 82).

Authentic means working on projects and

problems of intrinsic interest to the learner or a

group of learners, rather than learning what everyone else of the same age is expected to learn at the

time; working collaboratively with peers and

mentors; closer relationships between people inside schools and outside in the “real world.” This

cannot be accomplished unless there is a sustained

motivation and interest on the part of all the

people involved. The CAT project is so large it affects nearly everyone’s life. It is multidimensional

and of long duration (decades) so that it provides

a sustained motivating context. The CAT project

involves local, state and national politics, history,

ecology, finance, engineering, mathematics, science, social science, journalism, media, business,

and jobs.

Authentic means working in a hands-on mode

with the physical and social world, in addition to

and in interaction with abstract symbols and

words, and electronic representations such as television provides. The Big Dig offers a wide variety

of places and phenomena for students and teachers

to conduct empirical investigations in their own

neighborhoods—physical construction, utilities

infrastructure, wildlife, vehicle traffic, people’s

opinions, newspaper and television and radio, historical artifacts. Rather than using electronic media in a way that removes people from their

physical and social community, the Big Dig scenario uses electronic media and tools to help reconnect people to their hands-on world. This

focus on the learner’s interaction with the physical

world is important both from the perspective of individual cognitive development and the from the

standpoint of the health of the planet.

Authentic means learning something at the

time a learner is ready and motivated to learn it—

perhaps because it is needed to solve a problem or

complete a project, or perhaps just from developmental readiness, or curiosity, or social pressure—rather than in a preset curriculum sequence.

This is very difficult for learners and teachers to

achieve without the support and accessibility of

experts and a large repertoire of instructional materials (12). The combination of the Big Dig and

the technological and informational infrastructure

provides a set of conditions that make just-in-time

learning plausible, if not consistently achievable.

In the tunnel team vignette some students needed

to advance their skills in mathematics to make

progress on their tunnel simulation. The teachers

were able to draw upon expertise from national

sources (e.g., the Geometry Forum), local industry (applied mathematician from a CAT contractor), higher education, and the CWEIS itself (Big

Dig task bank) to create appropriate just-in-time

learning opportunities for these students.

Authentic means continual learning. A basic

premise underlying our vision is that everyone

needs to be learning in our rapidly changing

world. Recently, many studies have found far too

many adults to be woefully lacking in basic literacy (19). At the same time, highly trained

professionals, such as engineers, need constant

upgrading of their skills and knowledge.

Authentic learning often occurs in an interdisciplinary context, rather than in separate subjects

and isolated topics; working on a problem in

depth, rather than covering many topics superficially (3). Thematic, interdisciplinary investigations and project-based learning are becoming

more common in schools today. They are usually

of short duration and there is not enough time to

develop the deep underlying concepts or the skills

needed to achieve strong discipline. Therefore

many attempts at project-based learning are superficial, lacking in deep understanding of underlying concepts or analytical discipline.

The long duration of a Big Dig theme could

provide the years needed to build a coherent interdisciplinary curriculum and repertoire of highquality learning materials. In the Big Dig

scenario, students build an increasingly complex

and deep understanding from year to year. A student gathering opinion data from local business

people may not have all the skills needed to ana-
Appendix B Learning and Teaching in 2004: the BIG DIG | 69

lyze that data meaningfully in a short project. In

the Big Dig scenario, that student might revisit the

cumulative data on business opinions the next

year, and would then have opportunity to learn

more advanced statistical analysis concepts and

skills in the context of data with which he already

is familiar and personally invested. Because the

real world of the tunnel project keeps changing

(e.g. perhaps opinions of the market merchants

change in a year due to changes in the parking situation), the project could remain fresh and alive—

unlike having to repeat a chapter in a textbook

(89).

Authentic means working directly with people

from other places and cultures, rather than only indirectly through books (85). In today’s large metropolitan areas, there are different neighborhoods

made up of people from a range of places and cultures. Typically there is little interaction among

these separate neighborhoods. A metropolitanwide theme as encompassing as the Big Dig could

be used to provide opportunities and motivation

for learning from each other. For instance, students in Cambridge might ask students who live

beside the entrance to the tunnel to collect samples

of traffic data for their study of the changing traffic

patterns over time. With the National and Global

Information Infrastructure, students can also

reach outside their geographic region for collaborations and resources. The history class studying

native American artifacts could correspond directly with native American and indigenous

scholars and students around the hemisphere.

Authentic learning often requires teamwork.

Different members of the team have different

skills, interests, and knowledge to contribute to

solution of a complex problem (25). In a context

such as the Big Dig scenario, teamwork is natural

and logical because the learners bring a wide range

of backgrounds and capabilities to the task. Teamwork is becoming more typical in modern corporations and business situations (8, 22, 24, 46). In

typical schools of the industrial age, where learners are segregated by age and everyone in a class

is expected to be achieving the same educational

objectives at the same time, it is difficult to conduct meaningful, complex projects requiring a

wide repertoire of skills and knowledge.

In 1990, over 74 percent of women whose

youngest child was between the ages of 6 and 13

were working or looking for paid work (58). One

might speculate that the best social arrangement

for lifelong learning of both the child and the parent is a community-based structure that supports

all ages of people in highly flexible ways—including opportunities for adults and children to

learn together. “Over the coming years, society’s

ability to adapt to the changing needs of working

mothers and their children will be increasingly essential to the health and vitality of families and to

the well-being of their children” (58, p.23).

Authentic means producing something of real

value to someone. In our vignette, for instance,

students produced a CAT jobs databank that has

real value to their parents and others in the community. Other students produced an exhibit that

was visited and enjoyed by thousands of visitors.

Others produced a newspaper that provided information to many others across the metropolis.

The ability of students and teachers to produce

knowledge that is of real value to a larger audience

is perhaps the single most important change in

education, and is the change most directly facilitated through electronic communications technologies and the information infrastructure (70, 81,

96).

Authentic means using the real tools for intellectual work that are used in the workplace, rather

than oversimplified textbook techniques. A real

context such as the Big Dig could make it possible

for educational purposes to draw upon real-world

tools such as the tunnel simulation software, the

jobs data-bank, data analysis tools, that were developed for work in the community. As we

evinced in the Tunnel Team vignette, the tools

used by professionals are not the same as, and are

not always directly transferable, for use by children or novices. But the existence of and commitment to a long-term project such as the Big Dig

would make it feasible to invest the time and effort

in learning, modifying, and applying these realworld tools to education.
70 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

Authentic means basing assessment of student

progress on performance of real tasks rather than

artificial tests. In 1994, many groups are working

on new methods of assessing student learning as

demonstrated in exhibitions and portfolios (14,

21, 43, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61). This has proved to

be a very challenging endeavor but as illustrated

in the Tunnel Team vignette it becomes more

feasible under the circumstances of a large, continuing, and community-wide theme. The hypothetical assessment specialist in the Tunnel Team

was able to draw upon previous years’ experience,

the specialized knowledge of diverse panelists,

the voices of learners and teachers, and an accessible base of information about the educational

goals of individual learners and teams.

❚ New Roles for Teachers

In all these instances of “authentic” learning,

teaching roles are richer and more vibrant than

teachers now occupy. Teachers are guides and

mentors and learners, rather than mere dispensers

of knowledge. The Big Dig is a real-world event

that keeps growing and changing, thus it provides

opportunities for teachers to continue their own

learning. Teachers build a web of contacts in the

community outside of schools to which they can

turn to help them in their own and their students’

learning.

These new roles are already evolving. A 1990s

example is the work of Nick Haddad, a teacher in

Fairweather Street School in Cambridge, MA,

who has been collecting data from the Boston Harbor for seven years. His “Boston Harbor Data

Sheet” included weekly statistics on species of

fish caught, imports and exports, ships and their

cargo, water and air data, and learning activities

that integrate the study of the Harbor into schooling. He worked with over 100 teachers from

around the city, and with MASSPORT authority

experts. He works with a group of teachers from

around the city, and with Harbor authority experts,

developing educational activities that draw upon

these data. His own continuing learning about the

changing ecology and technology of the Harbor

sustains his motivation for this work.

In 1994 we have many pioneering projects and

teachers who have created learning environments

that enable students both to develop skills in using

advanced technological tools and to apply those

skills to the production of valued products for

their community (6, 38). For instance, Randall

Raymond, a teacher at Cass Technical High

School, is Project Director for “Urban Environmental Education in Detroit.” Working with businesses, government agencies, community

colleges, universities and research institutes in the

Detroit region, he has developed community partnerships and outreach programs. These partnerships enable his students to develop skill in

applying Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

technology to problems and projects of importance to the partners. The students conduct demographic studies for small businesses, perform

resource mapping and planning for local units of

government, design school transportation systems, develop a complete GIS-driven management system for the entire Detroit Public School

system, digitize the Detroit Public Library system, provide GIS training for urban teachers and

members of the community, and participate in internships that help make a productive transition

from school to work. The students’ involvement

in local environmental issues has created many

opportunities to build and apply skills such as data

analysis and spatial analysis.

Information resource facilitator, assessment

specialist, technology expert, team manager and

facilitator, child development expert, subject matter specialist-all these multiple roles teachers are

now beginning to assume must be understood as

unfolding within a team environment. Not every

teacher need be an expert in each role. What is necessary, however, are changed expectations for, and

conditions within, the profession of teaching.

First, the isolated world of the self-contained

classroom must give way to a more open learning

community in which teachers have a chance to

work with, observe and learn from each other as

well as from professionals in other fields. These

teachers (and their students) will most likely remain with each other over a period of years.
Appendix B Learning and Teaching in 2004: the BIG DIG | 71

Therefore, just as families will need more power

in exercising choices over their children’s education, so teachers will need to exercise increased

choice regarding whom they wish to teach with

and under what conditions.

Second, teachers must be adequately prepared

for the new roles they will occupy, not only

through academic pre-service education but

through significant clinical pre-service experiences as well. Those coming into the profession

will need more supervised experience with a

group of accomplished mentors than that afforded

by present mostly hit and miss induction experiences (26). Project centers such as CWEIS and

BMER can function as professional development

schools for these prospective teachers.

Third, a restructured teaching profession and

workforce will need to be created. This workforce

will include people who come to teaching via nontraditional routes (some of the experts in the Big

Dig, for example), as well as different incentives

for those who occupy differentiated roles. We will

return to this point later in the paper.

DISCUSSION: GETTING FROM

HERE TO THERE

A new social compact is assumed in the Big Dig

vignette. In the interim, what happens to school

districts organizationally as technology reduces

the need for geographic continuity within a District? In our vignette, the school and district organization is in a transition phase. School districts

exist in their traditional form, and they also participate in a metropolitan collaborative based on the

CWEIS. This metropolitan collaborative would

not have evolved without the concurrent developments in the digital telecommunications infrastructure across the area in the late 1990s. The

CWEIS of 1994 had laid the organizational

foundation across the city to take advantage of the

evolving telecommunications infrastructure.

Thus by 2004 the organizational and informational mechanisms for such collaboration were well

established. Many community leaders, television

and radio stations, businesses, libraries, local governments, universities, and schools were already

collaborating on the development of highly distributed information services. Gradually over the

mid- and late-1990s these diverse institutions

would have developed the technical infrastructure

and skills in order to contribute to and benefit

from the metropolitan-wide knowledge base.

Mercedes’ “Using Your Brain” module could

have evolved to the point where the nine-week

project module was commonplace across the metropolitan area. Every student might participate in

at least one such cycle during the year. Since the

projects were designed to produce and not merely

“reproduce” knowledge, they were considered

“value-added.” Communities might find that the

projects made good economic and civic sense.

Workplace skills were being developed early; the

application to real-life examples immediate.

Support for the project cycles came from the

Boston Metropolitan Education Region, a quasipublic organization modeled after a metropolitan

transit authority or the TVA (Tennessee Valley

Authority, a regional organization). Evaluation of

the projects were an ongoing concern of the

BMER. Now, it was not only students and teachers who were being evaluated; it was also the

effectiveness of the various players who collaborated with the students and teachers. What was it

that they all agreed was important for students to

know and be able to do? How were they to measure it? And what was their own responsibility in

seeing to it that adequate resources and opportunities were created to achieve the purposes stated?

With help from the state and federal government, the BMER-supported projects also marked

the beginnings of a new approach to educational

finance. No longer tied to the property tax, every

family is given a base educational “learning

account” to apply to a portion of its educational

services. This community learning utility is supported as part of the partnership agreement between government and the private sector within

the Boston Metropolitan Education Region.

Financing these innovations in learning and

teaching and collaboration and knowledge-building might have been a constant struggle over the

10 years from 1994 to 2004. The Big Dig theme
72 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

could provide a great deal of financial leverage, in

several ways. The television, radio, and newspapers invested in the development of a vast array of

information and educational material simply because the Big Dig topic was of great interest to

their customers. Schools and community learning

centers could have built upon that naturally developing corpus of multimedia material. In addition,

school students and teachers would have been able

to add to the materials because of their first-hand

experience with the phenomena. They could have

gathered information from local citizens and experts for free through interviews and questionnaires. They could have gather empirical data from the

physical construction sites and surrounding areas

without cost. Perhaps most important is that the

students’ work would have value to the community. In 1999 there might have been enough community and school interest in the Big Dig theme for

education that they were able to get the CAT authorities to agree to invest 5 percent of CAT funds

into education and training.

Is our vision a utopian one? After all, there is

nothing new in arguing that technology is soon to

exert a profound influence on the institution of

schooling. The literature is replete with boastful

predictions of major changes that somehow never

materialized. What is new, we have argued, is a set

of circumstances that make this argument more

compelling than similar ones of the past. First, the

use of technology within the society is rapidly becoming ubiquitous and necessary for economic

survival. Second, the kinds of technologies being

developed and deployed are, unlike their antecedents, of a kind that exemplify authentic and

“constructivist” approaches to teaching and learning. Finally, the new technologies, especially

within the communication field, have already

demonstrated the potential to transform the

boundaries of teaching and learning.

All this, however, remains speculative. Unlike

Lew Perelman’s School’s Out (77), our scenario is

not depicting a world of isolated and terminalbound individuals pursuing an isolated, atomistic

vision of “life-long learning.” We do not challenge the need for the underlying “social capital”

currently being provided for by the institution of

schooling. In fact, we believe one of the more serious problems facing contemporary education is

the lack of adequate social capital (110). That is

one reason why we support community-oriented,

project-based education with its long period of social and intellectual apprenticeship. We question

whether traditional schools, with all their existing

social and organizational baggage, can any longer

accommodate the profound changes technology is

already having on our world while enhancing our

children’s ability to learn, live, and develop comfortably within it.

The task of public policy, then, is not one of exercising unbridled imagination or passion in pursuit of some technological garden of Eden.

Instead, it is a more difficult one—that of sustaining critical public engagement with the present

while simultaneously creating incentives that

might bring to scale those fledgling developments

we decide as a society are most in accord with

what is possible and desirable.

❚ Three Contexts For Change

Based on our experience in utilizing technology to

transform schools (18, 39), we suggest that there

are three distinct but related contexts for change

that are critical in transforming the rosy vision we

present to one that is attainable. The first context

is that of integrating new technology tools and the

developing information infrastructure of which

they are a part. Second, are issues and challenges

associated with incorporating novel approaches to

teaching and learning made possible by the new

tools and infrastructure. The third context for

change concerns the creation of a hospitable political, economic and organizational environment

necessary to develop and sustain the visions informing the Big Dig.

Institutionalizing Change:

Technology Tools and Information

How to integrate tools and information infrastructure? All the separate technological tools being

used in the Big Dig vignette are in use in 1994, although their use today is not as seamless as we

portray in the scenario. The first major difference,
Appendix B Learning and Teaching in 2004: the BIG DIG | 73

then, between 1994 and the Big Dig scenario is to

be found in the seamless environment of technology and information infrastructures, and the fluency with these tools are used to design and enhance

learning experiences.

The technological infrastructure includes such

components as computers, local area networks,

telecommunications, and the equipment that connects all of these to metropolitan, national, and

global networks. This infrastructure is just now

beginning to change the landscape of American

education. Client-server technologies, for example, now make possible decentralized control over

the local educational environment. In particular,

integration of LANs and WANs, combined with a

new generation of servers that are user-friendly,

now allow teachers and students to more effectively design and manage their own educational

environment.

The information infrastructure includes the

technological infrastructure plus the information

and organizational arrangements that make the

educational environment of the Big Dig vignette

possible. “Information” is used in its broadest

sense, to include such things as:

 the Big Digger newsletter published by the students;

 the 10-year archive of interview data from Haymarket vendors; the database management systems that enable users to create the cumulative

archive of interview data;

 the pictures and annotations of the Spectacle Island artifacts on the CWEIS Web; video materials gathered by students on the ecology of the

harbor;

 the economic data on the CAT project, and related scholarly papers on economic models being used by the students for their senior thesis;

data analysis tools used by the students to analyze and interpret such data as the vendor interviews and the economic data;

 the software and locator directories that make it

easy for the Tunnel Team to connect via videoconference with Azikwe’s mother’s office and

the other schools in metropolitan communities;

 the tunnel simulation software demonstrated by

Azikwe and his mother; reference data on the

various components of the tunnel simulation,

such as specifications on performance of materials;the students’ tunnel simulation and the

simulation-building tools used to create it;

 the shared workspace software tools that enable

local and remote participants to observe

Azikwe’s computer screen during his demonstration;

 the collaborative notebook used for brainstorming and documentation in the Tunnel Team

workshop;

 the assessment archives from last year’s Tunnel

Team exhibitions; the database of expert reviewers willing to participate in assessing student work; students’ personal development

plans; the Tunnel Team’s educational goals;

 the Big Dig educational task bank of lessons

and learning activities;

 network agents and intelligent navigational

agents that enable the teacher to locate the Geometry Forum; the people and information provided by the Geometry Forum

 the “fair use policies” agreed to by the CWEIS

community; and

 the Big Dig jobs bank maintained by high

school interns and the city CAT authority.

In our scenario, nearly all of these informational learning components have been constructed

through the collaborative efforts of citizens as a

byproduct of their learning activities.

In reality, in 1994 there exists very little advanced development efforts that would create and

deploy the kinds of resources, tools, and services

needed to support the Big Dig vignette. The kind

of information infrastructure that is implied and

reflected in the vignette is nearly opposite to the

kinds of “Information Superhighway” development activity underway in 1994 by the telecommunications and entertainment industries, and

other commercial enterprises that control the

evolution of the infrastructure. In general, these

developments aim towards a view of people as

consumers of information rather than producers of
74 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

knowledge. Funding is practically nonexistent for

the development of services, tools, resources, and

know-how that would provide the appropriate underpinning for educational experiences such as

those reflected in the Big Dig. Every individual

project and community has to develop such infrastructures on its own, and none have funding for

such purposes, if those services and tools are accessible at all. Localities and states do not fund development of software advances. The federal

government has almost no mechanisms at all for

funding of software development or deployment

in the context of supporting reform of civilian

education.

Institutionalizing Change: Teaching and

Learning with Technology

Integrating learning tools with an information

infrastructure requires a different view of what

constitutes a “learning curriculum.” The Big Dig

participants’ information handling, problemsolving, and higher-order thinking skills perhaps

provide the most dramatic difference between

1994 and the scenario for 2004. In the vignette,

such skills are exemplified in the following ways:

Quality

 the quality control processes built into the student newsletter effort, such that the students’

work is usable by professional journalists

Design

 the assessment group’s ability to formulate a

two-pronged strategy for this year’s exhibit assessment, taking advantage of different kinds

of input available.

Communications

 the ability of both children and adults to communicate effectively in writing, speaking, and

visual media;

 the teaching team’s ability to communicate

their needs to a distant expert in geometry

education; and

 the CAT teenager’s ability to explain the organization of the Big Dig Jobs Bank and the institutional context for that effort.

Collaboration

 the ability of people to spontaneously form efficient working teams;

 teacher Elaine Smith’s ability to choose the appropriate collaboration tool at the time it was

needed for efficient work in the day-long meeting, and the ability of the workshop participants to access and use the tool with fluency.

Analysis

 The high-level analysis skills of teachers and

students capable of formulating a comparison

between this years’ interview data and prior

years’ study methods and findings;

 A student’s ability to envision the usefulness of

a side-by-side comparison of two simulation

systems representations in the tunnel simulation system;

 A student’s ability to conduct a critical analysis

of the user interface of the simulation system in

relation to the requirements of a large public exhibit; and

 The ability of the Somerville teacher and students to make a quick critique of the draft assessment plan, see it’s major flaw, and

intervene in a timely manner.

Media

 the students’ skill in producing high-quality

digital images of the native American artifacts,

suitable for publication on the Web and enabling analysis and commentary by distant scholars;

 the high-quality videos produced by students

documenting the tunnel and artery traffic; and

 Student fluency with image processing techniques enabling them to conceptualize how to

compare current digital images and images

from a 10-year-old video.
Appendix B Learning and Teaching in 2004: the BIG DIG | 75

Information Retrieval

 The ability of the student assessment specialist

to locate relevant archives of information concerning individual students, teams, educational

objectives, historical assessments, and assessment panelists;

 The teaching team’s ability to search the Big

Dig educational task bank for materials relevant to the Tunnel Team’s needs in mathematics, and to make a quick evaluation of those

materials;

 The ability of the volunteer worker at the community learning center to teach Mrs. Maturana

how to use the jobs databank, and how to make

a live visit to the CAT administration building.

Investigation

 the complexity of the economics project undertaken by the high school seniors.

Learning and Cognition

 A community college teacher’s recognition of

the utility of the tunnel simulation system for

his technician students;

 The engineer’s recognition of the similarity between a new professional engineer’s learning

task and the learning task of a group of schoolchildren;

 A child’s ability to envision the use of tunnel

traffic data to create an interesting game for

adults; and

 A teenager’s ability to assess the complexity of

the tunnel simulation in relation to the capabilities of her younger teammates.

Science and Engineering

 A teacher’s insight about the usefulness of the

tunnel simulation for identifying assumptions

about structural properties of the tunnel tubes,

and her understanding of the value of this activity for the students; and

 A teacher’s ability to see how to create a performance test of student understanding of physics

by using an operational simulation system.

Yet getting from here to there will not be easy.

One of the more difficult areas to address is how

to integrate the use of technology in teaching and

learning so that it becomes an everyday occurrence in everyone’s life.

At present, this integration is the exception, not

the rule. More often, as in drill and practice software or traditional ILSes (Integrated Learning

Systems), technology is employed to do what

textbooks now do. Alternatively, technology is

often used exclusively as a “tool” without regard

to the quality of the learning it is meant to enhance. In the former instance, the curriculum

remains traditional, wed to scope and sequenceoriented subject matter, often with a deadening

emphasis on drilling in the “basic skills.” In the

latter instance, the technology applications can be

quite advanced and “constructivist” (email, hypermedia, etc.), but lack sufficient depth of engaging content or context to justify the effort. In both

instances, the source of the difficulty is not the

technology; it is the curriculum.

Changing the curriculum so that technology

can be employed productively is not easy. The national standards movement could prove useful

here-providing it results in frameworks that resist

dilution and in assessments that resist simplification. Also helpful is widespread interest in the development of project-based curriculum that

require teachers and students to orient their demonstrations of learning to significant “out of

school” contexts. Emphasis on “school-to-work”

transitions might also expedite the kinds of curriculum changes that require a more significant integration of technology.

The unremarkable “ordinariness” of what this

technology use might look like in both the content

and setting of “real school” is what we attempted

to depict throughout The Big Dig. The educational reform efforts of the mid-1990s share a

profound shift in emphasis from the contentmemorizing paradigm of the past to a paradigm of

learning that demands high levels of skill in collaborating, communicating, solving problems,

managing information, and the production of

knowledge. This has been accompanied by a fundamental rejection of the belief that only a few

educated people are required for an industrial

economy, to the belief that everyone must be fully
76 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

educated to participate in a knowledge-based society.

In reality, the Big Dig scenario reflects a high

level of cognitive and social functioning with the

support of appropriate technologies-a level unlikely o be achieved by 2004. In 1994 there exists

almost no research that would lead to the theoretical and empirical knowledge base needed as a

foundation for these educational changes. Public

monies that currently are being expended in this

arena are for deployment and implementation, not

research. The Big Dig scenario implies all sorts of

understandings that simply do not exist in the current state of the art-understandings of cognition

and learning and instruction in the context of very

complex, information rich, dynamic situations

that have rarely been the context for educational

or cognitive research. For instance, currently there

is no research on how learners become fluent with

image processing or the role of such fluency in

novices’ development of understanding of dynamic processes (9, 91). There is almost no research underway on appropriate tools for novices’

construction of dynamic models and simulations

and the cognitive processes involved in such

construction. Ironically, at the time local, state and

federal education agencies are spending millions

to connect schools to the NII and to acquire related

computing equipment, there is almost no research

on acquisition of information handling skills in

the context of very large information space, and

their appropriate incorporation into school curricula and practice. Human-computer interface issues such as understandibility and standardization

of iconic representations are de facto resolved by

software publishers on the basis of idiosyncratic

intuitions, with no grounding in empirical research. There is no research underway that would

help to inform or establish the kinds of community-wide educational assessment and quality assurance processes and standards reflected in the

information infrastructure of the Big Dig scenario.

How inclusive can this ambitious curriculum

be? Reviewers asked, will it work for the “bottom

half” of teachers and students? This question suggests that there might be a permanent “bottom

half.” We reject this notion. As Stevenson and

Stigler have pointed out in their 1992 comparative study of American and Japanese and Chinese

education, the poor achievement level of American students has more to do with our culture of

learning than with any presumptive inequities in

innate intellectual endowment (92). Setting high

standards and expectations for all people, especially in the early grades, instituting a more

rigorous and challenging curriculum, and emphasizing “effort” over “ability,” will help raise

the “bottom half” more than measures whose net

effect is to exacerbate, not solve, inequity. In

short, there is no reason to believe that there is a

permanent bottom half.

Thinkers such as Howard Gardner have pointed

out that schools, with their narrow range of individual options and scope and sequence curriculum, often tap into only a limited range of

“intelligences” and by so doing, miss the opportunities to engage and develop the talents and proclivities of many students (20).

Authentic Learning: As Opposed to What?

Changing the curriculum does not mean that

teaching and learning will thereby become effortless. We have been careful not to romanticize

learning. When, for example, Azikwe’s mother

points out to the student Meera that the software

program used by professional engineers is different than the students’ program, the underlying reason is that the students’ program has been created

to reflect a controlled learning environment—an

environment that is not, nor cannot be, completely

“authentic” from the perspective of a professional

engineer. Similarly, the utilization of the Swarthmore Geometry Forum by the Tunnel Team teachers is meant to show that there will be times at

which specialized instruction (in this case, Geometry) is necessary, though the manner in which it

occurs (its “just-in-time” quality, for example)

distinguishes its use from traditional scope and sequence pedagogy and curriculum.

Learning is not always fun, engaging, or relentlessly faithful to the real world. It can on occasion

require the repetitive performance of tasks or in-
Appendix B Learning and Teaching in 2004: the BIG DIG | 77

tellectual battle with concepts and theories that are

unfamiliar, removed from “reality,” even somewhat contrived. That is one reason we believe that

paying attention to standards, to what students are

expected to know and be able to do, is critical. Unlike past attempts at making education “relevant,”

contemporary preoccupation with authentic learning is grounded in the belief that there should be

explicit habits of mind, competencies and core

knowledge that all students are expected to master.

The Tyranny of Time and the “Schedule.”

What goes on in most schools is often determined

by the school schedule (62). Forty-five-minute

periods, bus schedules, and rigid work rules imposed by teacher contract, can disrupt the flow of

time in which active and engaged learning occurs.

Until this changes, it is unlikely that significant

numbers of students and teachers will be able to

incorporate technologies in a more challenging

curriculum. We have already suggested that moving some of the work of schools to outside the

school will help free students from the stranglehold of the daily schedule.

But more is needed. In order to make technology an integral and institutionalized part of learning, schools must take seriously the notion that

people learn in different ways and at different

rates. Arbitrary assignments of students based on

age must cease, and more flexible grouping and

teaming practices must become commonplace. A

central point of our Big Dig scenario is the creative use of computer and communication

technologies to help overcome the tyranny of time

and the complexities of scheduling group work.

Professional Development: Unless there exists

a requisite level of proficiency with (and access

to) the various tools and applications, they will not

be used at all, much less creatively. Professional

development must be continuous; it must have

immediate use in instructional contexts; and it

must, ultimately, be localized within the learning

community. Tools used in professional development must be available for use within the community when and where they are requested.

Phasing in Technology Use: It is not always desirable to begin in a technology-rich environment.

Our experience in the Co-NECT restructuring

project, in fact, has been the opposite. Unfamiliar

technology can have a “smothering” effect on students and teachers. It is often better to phase in its

use, so that the instructional, social and physical

environments have a developing and organic relationship to one another.

Institutionalizing Change: Politics,

Economics and Organization

Communities, Unions and Politics: Who will

support the vision? There are a number of different

components to this question:

a) First, what makes us confident that there

are enough “experts” out in the community

who are willing and able to spend the kind of

time with students that the vignette’s experts

(engineers, public officials, college professors)

were willing and able to spend? In fact, we are

not confident that this will occur on the scale necessary to realize our vision. To be sure, there will

always be a certain number of individuals who

happily and selflessly devote their time to education. But we also believe that incentives will have

to be created to bring this vision to scale.

Demographics could prove key in making

these incentives salient. For example, consider the

following demographic projection: While the

youth population (10 to 17) is shrinking from 34

percent of the nation in 1970 to 25 percent in 2000,

there is a corresponding rise in the over 65 population from 20 million to 40 million during that

same period of time (and a rise to 65 million in the

year 2030) (31, 32). Healthy and still productive,

the over-65 population will most certainly want to

extend its stay within the workforce.

From a public policy standpoint, therefore,

measures should be considered that might aid in

the restructuring of the educational workforce and

at the same time, meet projected workforce realities facing corporations, public entities, and institutions of higher education. It is possible, for

example, to imagine a new category of “semi-re-
78 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

tired” personnel whose benefits remain intact, but

whose workloads and salaries are adjusted to allow for civic-oriented contributions, such as becoming educational mentors. A combination of

tax incentives and the resultant opportunity to restructure their workforce might prove attractive to

both the public and private sectors.

b) Will teacher unions buy in? Not likely, given the present political infrastructure of American

education. As long as the agenda of local collective bargaining is determined by the existing political and institutional framework of education

(school districts, outdated labor law, etc.), there is

little likelihood that unions will abandon “hours,

wages, and working conditions” as their central

purpose or that they will welcome the inclusion of

non-dues-paying community experts into their

ranks.

At least two changes will have to occur to alter

union opposition. First, the political structure

upon which union structure is mirrored—e.g., local school districts—will have to be reconceived.

And second, there will need to be created positive

incentives for unions to change their basic orientation and purpose.

As to the first change, we already see the emergence of alternative political structures within

education (such as charter schools and expanded

public school choice) as potentially significant developments. These alternatives have begun to exert decentralizing pressure on centralized union

rules and regulations as well as school board rules

and regulations. Simultaneously, school finance

is undergoing taxpayer criticism and extensive review. As states seek funding alternatives to their

systems’ present reliance on the local property

tax, it is conceivable that some of the local focus

of economic and political decisionmaking might

shift as well. If this occurs, the focus of local

unions interest might change. The second change

necessary (new incentives) might occur in measures such as providing greater teacher decisionmaking and influence in the area of professional

development in return for a relaxation in union determination of “hours, wages, and working conditions,” new pay schemes (pay for performance,

differentiated pay ushered in through the National

Board for Professional Teaching Standards, etc.).

What will happen to school districts as the vision unfolds?

a) A system of schools rather than a school

system: The organizational context enabling instructional changes like those above, requires less

control and more facilitation from the school district central office.

This move toward greater decentralization

(school-based management, charter schools, etc.)

might, as mentioned, eventually result in a radically different institutional context for education.

In the short run, however, increased use of

technology in education will raise, as it has done

in other areas of government and business, serious

questions regarding privatization, the role of

middle management and the possibility of decentralized accountability. In general, we believe

that schools organized around shared educational

visions will be more productive than those that are

grouped together on exclusively geographical criteria (30).

b) Restructure administration: At least in the

near term, school districts will remain the primary

administrative organizational agents responsible

for schools. If so, much needs to be done immediately to avoid inefficiency at the central office level. Technology planning and implementation is

often plagued by archaic central office structures.

In particular, facilities, instruction and administrative functions are often maintained by separate

line and staff structures.

When this occurs, inefficiency results. Hardware is ordered centrally without regard to the requirements of the applications it will be running;

facilities renovation is planned without accounting for the telecommunications or video needs of

the local educational program; technology acquisition/maintenance is placed in budget categories and lines that make them susceptible to

year-to-year fluctuations in funding, rather than

being placed in fixed line items such as utilities.

c) Integrate administrative and instructional technology: The history of technology in edu-
Appendix B Learning and Teaching in 2004: the BIG DIG | 79

cation has been a bifurcated one: Administrative

technology has developed in isolation from its

instructional use. Most often, the central office

has been the “data processing shop.” Instructional

use of technology (electronic portfolios, access to

databases, etc.) has arisen independently.

Today, it is important to combine these two

functions so that: decentralized learning communities have access to information when and where

they need it; (health records, budget, car registration, milk count, etc., as well as educational), reporting requirements are made helpful, not

burdensome, to these communities; and we avoid

the inefficiencies of separate and redundant

technology infrastructures.

d) A school is not a building: Or at least not

the egg crate carton structures that have become

identified with school facilities. The new technologies require facilities and infrastructures that can

accommodate them. After all, it does little good to

have schools equipped for the 21st century but designed for the 19th (insufficient wiring, inadequate, dysfunctional space, etc.). Over half the

existing school buildings in the country were built

in the 1960s, with an expected shelf-life of 35

years. They were built in a fairly standardized

manner and without regard for the eventual inclusion of technology. School districts, especially

ones that no longer design schools according to

the principle that “one size fits all, “ will need help

in effecting a transformation (25). The Department of Education and/or private foundations

should consider reestablishing a “Educational Facilities Laboratory” (similar to the one created by

the Ford Foundation during the building frenzy of

the ‘60s) in order to disseminate current information and promising models of new technology-rich schools. The new “School Facilities

Infrastructure Improvement Program” approved

by Congress for FY 1995 is a small step in the

right direction.

e) Student mobility: Another impediment to

creating structures that are amenable to sustained

flexibility in the learning environment is student

mobility, a situation particularly acute in many urban areas. It can be counterproductive for a student to work in a flexible structure that

incorporates the creative use of technology, if

when that same student moves during the course

of the year, her new school incorporates a traditional pedagogical structure and schedule. It is important, therefore, to seek ways in which

continuity of educational experience over time

persists across traditional attendance boundaries.

Increased parental choice, appropriate transportation arrangements and use of networks for continuity of experience from one educational setting

to another are examples of the kind of thinking

necessary to solve this problem.

f) Many places for learning: In our scenario,

people are physically located in many different

places throughout the city as they participate in

learning activities. The technology enables great

flexibility of place.

How will this vision be financed? We have already indicated a number of ways in which the financing of elementary and secondary education

will have to be reconceived if the vision of The

Big Dig is to become generalized. In what follows, we elaborate on these.

How will the teaching workforce be structured

and supported? The lion’s share of every educational institution’s budget is consumed by personnel costs. There are at present some 2.5 million

K-12 teachers. By and large, these teachers have

been “trained” and compensated as if they were interchangeable parts. The kinds of technologyintensive, project-based education we have

sketched will require a fundamental restructuring

of the teaching profession. We have already discussed the various new roles that individual

“teachers” are now occupying and will increasingly do so. The structure and composition of the

workforce as a whole will also experience radical

change. More specifically:

 There may be fewer “professional teachers” required. Instead of 2.5 million K-12 teachers, it

is possible to imagine a situation in which the

profession is restructured to accommodate a

permanent “teaching force” far fewer in number. This number would command significant-
80 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

ly higher average salaries than at present, meet

more rigorous entrance requirements (certification as opposed to simple licensure), and held

accountable for student results.

 They might be supplemented with a large number of people who would be paid substantially

less. These people (engineers, scientists, writers, artists, etc.) are the experts with whom the

teachers and students work directly. As a group,

we could expect that these individuals would

have their basic health and retirement benefits

covered by their existing employers.

 College graduates who attend college on forgiveable loans might constitute a third element

of a restructured workforce. Upon graduation,

these individuals would be employed as interns

in various educational settings. After a number

of year’s service, the debt incurred from their

college loans would be forgiven.

 This restructured three-tiered work force would

require significant use of technology. The

widespread availability and use of different

kinds of technology allows for a more efficient

deployment of personnel, greater use of economies of scale, and increased personalization.

How will new organizational structures be

created and financed? The Big Dig envisioned the

creation of a fictional entity, the Boston Metropolitan Educational Region, as a cooperative venture

of local, state and federal government with private

industry. If, as suggested, school districts give rise

to organizational structures more attuned to out of

school learning and common academic purpose,

entities like BMER might become typical. These

entities could be financed through a combination

of various means:

 The expenditure of monies drawn from “lifelong learning” accounts—that is, accounts

created and made available to citizens at birth

and expended throughout an individual’s life

by enrolling in any number of various learning/

project centers.

 The ability of entities as nonprofit educational

corporations to earn revenue by creating socially useful products and/or services, and the leasing of space.

 Industry (biotechnology, finance, software,

etc.) support for these entities as training and

school-to-work transition centers.

How will space for project-based education be

found and financed? A number of possibilities exist:

 Satellite learning centers: In Dade County,

Florida, a few large businesses built public

educational facilities on their premises. By doing so, they have provided many of their employees with an additional benefit and

incentive—that of being more directly connected to their children’s education.

 Shared use facilities: One possibility is shared

use of space by constituencies other than K-12.

These facilities could be shared, for example,

by ongoing community services (such as libraries and other municipal buildings) or corporate job re-training centers.

 Revitalization of the inner city: Through measures such as enterprise zone legislation, it

would be possible for boards of education to

enter into partnership with redevelopment authorities. They might lease and renovate neglected buildings to be used as educational

project spaces or cooperative centers by publicprivate partnerships.

 A federal agency or department (HUD, Department of Education, etc.) or a national foundation might establish a National Educational

Facilities Laboratory, whose purpose would be

to disseminate best practice and advice on the

renovation and construction of new school designs.

How will we organize and finance the research

and development needed to make informed use of

the considerable technological potential available

to us for educational purposes ? What little educational research has been supported over the past

100 years was conducted in a context of incremental improvement of learning, very modest restruc-
Appendix B Learning and Teaching in 2004: the BIG DIG | 81

turing of learning environments, and minimal use

of advanced technologies. Such an enterprise is

practically irrelevant to the rapidly changing social and technological conditions at hand. Because education and schooling are seen to be so

lagging in the technological change processes underway in other sectors of society, policymakers,

decisionmakers and grass-root innovators are totally focused on issues of deployment and implementation at the exclusion of development of a

base of knowledge that would enable more rational and cost-effective implementation. Federal

agencies are supporting “demonstrations,” “systemic initiatives,” and “scaling up” activities,

rather than accompanying these with a focused

quest for understanding and knowledge building.

Given these current political conditions, the

only plausible strategy we can think of for supporting the creation of new knowledge and an understanding of learning and cognition in the

context of educational technologies and reform is

to attempt to do so as a part of implementation

projects. Government agency programs that are

supporting innovative projects involving learning

and teaching and technology could require that

some meaningful percentage of the effort be devoted to systematic investigation of learning and

teaching processes in the context of their innovations, and to the widespread dissemination of such

knowledge. This strategy makes the quest for understanding an integral byproduct of operations

and could result in a more secure foundation than

is presently being built.

SUMMARY

Technology serves a dual role within education.

First, it can be used to support lifelong teaching

and learning that is “authentic,” and, second, it can

catalyze the institutional changes necessary to

usher in authentic teaching and learning. The Big

Dig reflects both tendencies.

The seeds of technological change have already

been planted, and as a result, the system of education as we know it will become radically transformed in the coming years. In particular, we

believe that:

The institutional framework of education will

shift from an emphasis on “schools” to an emphasis on “communities.” The primary functions of

schools to date have been custodial and administrative. Economic and civic changes demand that

the institutional framework of learning be widened so that these key functions be accommodated. Communities are the natural place to locate

this institutional framework.

This trend is already underway. For example,

many have argued that it makes more sense to

“educationalize” the agenda of social service

agencies than to integrate yet another function on

top of the academic mission of schools. It is a short

step from this argument to one that calls for an integrated community-wide structure that can accomplish all the myriad missions connected with

youth (health, employment, etc.). The technology,

moreover, is now in existence to effect the communication necessary to make these new structures operationally effective.

The financing of education will shift to an emphasis on “lifelong learning.” Everyone is agreed

that school finance must change; the question is

how? While this will not be easy, the time has

come to create lifelong learning accounts. Educational opportunities will be defined to include access to the technologies upon which they will

increasingly depend. The origin of these accounts

might be initially located within community, regional or state entities.

”Teaching” will be ubiquitous. The role of

teachers is already undergoing profound changes,

and this trend will continue. Teachers will be integral to virtually every aspect of social and economic life. With the intellectual distance between

learning and work disappearing, teaching will no

longer be considered an occupation relegated to

any one institution. Providing for a continuity in

educational experience that is no longer institutionally based, teachers will need to demonstrate

technological proficiency in order to accomplish

their tasks within a wide variety of settings.
82 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

APPENDIX B REFERENCES

1. ”An Interview with Linda G. Roberts, Special Advisor on Educational Technology,

U.S. Department of Education,” Technos:

Quarterly for Education and Technology

3(1), 4-7, Spring 1994.

2. American Association for the Advancement

of Science Technology for Teaching and

Learning, Papers from the 1991 AAAS Forum for School Science K. Shiengold, A. G.

Roberts and S. M. Malcolm (eds.) (Washington, DC: 1992).

3. American Association for the Advancement

of Science, Project 2061 Science for All

Americans (Washington, DC: 1989).

4. Bagley, C. and Hunter, B. “Restructuring,

Constructivism and Technology: Forging a

New Relationship,” Educational Technology 32(7): 22-7.

5. Baumbach, D., Bird, M. and Brewer, S.,

“Doing More with Less: A Cooperative

Model that Works,” Technology and Teacher Education Annual -Proceedings of theFifth Annual Conference of the Society of

Technology and Teacher Education 1994 J.

Willis, B. Robin and D.A. Willis, (eds.)

(Charlottesville, VA: AACE, 1994).

6. Berenfeld, B., “A Moment of Glory in San

Antonio,” Hands On! (Hands on Math and

Science Learning at TERC newsletter)

16(3):1, Fall 1993.

7. Bishop, J. B., “Why the Apathy in American

High Schools?” Educational Researcher,

January-February 1989.

8. Boyett, J.H. and Conn, H.P., Workplace

2000: The Revolution Reshaping American

Business. (New York, NY: Penguin Books,

1991).

9. Bresnahan, S., Ducas, T. and Rubin, A.,

“Cartwheeling in CamMotionTM 4,” Hands

On! (Hands on Math and Science Learning

at TERC newsletter) 17(2): 8-19, fall 1994.

10. California Tomorrow, “New Uses of

Technology,” The Unfinished Journey: Restructuring Schools in a Diverse Society : A

California Tomorrow Research and Policy

Report, L. Olsen, et al. (eds.) (San Rafael,

CA: 1994).

11. Chubb, J.E. & Moe, T.M., Politics, Markets

& America’s Schools, (Washington, DC:

Brookings Institution, 1990).

12. Collins, A., Brown A.J., and Newman, S.E.,

“Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the

Craft of Reading Writing and Mathematics,”

Cognition and Instruction: Issues and Agendas L. Resnick (ed.) (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1989).

13. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, “Serving the Community: A Public

Interest Vision of the National Information

Infrastructure, October 1993 Executive

Summary,” A Directions and Implications of

Advanced Computing Symposium—Symposium Proceedings, H. Klein and C. Whitcomb (eds.) (Cambridge, MA: Computer

Professionals for Social Responsibility,

1994).

14. Consortium of National Arts Education

Associations, National Standards for

Education in the Arts—draft for review and

comment (Restin, VA: August 1993).

15. Cummins, J. and Sayers, D., “Education

2001: Learning Networks and Educational

Reform,” Computers and the School: Language Minority Students and Computers,

Special Edition, Faltis and DeVillar (eds.)

1(2): 1-2, 1990.

16. Davenport, T.H., Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Information

Technology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Business School Press, 1993).

17. Drucker, P.F., Post Capitalist Society (New

York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers, 1993).

18. Educational Technologies Department, Designing a Co-NECT School-Draft Version

2.2 B. Goldberg and C. Morrison (eds.)

(Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, 1994).

19. Educational Testing Service, Beyond the

School Doors: The Literacy Needs of Job
Appendix B Learning and Teaching in 2004: the BIG DIG | 83

Seekers served by the U.S. Department of

Labor, prepared by Kirsch, I., Jungeblut, A.

and Campbell, A. (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1992).

20. Gardner, H., “Balancing Specialized and

Comprehensive Knowledge: The Growing

Education Challenge,” Schooling for Tomorrow: Directing Reform to Issues That

Count T. Sergiovanni (ed.) (Boston: Allyn

and Bacon, 1988).

21. Geography Education Standards Project,

Geography for Life: National Geography

Standards 1994 (Washington, DC: National

Geographic Research and Evaluation,

1994).

22. Gerstner, L.V. Jr. with Semerad, R., Doyle,

D., and Johnston, W., Reinventing Education (New York, NY: A Dutton Book, Penguin Books, 1994).

23. Goldberg, B., “Technology and Restructuring” RADIUS, 1(3): Oct.-Nov. 1988.

24. Goldberg, B., Participatory Leadership:

School and the Workplace U.S. Department

of Labor Publication, Bureau of Labor-Management Relations, BLMR 138 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

1990).

25. Goldberg, B. and Bee, C., “Redesigning

Schools: Architecture and Restructuring,” A

Publication of the AFT Center for Restructuring RADIUS 3(1):April-May 1991.

26. Goldberg, B., An Examination of Programs

Enhancing Teacher Supply and Quality

Through Nontraditional Routes: A Report

To the BellSouth Foundation, Sept. 1992.

27. Hamilton, S.F., Apprenticeship for Adulthood: Preparing Youth for the Future (New

York, NY: Free Press, 1990).

28. Hammer, M. and Champy, J., Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution (New York, NY: Harper

Collins Publishers, 1993).

29. Handler, M and Bloom, S., “Computers,

Content and Collaboration: A Balancing

Act,” Journal on Computing in Education

10(2): 18-23, 1993.

30. Hill, P., “Reinventing Public Education,”

Rand DRU-690 (Santa Monica, CA: Rand

Corporation, 1994)

31. Hodgkinson, H.L, The Same Client: The

Demographics of Education and Service

Delivery Systems (Institute for Educational

Leadership, Inc., Center for Demographic

Policy, 1989).

32. Hodgkinson, H.L., A Demographic Look at

Tomorrow (Institute for Educational Leadership, Inc., Center for Demographic Policy,

1992).

33. Hunter, B. and Lodish, E., Online Searching

in the Curriculum: A Teaching Guide. (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio, 1988).

34. Hunter, B., “Linking for Learning: Computer-and-Communications Network Support

for Nationwide Innovation in Education,”

Journal of Science Education and Technology 1(1): 23-33, 1992.

35. Hunter, B., “Internetworking: Coordinating

Technology for Systemic Reform,” Communications of the ACM, pp. 42-46, May 1993.

36. Hunter, B., “Collaborative Inquiry in Networked Communities,” Hands On! (Hands

on Math and Science Learning at TERC,

newsletter) 16(2):1, Fall 1993.

37. Hunter, B., “NSF’s Networked Testbeds Inform Innovation in Science Education,”

T.H.E. Journal, October 1993.

38. Hunter, B., “Learning and Teaching on the

Internet: Contributing to Educational Reform,” chapter to appear in Public Access to

the Internet, J. Keller, (ed.), (Boston, MA:

John F. Kennedy School of Government,

Harvard University, in press).

39. Huntley, M., et al. Preliminary Report on

Phase 1 of the National School Network

Testbed (Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek

and Newman, 1994).

40. Industrial Union Department (AFL-CIO)

Software and Hardhats: Technology and

Workers in the 21st Century (Washington,

DC: 1992).

41. International Association for the Evaluation

of Educational Achievement, The Under-
84 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

achieving Curriculum: A National Report

on the Second International Mathematics

Study (Champaign, IL: 1987).

42. International Association for the Evaluation

of Educational Achievement, Schools,

Teachers, Students and Computers: A

Cross-National Perspective (The Netherlands: 1993).

43. International Reading Association and the

National Council of Teachers of English,

Standards for the Assessment of Reading

and Writing prepared by the IRA/NCTE

Joint Task Force on Assessment (USA:

1994).

44. Inventing Tomorrow’s Schools (News,

Views and Previews of the 1990s) 2(2):

1-12, February 1992.

45. Johnson, M. and McMahil, J. “Leveraging

Pedagogical and Technological Transformation Simultaneously: K-12 and Higher

Education,” Technology and Teacher

Education Annual—Proceedings of the

Fifth Annual Conference of the Society of

Technology and Teacher Education 1994 J.

Willis, B. Robin and D. A. Willis (eds.)

(Charlottesville, VA: AACE, 1994).

46. Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K., The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization (Cambridge, MA:

Harvard Business School Press, 1993).

47. Kearsley,G., Hunter, B., and Furlong, M.,

We Teach With Technology: New Visions for

Education (Franklin, Beedle & Associates,

Inc., 1992).

48. Leonard, G. B., Education And Ecstasy

(New York, NY: Delacorte Press, 1968).

49. Leveranz, D. and Tyner, K., “Inquiring

Minds Want to Know: What is Media Literacy?” The Independent (special issue on Media in the Schools) 16(10):1-45, Sept./Oct.

1993.

50. Lewis, A.C., Making it in the Middle: The

Why and How of Excellent Schools for

Young Urban Adolescents Philadelphia, PA:

Edna McConnel Clark Foundation, 1990).

51. Masuda, Y., The Information Society as

Post-Industrial Society (Washington, DC:

World Future Society, 1980).

52. McDonnell, L.M. and Pascal, A., Teacher

Unions and Educational Reform (Washington, DC: Center for Policy Research in

Education and RAND, 1988).

53. Miller, S., “Universal Access: Making Sure

That Everyone Has a Chance in Developing

an Equitable and Open Information Infrastructure,” A Directions and Implications of

Advanced Computing Symposium—Symposium Proceedings, H. Klein and C. Whitcomb (eds.) (Cambridge, MA: Computer

Professionals for Social Responsibility,

1994).

54. National Association for Sports and Physical Education, Outcomes of Quality Physical Education Programs (Reston, VA:

1992).

55. National Center for Education and the Economy, America’s Choice: High Skills or Low

Wages (Rochester, NY: 1991).

56. National Center for History in the Schools,

Progress Report and Sampler of Standards

draft (Los Angeles, CA: June 1994).

57. National Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing, Directory of Advanced Manufacturing Centers: The Infrastructure in the

United States. (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, July 1994).

58. National Commission on Children, Beyond

Rhetoric: A New American Agenda for Children and Families (Washington, DC: US

Government Printing Office, 1991).

59. National Council for the Social Studies,

Curriculum Standards for the Social Studies, draft 2 (Washington, DC: May 1993).

60. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Curriculum Standards for Mathematics

(Reston, VA: 1989).

61. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Professional Standards for Teaching

Mathematics, Reston, VA: 1991).
Appendix B Learning and Teaching in 2004: the BIG DIG | 85

62. National Education Commission on Time

and Learning, Prisoners of Time (Washington, DC.: US Government Printing Office,

1994).

63. National Governors Association, Time for

Results: The Governors’ 1991 report on

Education (Washington, DC: 1986).

64. National Research Council, Mathematical

Science Education Board, On the Shoulders

of Giants: New Approaches to Numeracy,

L.A. Sheen (ed.) (Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 1990).

65. Newman,D., Griffin, P. and Cole M., The

Construction Zone: Working for Cognitive

Change in School,” (USA: Cambridge University Press, 1989).

66. Newman, D., “School Networks: Delivery

or Access,” Communications of the ACM.

pp. 42-46, May 1993.

67. Newman, D., Getting the NII to School: A

Roadmap to Universal Participation, a position paper of the National School Network

Testbed, Bolt, Beranek and Newman Inc.,

Cambridge, MA, December 1993.

68. Newman, D., “Costs and Benefits of Internet-from-the-Desktop: Observations from

the National School Network Testbed,” Paper presented in a symposium on Issues in

Computer Networking in K-12 Schools: A

Progress Report of Four NSF Testbeds, B.

Hunter, chair, at the annual meetings of the

American Educational Research Association, April 7, 1994, New Orleans, LA.

69. Newman, D., Reese, P., and Huggins, A.,

“The Ralph Bunche Computer MiniSchool: A Design for Individual and Community Work,” Design experiments:

Restructuring through Technology J. Hawkins and A. Collins (eds.) (Cambridge, MA:

Cambridge University Press, in press).

70. News from the Center for Children and

Technology and the Center for Technology

in Education : Inquiry Learning Through

Video Production, Educational Development Center 2(5) :1-8, Jan. 1994.

71. NTIA, The National Information Infrastructure: Agenda for Action (Washington,

DC: Dept. of Commerce, 1993).

72. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Using Technology to Support

Education Reform (Washington, DC: 1993).

73. Office of Science and Technology Policy, By

the Year 2000—First in the World, FY 1993

Budget Summary prepared by the FCCSET

Committee on Education and Human Resources (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992).

74. Office of Science and Technology Policy,

Learning to Meet the Science and Technology Challenge, prepared by the President’s

Council of Advisors on Science and

Technology (Washington, DC: U.S Government Printing Office, 1992).

75. Owen, J.V. and Sprow, E.E., “Shop Floor

‘94: The Challenge of Change,” Manufacturing Engineering, March 1994.

76. Pea, R., “The CoVIS Collaboratory: High

School Science Learning Supported by a

Broadband Educational Network with

Scientific Visualization.” Paper presented in

a symposium on Issues in Computer Networking in K-12 Schools: A Progress Report

of Four NSF Testbeds, B. Hunter, chair, at

the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 7, 1994,

New Orleans, LA.

77. Perelman, L., School’s Out: A Radical New

Formula for the Revitalization of America’s

Educational System (New York, NY: Avon,

Consortium for Policy Research in Education, 1993).

78. Porter, A.C. and associates, “Reform of

High School Mathematics and Science and

Opportunity to Learn,” Policy Briefs : Reporting on issues and research in education

policy (New Brunswick, NJ: Sept. 1994).

79. Reich, R., The Work of Nations: Preparing

Ourselves for 21st Century Capitalism

(New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1991).
86 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

80. Resnick, L. B., “Learning In School and

Out,” Educational Researcher, December

1987.

81. Riel, M. and Levin, J., “Building Electronic

Communities: Success and Failure in Computer Networking,” Instructional Science

19: 145-169, 1990.

82. Riel, M., “Cooperative Learning across

Classrooms in Electronic Learning Circles,”

Instructional Science 19: 445-466, 1992.

83. Ritchie, D. and Wiburg, K., “Educational

Variables Influencing Technology Integration,” Journal of Technology and Teacher

Education 2(2): 143-153, 1994.

84. Roberts, N., Stages of Innovation: Integrating Technology into the Classroom,”

Technology for Teaching and Learning, Papers from the 1991 AAAS Forum for School

Science, K. Shiengold, A. G. Roberts, and S.

M. Malcolm (eds.) (Washington, DC: 1992).

85. Robertson, S., “Integrating Technology into

the Curriculum: Advancing Cultural Diversity,” Technology and Teacher Education

Annual—Proceedings of the Fifth Annual

Conference of the Society of Technology and

Teacher Education 1994, B. Willis, and D.

A. Willis, (eds.) (Charlottesville, VA:

AACE, 1994).

86. Schuttoffel, M.J., “The Technology Integrated Classroom and Implications for

Teacher Education: A Cautionary Story,”

Technology and Teacher Education Annual

Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Conference

of the Society of Technology and Teacher

Education 1994, J. Willis, B. Robin and D.

A. Willis, (eds.) (Charlottesville, VA:

AACE, 1994).

87. Sclove, R.E., Technology for the Common

Good (Washington, DC: Institute for Policy

Studies, 1993).

88. Sclove, R.E., “Democratizing Technology,”

The Chronicles of Higher Education

40(19):B1-B2, Jan. 12, 1994).

89. Selby L. and Ryba, K., “Creating Gender

Equitable Computer Learning Environments,” Journal on Computing on Education 10 (2):17-11,1993.

90. Senechal, M., “Shape,” On the Shoulders of

Giants: New Approaches to Numeracy, L. A.

Steen (ed.) (Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 1990).

91. Songer, N., “Knowledge Construction

through Global Exchange and Dialogue: A

Case of Kids as Global Scientists,” submitted to the Journal of the Learning

Sciences. 1994.

92. Stevenson, H.W. and Stigler, J.W., The

Learning Gap (New York, NY: Summit

Books, 1992).

93. Sutton, Z. R.E., “Equity and Computers in

the Schools: A Decade of Research,” Review

of Educational Research 61(4): 475-503,

1991.

94. Technology for Teaching and Learning: Papers from the 1991 AAAS Forum for School

Science, K. Shiengold, A. G. Roberts and S.

M. Malcolm (eds.) (Washington, DC: 1992).

95. Technos: Quarterly for Education and

Technology 3(1), 1-28 Spring 1994.

96. The Independent (special issue on Media in

the Schools) 16(10):1-45, Sept./Oct. 1993.

97. The Planet (The Journal of the Global Laboratory Community) 1(1):1-19. Feb. 1993.

98. The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving

Necessary Skills, Learning a Living: A

Blueprint for High Performance. (Washington, DC: 1992).

99. Tinker, B. and Berenfeld, B., “Patterns of

Use: Global Lab Adaptations,” Hands On!

Hands on Math and Science Learning at

TERC, newsletter) 17(2): 14-18, 1994.

100. Tinker, R., “Balancing Content and Instruction,” Hands On ! (Hands on Math and Science Learning at TERC, newsletter) 17(2):2,

Fall 1994.

101. Twentieth Century Fund and the Danforth

Foundation, Report of The Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on School Governance,

(New York, NY: The Twentieth Century

Fund Press, 1992).
Appendix B Learning and Teaching in 2004: the BIG DIG | 87

102. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Office of

Research, Using Technology to Support

Educational Reform, B. Means, et. al. (eds.)

Pub. No. 93-3231 (Washington, DC: 1993).

103. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Division of

Adult Education and Literacy, Workplace

Education: Voices from the Field—Proceedings of the National Workplace Literacy

Program Directors Conference 1991, prepared by Evaluation Research (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

1992).

104. U.S.Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Linking for Learning: A New

Course for Education, OTA-SET-430

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989).

105. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Worker Training: Competing in

the New International Economy, OTAITE-457. (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, September 1990).

106. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Electronic Enterprises: Looking

to the Future (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1994).

107. Department of Commerce, Putting the Information Infrastructure to Work: A Report

of the Information Infrastructure Task Force

Committee on Applications and Technology,

NIST Special Publication 857 (Washington,

DC: May 1994).

108. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration and National Institute of Standards and Technology, The Information

Infrastructure: Reaching Society’s Goals,

Report of the Infrastructure Task Force

Committee on Applications and Technology, NIST pub. 868 (Washington, DC: U. S .

Government Printing Office, May 1994).

109. Weinberg, A., “Mathematics in a Science

Curriculum,” Hands On! (Hands on Math

and Science Learning at TERC, newsletter)

17(2):4-7, Fall 1994.

110. Whelage, G., “Social Capital and the Rebuilding of Communities,” Issues in Restructuring Schools (Center on Organization

and Restructuring of Schools newsletter)

No. 5: pp. 3-5, Fall 1993.

111. White, C., “Making Social Studies Teachers

Education Relevant: Integrating Technology in Methods Courses,” Technology and

Teacher Education Annual—Proceedings of

the Fifth Annual Conference of the Society of

Technology and Teacher Education 1994, J.

Willis, B. Robin and D. A. Willis, (eds.)

(Charlottesville, VA: AACE, 1994).
Appendix C

The Future

of Teaching

“Education is not preparation for life, it is life itself.—John Dewey

ovember 7, 2005. You are a member of a Program Quality Review panel for the California State Department of

Education. The panel is beginning the first formal review of one of the most successful school districts approved under the Charter School District Initiative of 2000. 

Over the past five years Pacifica school district has become a

model of how changing teacher-student and school-community

relationships can create positive learning environments. Unlike

other models that begin by changing instructional practices, in

this design it was the job of teaching that was the primary focus of

change. This Charter District radically altered the roles and responsibilities of all positions from teacher to superintendent.1

PLANNING OFFICE OF CENTRAL ELEMENTARY

Your day-long assessment begins in the planning office at Central Elementary School. The panel is now meeting with the Senior

School Planning Team composed of four master teachers at Central Elementary: Barb Milner, Nancy Broyles, Ben Barrel, and

1 This paper is written primarily in the “voice” of teachers to reflect their central role in

educational change. My experience with educational technology has reinforced my belief

that it strongest potential is as a communication tool to amplify the voice of teachers and

students. Without their voices, there can be no significant educational change. As much as

possible, I want to share the visions that have evolved from my work with some of the best

educators in the world. This paper is more about the process that took place among the

players in this scenario than it is the end result. For a much detailed description of how

current reform efforts are supported by exemplary use of technology, see M. Riel, “Educational Change in a Technology-Rich Environment,” Journal of Research on Computer in

Education, vol 26, No. 4, pp.452-474

| 89

by

Margaret Riel

Interlearn
90 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

Josie Rowe. Barb and Nancy are co-principals at

Central. Ben is working on a curriculum committee at the State Department of Education. Josie is

part of the district’s Superintendent Team. You are

listening to Co-Principal Bab Milner describe the

history and rationale for setting up a Charter District model.

Barb Milner: By the end of the 20th century, it

was clear that schools designed on the “industrial

model” to transmit knowledge were no longer

serving students, teachers, or our communities.

But it was hard to find models for change. There

had been more than one “education president,”

and “education governors” had led many states.

Some of these leaders believed that technology

was the answer; they set up models to “infuse the

school” with advanced technology, hoping student skills would rise dramatically. But research

showed that while students were able to learn how

to use the technology, there was no significant improvement in academic achievement.2 Real

educational change required changing the relationship among teachers, learners, information,

and experience.3

As you know, the first attempts at changing

these relationships were mostly isolated. For example, the “Charter Schools Initiatives” in Minnesota, California, and other states led to some

limited success in educational innovation.4 In

these schools, teachers, parents, and members of

the community could develop plans for an individual school without having to follow all of the

established state or district regulations. But these

efforts divorced the school from valuable district,

state, and national services. The “Star Schools Initiative” in the early 1990s helped science teachers

come up with “action plans” for science education, but these innovations were not well integrated with other aspects of school learning.

Privatizing public education was marginally successfully when the “public” children came from

relatively privileged backgrounds. But these

schools did not provide the promised “quick fix”

to address complex social problems faced by

schools across the country. They often concentrated on low-level skills with a focus on test taking. These isolated attempts were neither

cost-effective nor efficient in providing quality

education to all children.5

In the mid to late-1990s, the rapid growth of the

National Information Infrastructure pushed teachers to the limit with new responsibilities. Before

long teachers everywhere were overwhelmed with

electronic mail and conferences on every topic.

2 One the most dramatic efforts of infusing schools with technology is the “Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow” project. The extensive research

on student achievement in these classrooms show that the students did about as well as they might have without all of the technology. That is, that

they were able to learn how to use a complex set of tools without and loss of school achievement. But this research failed to validate an assumption that and infusion of technology would be the simple answer to the problems faced by schools. Dwyer, D. (1994) “Apple Classrooms of

Tomorrow: What We’ve Learned,” Educational Leadership, vol 51, No. 7, pp. 4-10.

3 Many of the school reform initiatives suggest that the failure of schools is directly related to existing power relationships in schools. Specifically these views can be found in S. B. Sarason. The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform. (San Francisco: Josesy-Bass Publishers, 1990)

and in S. Sarason, Culture of the School and Problem of Change, (Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1982).

4 For more details on the charter school initiatives and their process across the U.S., see, Bierlein, L. and L. Mulholland (February, 1994).

Charter School update: Expansion of a Viable Reform Initiative. Tempe, Ariz.: Morrison Institute for Public Policy. For a discussion of the

California Charter Schools, see Diamond, L. (1994) “A progress report on California’s Charter Schools. Educational Leadership, vol. 52, No. 1,

pp. 41-45.

5 The current experiment, Education Alternative Inc. (EAI), headed by John Golle, has not succeeded in raising test scores of students in

eight Baltimore schools even with dedicating 30 minutes a day to taking drills in math and reading that are similar to those used in tests. Recently

the U.S. Department of Education concluded that EAI is not providing special education students needed services in their mainstreaming efforts. There are similar concerns that money allocated for disadvantaged student is not being used for this purpose. The Edison project has set

higher educational goals with a longer school day and a longer year but they have yet to demonstrate that they can reach their goals in a cost-effective way. For more information on the issue of privatization of schools, watch for a new book by Thomas Toch, senior editor at U.S. News and

World Report, or read T. Toch “Privatization: News form the Front” American’s Agenda, vol 4, No. 3, pp. 12-17, 46.
Appendix C The Future of Teaching | 91

We were wasting too much of our most valuable

educational resource—teacher time. And students

were wasting classroom time on undefined explorations, looking just to see what was there.

As we approached the 21st century we knew

that a revolutionary plan for changing teaching

and learning was necessary. That “revolutionary”

change came when we understood that we needed

to create schools where change was an ongoing

process rather than an end state. Once we accepted

this idea, it was clear that we would have to change

the way a teacher spends his or her day. And once

we got started, we realized that this would only be

possible if we changed our educational system.

❚ Overview of Changes

in Leadership Roles

Barb Milner: Before we visit the Learning Centers, we want to give you a brief overview of the

changes. It has been only five years since we initiated our new plan, although we began planning in

the mid-1990s. Before the shift, we kept trying to

come up with the right mix of interpersonal and

intellectual skills to define our conception of the

“ideal” teacher. Some of us experimenting with

models of “school site management” wanted

teachers to be curriculum developers with leadership roles in organizing the school. But some

teachers saw these new roles stretching teachers

too far and moving them away from the classroom

at the cost of student learning. They wanted to focus on students’ learning styles. And then there

were teachers who had “had enough.” They were

tired of having every social problem dumped at

the classroom door, being asked to work at the

pace of a hospital emergency room without support and then being “held accountable” for all failures. They didn’t want another meeting on any

topic!

We were getting nowhere. There were so many

different skills that defined teaching that reaching

consensus about an ideal teacher was surprisingly

difficult. And most of our designs were so overwhelming that without changing salaries or adjusting the demands placed on teachers, we knew

these “super” teachers were unrealistic. So, we

took a different approach and decided to develop

a role for teachers with differing strengths and

abilities. We wanted to develop a system that recognized achievement but also provided opportunities for people with different talents to play a

role in education. One of the most difficult circumstances constraining us was a very lean school

budget. Our current plan has evolved from thinking about our options and working together. While

it hasn’t always been easy, it has been a great experience.

At this point, Barb pauses and looks toward the

other master teachers. The exchange of glances

seem to underscore the last statement. Ben Barrel

continues.

Ben Barrel: We realized that our visions and tools

would have to work within the organizational climate of schools. And that climate needed to be one

of collaboration. Teachers and students, their relationships to one another and to sources of information and patterns of thought, could not

remain insulated in classrooms. The changes you

will see today came from increased communication and partnerships among teachers and through

relationships we developed with students, librarians, museum curators, publishers, developers,

scientists, and researchers both near and distant

and at all levels of school leadership. These connections between the classroom and the world

have been the path of educational change for us.6

We started with changing the teacher’s role because we knew that we could not ask a teacher to

do any more without changing the dimensions of

the job. We were just stretched too thin. We needed to design a system where a teacher’s expertise

in working with students was rewarded and re6Case studies of changes that have taken place when school administrators move toward transformational leadership patterns can be found

in Leithwood, K.A, & R. Steinbach. “Indicators of Transformational Leadership in the Everyday Problem Solving of School Administrators.”

Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education vol 4, No. 3, pp.221-244.
92 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

spected. But we also wanted a system where the

rewards for good teaching did not result in leaving

the classroom. While I enjoy my work developing

curriculum on our state committee, I do not want

to give up teaching.

We began to evolve a new plan for teaching and

learning as a community. We were well underway

when the Charter School District Initiative was

announced. It provided the perfect vehicle to test

our ideas. We were the second district to have our

charter accepted. I had been doing grade-level

“team teaching” for a number of years and the idea

for Learning Centers evolved from our work. At

first I teamed with two other teachers. The hard

part was finding time for planning. At the same

time we were involving students in more independent project-based learning using telecommunication and multimedia tools. Initially, our

School Site Council provided some funds for a

long-term substitute teacher who provided some

flexibility, but what we needed was what we now

call “Learning Guides.” Josie, are you planning to

describe learning guides now or later?

Josie Rowe: We only have time for a brief description now. Later, when we meet in the business office, I will give you some charts that will help us

discuss the economic issues of staffing. Learning

guides are para-professionals who help students

learn, but they do not have all the added responsibility of teachers. They are not expected to develop curriculum or plan the overall design of the

Learning Centers. Learning guides supervise and

facilitate independent and group work by students. Since they move through the Centers with

the students, they get to know the students well

and create a consistent set of expectations for appropriate Center behavior.

As you will see when you visit the Centers, we

encourage students to take responsibility and control of their projects and activities. This makes it

possible for teachers to work with smaller groups

while larger groups of students are working under

the supervision of learning guides. Some demonstration or performance lessons by our mentor or

master teachers are designed for the whole Learning Center, or close to 100 students. Students

move from small intense groups to larger groups

both for lessons and for project work.

While learning guides were the only completely new position we created in our district plan, all

positions have been significantly altered. Maybe

some personal history will help you see this. I was

an assistant superintendent in this district at the

time we began the process of change. I had been

a teacher and I loved teaching and experimenting

with different approaches. Ironically, it was my

experience working as a teacher/researcher on a

university project research team that pulled me

away from the classroom. I found it so intellectually stimulating to be a team member with my university colleagues that when the project ended, I

was no longer happy only teaching students.

While I loved teaching, it was not enough of an intellectual challenge. I found I missed the learning

and especially the collaboration with colleagues

that had been a part of the research project. There

just wasn’t enough time in a day of classroom

teaching to think!

I took a break from teaching and went back to

the university to get an administrative credential

and some computer skills. I was rehired by the district as a computer coordinator and then principal

of Seaside Elementary. From there I was promoted to assistant superintendent of school services. But from the time I left the classroom, I

missed my time with the kids. I had often considered leaving my district position and returning to

the classroom—even considering the cut in pay!

The teachers who proposed that all administrators teach expected resistance. They were surprised to find out how many of us missed

teaching. Our administrative duties are now

spread over four master teacher-superintendents

instead of the one superintendent and two assistant superintendents of the past. Each master

teacher-superintendent is assigned to two schools.

We also work very closely with the co-principals

at each school. A master teacher-superintendent

rotates to a different pair of schools each year and

takes on slightly different duties. In our superintendent meetings, we collectively bring with us a

rich and extensive knowledge of our district
Appendix C The Future of Teaching | 93

schools because all of us are teaching. And we

work closely with all of the teachers who have

been central in evolving this new model. In some

ways, our work is that of creating and managing

a culture of professional reflection among peers.7

Quality Review Panelist: Don’t you find it hard

to move back and forth between district offices

and school sites for teaching? I would think you

would waste a lot of time traveling. 

Josie Rowe: Well, the easy answer is no, because

the district offices are located at every one of our

schools. With computer telecommunications, we

realized that common physical location was no

longer an issue with most of our “meetings” taking place every day online. We sold the district

buildings and used the income to build an office

complex at each of our eight schools. You will

have a tour of these buildings after your visit to the

Centers. By locating offices at the schools, we

could share equipment and resources which saved

money and provided better services to teachers.

Quality Review Panelist: What about group

meetings?

Josie Rowe: We often meet in groups of different

sizes and the meetings are held at different

schools. Sometimes I travel to these meetings, but

I also have the option of teleconferencing which

works almost as well. We have so many more options for collaborative work than we did in the

past.

Nancy Broyles: Access to district offices here at

the school is a real benefit for us as you will see

when you visit them. But let’s move to the topic

of Learning Centers. We want you to be in the

Centers as the school day begins, so I want to give

you a brief overview of our instructional programs.

❚ Overview of Learning Centers

Nancy Broyles: Many of the ideas for our plan

have come from our work online with schools

around the world. Working with distant teachers

has resulted in many new ideas that I don’t think

we would have had without electronic connections. One of our major concerns was that in the

past students were asked to master discrete lowlevel skills and learn isolated facts. We wanted

students to master subject matter in depth, learn

how to develop and apply problem solving skills,

and most of all learn strategies and develop interests that would help them throughout their lives.

It was this thinking that led us to create Learning

Centers instead of classrooms.

The Center curriculum is based on the new

California Frameworks for Theme-Based Instruction.8 Ben and some of our district mentor teachers were on the state committees that developed

these new curriculum plans. We are very proud of

our participation. By making it possible for our

teachers to work with the larger educational community, they have developed expertise in national

and international arenas which enriches their

teaching and brings many rewards to the whole

district.

We are now in the second year of our experiment with a new way of grouping kids. We have

multi-age learning teams with an average of 85

students to a team. We moved away from age

grouping because the competition too often resulted in kids who gave up trying to learn. We

found that student interest makes it possible for

kids of different ages to work together as partners.

7For more discussion on the role of administrators to create and manage collaborative cultures, see Fullan, M. G., “Visions that Blind,” and

Hagstrom, D., “Alaska’s Discovery School” and Schmuck, P., “Educating the New Generation of Superintendents” Educational Leadership

vol. 49, No. 5, 1992,19-20; 23-26; 66-71.

8 These documents do not exist but they would be the natural extension of the excellent curriculum frameworks developed in California.

Many of the current frameworks celebrate a theme-based structure for learning. But beyond the content, I want to highlight the collaborative

process involved in writing these guides. Educators, writers and resource experts work together to create a plan for instructional innovation.
94 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

Our emphasis is on participation and accomplishments and not competition and comparisons. We

find this cross-age grouping very effective for

both younger and older students. Our student

teams move to a new Center after a 12-week term

with the exception of the five-year-olds team who

stay in the same Center all year. Here is a copy of

our school schedule showing how our student

teams move through the Centers (table C-1). The

students are just returning from our first term

break. The other handout is a list of the curriculum

themes for this year (box C-1). Our primary program and our intermediate program are described

in this chart.

All student work is directed toward the Center

exhibition9 which is listed at the end of the term.

The whole community looks forward to these

days, they are heralded in the local papers and, like

parades or fairs, there is a strong feeling of community investment and pride. Local businesses

provide resources and business partners join their

students to see the end result of their educational

help. These “events” are public portfolios of student work—and of the help provided by our community. The students are motivated to do well

because their friends and neighbors and online

partners will see their work. Parents see what

takes place in their school and they are encouraged

to evaluate what they see. I wish you could be here

for an exhibition. They are a very impressive demonstration of community support as well as an implicit forum of parent education.

Quality Review Panelist: Do all district schools

have the same themes at the same time?

Nancy Broyles: No, we rotate the themes. Some

repeat on a three-year cycle, others have similar

form but take different content each time. This

helps with our use of school and community resources. We usually share themes with two other

schools each year. This means that community

partners like our Pacific Aquarium or the Anthropology Center can contribute on a regular basis to two different schools each year supporting

all of our schools equally. Books, CD’s and other

learning materials move across schools. This

means there is a less need for duplication of materials. We have almost all of our educational materials in constant use at one of the schools so we

need less room for storing materials. Teachers

work together across schools to coordinate and

share resources and experiences.

All teachers help in planning the overall design

of the learning environments in the Centers. But

there are different roles. Each Center has a curriculum coordinator for the humanities and language

arts strand and one for the science, technology and

math strand. They are “content” experts who coordinate the local and distant resources for designing Center activities. “Team” teachers and

learning guides stay with the same group of students all year, moving with them to each Center.

They work closely with students and bring a

strong knowledge of “student skills and interests”

to the collaborative planning. Other teachers are

“resource” teachers, who can provide special

work in a particular area or for a particular group,

for example, bilingual or technology resources.

Planning the Learning Center environment means

coordination of expertise in academic disciplines,

knowledge of the student team, and integration of

resources. But now it’s time to see how this works

in practice. School is about to start.

VISIT TO THE OCEANS

LEARNING CENTER

Your group walks from the school planning office

down an outdoor walkway past the school-yard

full of the noise of kids finding each other and

their early morning activities. Nancy offers to take

those who are visiting the primary program. Barb

leads the rest of the group. You are reviewing the

intermediate program and will visit the Oceans

9 These school exhibitions help make the school the center of the community and learning a valued activity. Students contribute to the community by creating these evolving museums. The term “exhibition” comes from Ted Sizer’s book: Sizer, T., (1992), Horace’s School, Boston,

Mass: Houghton Mifflin, which has influenced many of my ideas on school reform.
Appendix C The Future of Teaching 195

Sept. 5-9 Team Orientation Week

Student skill assessment

Sept. 12-Dec. 16 Term 1 (12 weeks)

Sept. 12 Term 1 begins

Oct. 10 Columbus Day

Oct. 24-28 Half Term Break (one week)

Nov. 24-25 Thanksgiving Break

Dec. 9 Term 1 ends

Dec. 11-Jan. 2 Term Break (2 weeks), plus one-week holiday

Dec. 10, 12 Exhibition Days

Total Center Instruction Days = 57 days

Jan. 3-Mar. 30 Term 2 (12 weeks)

Jan 3 Term 2 begins

Jan 16 Martin Luther King Day

Feb 13-17 Half Term Break (one week)

Mar. 30 Term 2 ends

Apr. 4-14 Term Break (2 weeks)

April 1, 3 Exhibition Days

Total Center Instruction Days = 58 days

Apr. 17-July 14 Term 3 (12 weeks)

Apr. 17 Term 3 begins

May 29-June 2 Term Break (one week)

July 4-5 Independence Break

July 14 Term 3 ends

July 15, 17 Exhibition Days

Total Center Instruction Days = 58

July 16-20 School Reflection and End of Year Activities

School year:

173 days of Center Instruction

5 days of Orientation and Assessment

6 days of Student Exhibitions

3 days of Reelection & End of Year

186 days of school for students

Term 1

Learning Centers\Terms Sept.-Dee.

Entry Program

Tadpole Center

Primary Program

The Lands Learning Center Team P-1

The People Learning Center Team P-2

Our Imagination Learning Center Team P-3

Intermediate Program

The Oceans Learning Center Team l-l

Time Machine Learning Center Team I-2

Term 2 Term 3

Jan.-Mar. Apr.-July

—Team K all year—

Team P-2 Team P-3

Team P-3 Team P-1

Team P-1 Team P-2

Team I-2 Team I-3

Team I-3 Team I-1

Inner & Outer Space Learning Center Team I-3 Team l-l Team I-2
96 I Education and Technology: Future Visions

Primary Program Center Themes

The Lands Learning Center In this theme, students explore the different continents, regions, and

states, climate and weather patterns, creatures big and small, plants and food cycles, energy, adaptations, transportation, and communication. Many of the Center activities are drawn from the theme curriculum of the National Council for Geographic Education.

The People Learning Center: This theme looks at the organization of people into families and societies They look at how different geographic regions result in different adaptations with respect to

food, clothing, family structures, health, and issues of local and regional security. Students will be connected to people in very different living conditions throughout the world, including students who live in

homes dug under the ground in the desert heat of Copper Pedy, Australia.

Our Imagination Learning Center: This theme celebrates our ability to think and write about things

that “might be” or “might have been’’—the idea is to explore ideas that stretch reality. The work in this

Center includes a comparison of games and toys used by students’ parents with those that are popular

with students today. Students will read, write, direct, create and produce. An accomplished poet and

artist wiII help students create images to extend the present into the future.

The Intermediate Program Center Themes

The Oceans Learning Center: This theme focuses on all forms of animal and plant life in our

oceans, from the kelp beds to the whales, from the depths of the ocean to the shallow waters of the

wetlands and marshes Students will become partners in local environmental projects concerning the

preservation of the Batiquitos and San Elijo Lagoons.

The Time Machine Learning Center: Time Machine is a journey through time. The students and

teachers wiII identify a number of places and times to visit and transform the classroom appropriately.

Students will research these periods and then act in the role of characters and customs of the past, For

the Egyptian period, papyrus is currently growing in our school garden so that students can make papyrus rolls for keeping records.

Inner & Outer Space Learning Center: This theme takes students from microscopic cells mostly

inside the human body to the very large expanse of the universe. The work in this Center will include

discussions of major systems within the human body including reproduction. Students will also examine

systems of planets and stars m space. The students will be working with partner scientists from the

Space and Science Museum.

Learning Center. You wonder how it is possible Two of your team members leave to review this

for kids of such different ages to work together in

one setting.

Barb Milner: This brightly colored area is the

Tadpole Center. It is for the five-year-old students.

In this first year, teachers focus on getting to know

the students and assessing their skills and their interests. In this first year the students remain in the

same Center all year. It is a transition year when

students are able to seethe structure of elementary

school from the comfort of an environment similar to their early childhood experiences.

program. As you walk to the other Centers, Barb

describes the buildings.

Barb Milner: You will notice that the buildings

are not new. We wish we could have started over

with a brand new school, but we did not have that

luxury. Our school was built during the middle of

the last century. The classrooms were well

constructed and earthquake-safe so we had to

work with the constraints of the old building. As

you can see, they are rectangular rooms built

along corridors.
Appendix C The Future of Teaching 197

Display

Prin

 Student drawers II Shelves 1

I

I

I

I

I

I

i

ters and video I

I

‘ 1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

)

d

c

I

1

I

I

recorders I I

Library I

Door - Door I

When we were planning for our Charter District, we wanted flexible learning spaces—places

for small group discussions, for project work, and

for large group presentations and demonstrations.

The auditorium was not very close to classrooms

and it served as the lunch room on rainy days, so

it was not a great place for computer equipment.

We were stuck on the idea of groups of students in

an auditorium with a large presentation system.

But as display systems became less expensive, we

realized that a number of smaller monitors around

a common space was a better solution. This

shifted our thinking. Instead of trying to construct

a large place to move to when needed, we just took

out the connecting walls between three classrooms and created a Learning Center of flexible

dimensions. We replaced the permanent walls

with those wonderful new inflatable walls that roll

down from the ceiling. Have you seen them? Lots

of hotels have them for conference rooms. They

are strong enough to lean on but they can disappear almost completely. And the new sound-proof

covering is perfect for when we need more quiet

spaces.

This area is for the intermediate Centers including the Oceans Learning Center. The intermediate

teams are made up of roughly equal numbers of

9-, 10-, and 1 l-year-old students. This team is returning from an inter-term break of one week.

Project

materials

They will have six more weeks to complete their

Center work.

As you approach the classroom, you can see

that only the door to the Center room is open and

that a few students have paused in the doorway

watching you. As you approach, a gregarious boy

offers a greeting.

Michael: Hello Dr. Milner! Are these the visitors

you told us about?

Barb Milner: Yes, are you going into your Learning Center? Maybe we can follow you.

Michael: Sure, I’m Michael and this is my friend

Rio. We’ll be happy to show you around.

You follow Michael and Rio into a very large

room (see diagram above). At the right end of the

room there are two large tables with trays containing science tools and microscopes with video

display monitors connected to them. There are

sinks built into each of the tables and some pans

of water connected by tubes. Near the front windows are rows of plants with labels, There are a

three or four kids watching the fish in a large

aquarium. Another smaller aquarium has marsh

plants. In the corner of the room are several large

cardboard boxes, partially completed signs, and

other project materials.
98 I Education and Technology: Future Visions

Directly in front of you is one of the three portable multimedia computer carts and an assortment

of tables. The rectangular ones have been grouped

together to provide seating for 16 students. There

are four students intently working with laptop

computers. Off to the side are round tables where

a small group of students are working with paper

and props. From the ceiling are stuffed paper

scale models of whales, dolphins, sharks, and other much smaller sea animals. Along the side are

shelves with an assortment of writing and art supplies, including a large row of graph paper and

about a dozen calculators, some partially

completed dolphins, and meter sticks. There are

students taking things out of brightly colored

drawers labeled with student names. In the front

left corner of the center are two printers and a video tape deck. There is a small group of kids scanning pages that are coming out of a printer. To the

right of the door you just entered is a library area

with books and magazines, CDs and other resources.

At the left end of the Center is an open area with

a brightly colored circular rug. There are kids,

some with computers, sitting on the rug with backpacks thrown to the side. At one end of the rug

there is another multimedia computer cart. Along

the wall is a long cabinet with a work-top.

Everywhere there are pictures and murals of

fish, penguins, kelp forests and ocean robotics. At

various places there are monitors mounted from

the ceiling or on the walls. Throughout the Center

about 35 kids work in small groups or alone. The

printer is humming and the overall feeling is one

of respect for the work of kids.

Quality Review Panelist: Why are you coming

into the classroom before the bell rings?

Michael: I like to see if I got any personal mail.

Most of us have computers at home, but, like with

me, my older brothers never let me have anytime.

If we finish our project work in class, sometimes

there is time to check mail. But sometimes I get

too much mail. Lots of us get to school early and

we can come in when we want.

Rio: I’m here now because my group-see them

over there—we’re working on our performance

for the exhibition. We are writing a play and we

had some new ideas to change it, so we decided to

meet before school to get more time. I better check

in—I think I’m late.

Rio goes past the multimedia computer cart

and turns to see his image appear on the screen.

He types a few keystrokes, glances at the screen,

and joins his group. Michael tells you that Rio has

just checked in. You watch Michael flash a grin towards the small camera over the computer and

type The computer returns with:

Welcome to the Oceans Learning Center,

Michael. You are in Mr. Phillips’ discussion

this morning, then you have time to work with

your distant partners on the wetlands project.

Michael: This computer lets the office know I’m

here, and it tells us where we are supposed to go

or what to do if we forget. But I already know what

I am doing.

Quality Review Panelist: What if you type in the

wrong code?

Michael: If the code doesn’t match your picture,

like, if you look into the camera instead of me (Michael leans to the side of the computer and types

mml1), see what happens?

I am sorry I didn’t recognize you. Will you

please type your name.

See, it didn’t work. We have to make sure we

are signed in. That’s our job.

Michael opens the cabinet below the computer

and pulls one of the notebook computers out of the

recharging unit while Barb continues the description of the attendance procedure.
Appendix C The Future of Teaching | 99

Barb Milner: After the second bell rings, the

computer displays pictures and names of any children who have not completed this check in. The

guide or teacher only has to doublecheck for the

missing kids and the attendance process is complete.

A round-faced, middle-aged man has left a

group of students and is approaching you.

Carl Side: Welcome to the Oceans Center! I heard

you might be visiting our Center this morning.

Dave Brott asked me to tell you that he will be here

soon to talk with you. Please look around and I

will be happy to answer any questions. until he arrives.

Barb leaves you with Carl to meet the two center teachers, Noel Phillips and Marilyn Quinsay,

and team teacher Dave Brott.

Carl Side: As you can see, some kids are still outside, others have checked in. I like to open the

room as soon as I get here because I like the kids

to see this as their space. They know the rules; if

they are too rowdy, I just ask them to leave until

the bell rings. It works OK. The students only

have five more weeks until their exhibition and

they are very excited about it. You can see their

projects taking shape all over the Center.

Quality Review Panelist: What are they doing

over there with all those tubes and pans?

Carl Side: The kids are experimenting with different ways to convert salt water to fresh water.

And next to it are plants that can tolerate some salt

in the water. One group of students is trying to figure out what properties make it possible for a plant

to live in salt water and what happens to plants as

the amount of salt in the water changes. That is

why some of those plants don’t look so great.

These experiments are supervised by Dr. Hugo

from the university. See the tall girl with the pony

tail, that’s Merica. Her group is doing the first part

of a genetics experiment that will be continued all

year by each of the teams. Over there, Rio’s group

is working on a play. See Vincent and Tamar?

They wrote the play and are directing the younger

kids, including Rio, whom I think you met.

Michael, seeing that your attention shifted to

adult conversation, took the notebook computer to

the nearest table and was now reading the screen.

You wander over to see what he is doing. He has

logged on to the server and is checking his mail.

You apologize for the distraction and ask him to

explain what he is doing.

Michael: I am checking my personal mail. You

can’t read personal messages during class time.

See, here are project messages and this is my mail

slot. During Center time, my personal mailbox

won’t open. I have to read mail before or after

school or during our free times.

You ask Michael about the messages listed.

I am working with one of the biologists at the

San Elijo Lagoon. They are creating preserves for

the California least tern and the western snowy

plover. Look, here are their pictures. Rio and I did

some observation shifts at the site with binoculars

over the break. See, we sent a message to Dr. Cooper recording our observations, but he hasn’t written back yet. There are more birds coming now

that their nests have been restored. We are studying wetlands, oceans and lagoons, you know, water, with kids in other places. But in my personal

mail slot there are messages from kids. I have been

sharing game hints with a guy in Alaska.

You leave Michael reading a message marked

“Yea!!! Trek gold finally found” to see what other

students are doing. Within a short time, a bell

rings outside and the room fills with students 

who move through the Center with a sense of purpose. There are now more than 20 kids on the rug

on the west side and Carl is reminding them that

they need to keep their voices down. Mr. Phillips

enters from the west side of the Center. Carl quickly introduces each of you. You learn that Mr.

Phillips, one of Ocean Center’s two curriculum

coordinators, oversees the Humanities and Performing Arts strand.

Noel Phillips: Hello, welcome to our Center. I

hope you had some time to look around. Did you

see any of the student projects? If you get a chance,

you should ask Tera’s group to show you their

multimedia display of the effect of the moon on
100 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

the tides. They are doing a great job. They can also

show you what would happen to the earth if the

moon wasn’t there. It is a pretty impressive presentation of their understanding. What I find so

exciting about multi-media is not the presentations, but the fact that kids can work with their

own understandings by creating their own movies, presentation and programs.10

Today, we’re going to have one of our “big

ideas” discussions. The students know that the

whales will soon be visible off the coast. The

question is—“Why do whales migrate instead of

hibernate like bears?” Students have been asked to

come with their hypothesis about why whales migrate, what factors would increase or decrease the

whale migration, and why they don’t hibernate.

Students have time to explore the topic before we

have a discussion. I encourage them to talk with

parents or try to find resources in the NetWorld or

from print or people resources. Then we share

what we found out and what we think. The younger kids often ask the type of questions that push

all of us to really understand the issue. To help answer tough questions, I check the National Teacher Online Resource List. You probably know

about it; companies or businesses donate a few

hours of employee time to respond to teacher

questions. I found an email address of a research

team at Scripps that will respond to teacher questions.11 I can generally find someone who can

help in any area. If you will excuse me, I have to

get started. I just saw Dave in the office. He is the

team teacher for these kids, and he said he will be

on his way over in a few minutes.

Mr. Phillips walks to the far side of the Center

and picks up a conch shell and blows into it. More

students move to the rug area. He glances at the

computer and sees that Ricky and Kalani are missing. Kalani’s picture is dim which means her parents have already called in. No one has seen Ricky,

so he pushes return and attendance is over. A programmed call is placed to Ricky’s parents.

Reaching to the wall, Mr. Phillips flips a

switch. There is a mechanical whir and what looks

like a carpet roll drops slowly from the ceiling. It

unwinds like a large projection screen until it

reaches the ground separating the circle area from

the rest of the Center. Then it slowly inflates to become a rigid wall, leaving only a small doorway.

The sight and sounds of the student group are

gone and the Center becomes smaller.

Meanwhile, on your side of the new wall, students are collecting small packs from one of the

closets and talking about who will take what.

Some kids are arguing about where the nets are,

who gets to take the Batiquitos Lagoon CD

guides, and which micro-sensors will need to be

taken. Within a few minutes another teacher appears, checks the computer screen, and finds all

10 Recently George Lucas, renowned movie director, testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance on his ideas about reaching for a technology-enriched educational system of the future which he calls “Edutopia.” He is producing several movies set in the future that will provoke teachers and student to envision the use of the multimedia tools in new ways. But the

central thesis of this paper is that the construction of a vision and the work to implement it will need to be repeated by the students, teachers, and

school leaders in each school. It is in the design process that is critical in constructing school reform. The George Lucas Educational Foundation

(Box 3494, San Rafael, CA 94912) publishes information leading toward his vision in a newsletter called Edutopia. There is no cost for a subscription and it can also be found online (Gopher: glef.org; http://glef.org).

11 There are many projects that are working on finding ways to connect subject matter experts to schools are resources. In the Passport to

Knowledge project, on which I am currently working, television and telcomputing are used in parallel to take kids on electronic trips to remote

“fields” of science. One component to these field trips is that the scientists agree to respect to questions that students have with responent to their

scientific work. Trevor Owen has created “Electronic Writers in Residence” which connects professional writers with students through computer links to help them develop their voice through writing. Judi Harris, from the University of Texas in Austin, has been designing a project

“Electronic Emissary” in which subject matter experts are matched with classrooms where there is interest in a specific area of expertise. Using

the computer, these outside experts become both teachers and learners as they work electronically with students who share their interest. Recently on the Internet, research groups have offered services to schools like “Ask a Geologist” to field questions that student or teachers may

have on issues related to the Earth. Similarly, a university professor has organized his students to provide an “Ask a Mathematician” service.
Appendix C The Future of Teaching | 101

her students have checked in. Marilyn Quinsay is

introduced as the Ocean Center math and science

coordinator. After a quick round of introductions,

she turns to her students. 

Marilyn Quinsay: I assume that all of you have

your data recorders, any micro-sensors you need,

and your sketch pads. Your group should have a

camera, binoculars, and their guides. The group

leaders should have the data recorders and the

youngest member should take the binoculars.

(Then, turning back once more to the visitors).

Too bad you don’t have time to join us on our field

trip, but I hope that you enjoy your visit.

About 16 students kids leave the room in groups

of 3-5 students. Marilyn waves goodbye and reminds you that you will have time to talk later. This

leaves a group of about 25 kids working around

the different areas of the room. Carl makes the last

check of the attendance chart, looks around the

room, and then comes back to talk with you.

Carl Side: You just met our two Ocean Center

curriculum coordinators. Let me show you

around. The room to the right is our “lab,” this

central area has mostly tables and chairs, and the

discussion room is now hidden by the wall. Teachers can decide which space is best for the type of

lessons they teach. Inflatable walls make it easy to

divide the space. The six ceiling-mounted monitors have replaced blackboards and display what

is on the screen of the multimedia Center. If we

have the whole group lesson, we separate these

rectangular tables for more seats and use the circle

tables and rug area. The teacher stands over there

by the multimedia cart. The monitors make it easy

for each student to see without crowding. If some

students are not participating in the lesson, we can

separate off the science lab area and they can work

with me. The three multimedia computers are portable and can be moved wherever they are needed.

Quality Review Panelist: What are the rest of the

students doing?

Carl Side: Different things. These kids over here

are creating their own designs for desalination.

And this group is examining a colony of fairy

shrimp, a species that has recently made a dramatic comeback now that we are preserving more of

the wetlands. (Looking toward a student standing

alone at one of the tables and raising his voice

slightly)—Eric, you need to use this time productively. (Turning back to you)—Sorry. They are

following the work of scientists involved in restoring the Batiquitos and San Elijo Lagoons.

Some students are working on individual learning

contracts. Oh, perfect, here comes Dave Brott, he

can answer your questions. I need to get back to

the students.

Carl introduces you and then moves over to

Eric’s group. Dave explains the roles of the center

staff.

Dave Brott: I’m not sure how much you heard

about how we divide up responsibilities. I am the

team teacher for all of the kids at this Center. Carl

and I stay with this group evaluating their performance in different learning contexts and across

Centers. We work with the Center teachers, who

spend all year in the same Center organizing the

curriculum and making project options available.

Marilyn and Noel coordinate the participation of

other teachers and outside experts both online and

those that come to the Oceans Center. They are the

“content experts” making sure that we have the intellectual resources to expand on and extend the

academic interests of our students. But the tradeoff is that they have fewer opportunities to observe

student performance across settings. On the other

hand, as the team teacher, I watch student performance across settings and find ways to encourage

or motivate the students to take advantage of different learning opportunities in each Center. Together we provide a good balance between a rich

learning environment and a personal connection

with each students.

Dave gives a quick overview of the Center activities for the day and then the discussion turns to

issues of student assessment. You want to know

how learning is assessed.

Dave Brott: Assessment is what concerns most

people when they see kids involved in group projects, especially kids of different ages. We have

spent a good deal of time talking about why and
102 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

what we assess. The result of our discussion is a

different process of assessment.12 The functions

of student assessment are complex and some functions conflicted with our goal of promoting lifelong learning. We don’t use assessment to sort

students according to their “intellectual skill.” We

create multi-age groupings to avoid tracking students for success or failure at very early ages.

Grades were used in the past to motivate students

by creating an external reward. Extrinsic rewards

are not effective and this can be seen by the fact

that parents often had to find additional extrinsic

rewards or bribes to motivate their children. Low

grades can be very destructive. We find that creating a museum exhibit that is enjoyed by the community and provides more intrinsic motivation to

learn. We think it is important for all of us, students and teachers, to know how we are doing. We

try to encourage a sense of self-improvement

through learning that we hope will become a lifelong habit. 

Our past methods of assessment involved using

student memory for content information to index

learning. It was an easy but inaccurate measure.

Now we use the intersection of three measures to

assess student learning: self-assessment, community comments, and teacher feedback. Student

performance on national standardized tests is used

as feedback to the teachers.

So let me explain the process of student assessment. At the end of every session, the students

spend time reflecting on their work as they get

ready for the exhibition. They select their best

work to display in the exhibition. But they also

have to see how they measured up to the goals they

set for themselves. I help them set realistic goals

and then we all work to help them achieve the

goals. So the first form of evaluation is the student’s written reflection on their accomplishments and success in reaching the goals they set.

The exhibition provides a time for parents and

community members to see what students have

accomplished. Parents can see how their child’s

work compares with that of children of different

ages and abilities. The exhibition provides students an opportunity to teach their parents. We ask

our visitors to comment on what they see in the

Center and to compare it to their expectations for

learning. These Center assessments often provide

a view into the work accomplished outside of

school, in homes, and in the community.

The final measure is a “process” report from the

Center teachers. Here is where technology has

played an important role by providing an efficient

way for our team to make, store, and share observations about students. Did you notice the clipboard that Carl was carrying? We all have one. See

the microcodes by student names on this clip

board? As I notice things while they are working,

I make notes that are automatically added to their

computer file. For example, from here I can see

that Patrick and Kerwin are working on the measurement of a blue whale. Patrick is using the ruler

and calculator with ease and finding the length and

converting it to the scale we are using. He is also

explaining it to Kerwin who is attending, but not

making any of the measurements himself. So, I

use this touch screen to scan Patrick’s code, then

the project name “fish scale,” and then the code

that describes his behavior. I can do the same thing

for Kerwin. I can develop my own system of

“benchmark” codes for different aspects of the

tasks from academic to interpersonal issues. If I

want to add a new comment, I touch here and then

go to one of the Center multimedia stations and

type the comment. If I touch a group code, the

comment goes to each student’s file as well as to

the group file. Because the comments are codes,

the students cannot see or tell from this sheet what

notations I am making. This keeps the system very

private. In fact, if I hand this to you, you will not

be able to enter anything as I have to scan this microcode on my ring to use it.

12 For more information of function of grading, see A. Kohn, (1994) “Grading: The Issue is not How but Why,” Educational Leadership vol.

52, No. 2, 1994, pp. 38-41.
Appendix C The Future of Teaching | 103

All of us have these clipboards but we don’t use

them all of the time. However, when we see something that we want to share with the team, this is

an easy and efficient way to do it. Because of the

ease of representation, we can use the information

in many different ways. Marilyn might search for

all comments that are related to the measurement

task and look to see if a task is appropriate for an

age group. I spend more time reviewing individual student profiles across different Center activities.

An advantage of this system is that any of us

can note patterns among the comments. For example, if I notice that there are more comments about

either boys or girls in one area, I can alert others

and we make a point of watching the other group

more closely. In the past, at report card time, there

were always some kids who just slipped through

the system because they escaped the notice of

overworked teachers. Every week a printout identifies kids who have the least comments in an area

and we all make a special effort to watch these students more carefully. We all try to make student

observations as they happen because we know

how quickly memory fades.

All student records are stored on the computer.

You saw the kids check in. Their daily schedule is

on the computer. Did you know that parents with

access to the NetWorld can access their child’s

school schedule from their computers at work?

This way they are better able to ask questions or

follow the work of their child in school. If a child

is giving a special report at school or practicing a

performance, we sometimes have a parent who

wants to watch from work. We can focus these

small cameras on the students and parents can

watch. Of course not all parents have this flexibility or access. Students can also bring tapes from

home and make a copy so that parents can watch

their child’s speech or presentation later. These

performances demonstrate student skills.

Quality Review Panelist: Does this mean that the

parents can see the comments that you and the other teachers make about their child?

Dave Brott: No, not in real time as we make them,

but eventually they will see a summary “process

report” at the end of the term. I take all of the observations that are made on a student and organize

them into a report card. I can display the frequency

of different comments and create a picture of student strengths and weaknesses. Most of the time,

comments across teachers are similar and I just

create the report. But sometimes they are very different. For example, one teacher might appreciate

the creative skill in humor, while another might

define the behavior as disruptive. We meet as a

group and come to a consensus on how to present

these abilities. The process reports together with

the exhibitions of student work give parents a

clear picture of their child’s school performance.

Each term, I compare process reports with student self-assessments. If they match, then we

work out a set of goals and perhaps a personal contract for some work to be accomplished during the

next session. If they are not in line, then I call for

a parent/teacher/student conference to arrive at a

common understanding of expectations and behavior. Students who are doing well have more

freedom to explore areas they find of interest. In

some ways, students earn their intellectual freedom. Giving students more responsibility for their

learning seems to be the key that changed students. We seem to have many more “gifted” students than we did in the past.

School assessment takes place in the first part

of September when we compare our students with

students from around the nation on the National

Standards Assessment Tasks.13 You will be able

to see these scores later in the office. Our students

score very well in these tasks as the learning center

structure help them take knowledge learned in one

13 These don’t exist now but I believe they are a reasonable projection from the current debate and work on creating National Standards. For

more information see National Council on Educational Standards and Testing, Raising Standards for American Education, (Washington DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office 1992.
104 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

setting and apply it other settins. The teachers use

these scores to identify areas of concentration.

You and your team member move around the

room reading the reports on the wall and looking

over the shoulders of students. Most children are

working on projects but some students are working with computer programs that look like math

and language games. You ask one student what

she is doing.

Student: I am practicing math facts—mostly

times tables. I guess I take too long to figure things

out, so Mr. Brott wants me to see if I can improve

my speed. We can invent our own ways to solve

math problems and I am real good at that, but Mr.

Brott says I will be even better if I know these by

heart. My personal goal is to get to under 11 minutes a race. I think these computer race car games

are dumb, but I just broke 12 minutes so I think I

will be fast enough soon, then I can get back to

work on my project.

You watch for a few minutes, thank the student,

and continue through the Center. Mary Stanley,

the computer expert, enters the room and goes

over to the multimedia computer in the lab area.

She asks the students if they are prepared for their

teleconference, reminding them that Dr. Noorg is

volunteering to help and they need to take advantage of this opportunity. She opens the conferencing program and exchanges a few words with Dr.

Noorg and then leaves. You can hear Dr. Noorg

telling students that over 92 percent of the salt water marshes on the West Coast have been destroyed and encouraging them to see their work as

helping to understand how to preserve these

areas. Then a student from Oregon asks Dr. Noorg

a question about the data they have collected.

Soon one of the Oceans Center students is summarizing their work. Carl has moved nearby, available but not intrusive. Interested in the topic, you

stay here for some time listening to Dr. Noorg and

the student groups.

Your attention is pulled away by students coming through the small door in the temporary wall.

Mr. Phillips is organizing students into small

groups at the round tables with some materials.

Within a few minutes another teacher enters and

says something in Spanish and a dozen or so students follow this teacher into the discussion area

where Mr. Phillips had been working earlier. But

your attention is diverted by a low whistle from a

student working with notebook computer. You

want to know what he is doing.

Student: I am reading the research journals from

Paul Smith, who is in Antarctica. He didn’t send

a message last week because they were lost on the

ice for three days before they were rescued,

sounded pretty scary. Now they are stuck in another storm. I’m glad I can do my ocean work in the

classroom! 14

Leaning over, you read the screen:

14This is part of a much longer message by Paul Smith shared on the Passport to Knowledge, “Live from Antarctica” electronic field trip.

The students were able to follow researchers, pilots, weather forecasters, camera crew, a teacher, a 17-year-old student, as well as others as they

set foot on the distant continent of Antarctica and began their explorations and work.
Appendix C The Future of Teaching 1105

Last week I went south to Robbo’s and had

a fantastic time quadding around the islands.

We climbed through icebergs, said hello to

Weddel seals, climbed up to Opaque Lake (so

called because the water is full of penguin

waste) and laid hands on the Vanderford

Glacier without an enormous chunk breaking

off and squashing us. There are about 13

islands down that way and although we didn’t

get to all of them we covered a lot of ground.

One place I’d like to go back to is Herring

Island where the seals come to give birth in

October. As is so often said about Antarctic

weather-beautiful one day, really horrid the

next--we were stuck in Robbo's hut for the

next day with the strongest blizz recorded this

year blowing outside. Angie read the hut log

and found out how, in its early days, it had a

tendency to snap guy ropes and move the hut

several meters. It didn’t this time but not for

lack of trying on the weather’s part. i thought

I’d just open the door quickly and peek out.

Bad move. Sort of like getting all your daily

fresh air in about two seconds, plus a shower

once the snow’s finished melting..

At that momenta small boxed message appears

at the bottom of the screen from the school office.

Ms. Johnson, our parent/artist, will be here

in five minutes to help students with the ocean

mural. Those involved should finish up their

work, log off, and gather their materials.

At the same time, Barb Milner returns to the

Center and explains that for the next hour the students will all be in skill clinics of different types.

This is the time when almost all teachers are in the

Centers working with groups of students. You

again raise the issue of differential skill levels and

ask how this works.

Barb Milner: Using the assessment profiles from

the beginning of the school year, students have

areas of concentration identified. These can be

areas of student expertise or areas of weaknesses.

Students have individual goals and the skill clinics are organized to help students in these special

areas. The composition of these groups is one of

the continual topics of teacher discussion in our

staff meetings. There is no perfect formula for balancing the comfort level of learners in homogeneous groupings with the challenge that comes

from working with heterogeneous groups. Each

group of Center and team teachers tackle skill

clinics in their own way.

You stay and watch the lessons until Barb indicates it is time to visit the business complex. You

would have enjoyed more time in the Center, but

you also want to find out how this district made

the transformation from the traditional hierarchy

to this collaborative arrangement. You are intrigued by teachers who move in and out of the

classroom so easily. One of your questions is how

teacher unions and job protection issues are handled in this new arrangement. You follow Barb toward a modern structure of wood and glass as she

describes its history. The other members of your

panel are already there.

VISIT TO THE DISTRICT/SCHOOL

OFFICES

Barb Milner: A professional career path for

teachers necessitates a place of work other than a

classroom or Center. So, we did some creative

thinking and eventually sold the district offices.

With some help from a bond passed by the community, we were able to build a smaller office site

at each of the eight schools in the district. You saw

the school planning office and the school secretary

in our earlier meeting, but now I want you to see

the rest of the office complex.

On the other side of the school planning office

is a medium size office and a small workroom with

office equipment, file drawers, and some video

and electronic equipment including a large Silicon Image system. You meet Alan who is the office/

district manager at Central. He works directly for

Josie and handles district records. He introduces

you to several other people working in the office.
106 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

Alan says they are mostly supported by grants and

contracts held by mentor teachers.

You walk down a short hallway. To the right is

a library conference room with a number of hardwood tables pushed together to form one large

table and a set of padded office chairs. To the left

you can see a lunch room with some people talking

and waiting in front of a microwave. You walk past

these rooms into a modern looking office complex

divided into modular units. Room dividers create

a number of different-size offices, some with doors

open, others are closed. You are curious about

who gets larger or smaller offices.

Barb Milner: (laughs) Well, it isn’t always the

easiest decision and it changes from year to year,

but we try to be as fair as possible. Sometimes

mentor teachers prefer to share a larger space

among two or even three teachers because they are

not here all the time. In some cases they are working on the same project, other times they are just

friends who find it easy to share a large space. Other teachers would rather have a small space to

themselves. Another factor is the nature of a project. For example, Marilyn Quinsay is working on

a math multimedia program for Educational Designs. You may have noticed the Silicon Imaging

System in the workroom? She uses a range of different tools that take up space so we give her more

room. Her work makes it possible for us to have

new equipment. We are getting a new touch screen

system for the Center as a result of her contract.

She is working with a national team of teachers

and students to develop a multimedia themebased curriculum. With the Silicon System, we

can use the Custom Courseware Service to design

and print classroom materials as we need them.

Quality Review Panelist: But who makes the decisions about office space?

Barb Milner: The actual decision is made by the

teachers in our school management meetings. We

meet face-to-face during each term break to make

decisions that relate to teaching and working. But

we have online interaction all of the time. We believe that teachers must have the responsibility for

making the decisions that affect them. This is the

way we deal with most issues of limited resources

in our district.

Quality Review Panelist: Since you mention

limited resources, I notice that some desks have

computers, others don’t. How does this work?

Barb Milner: Just like you saw in the Center, the

notebook computers are charging here (she opens

the cabinet under a multimedia computer similar

to the one in the Learning Center). All teachers

have their own private “card” drives, and of course

space on the office network. But these notebook

computers make it easy for us to share resources.

Of course, we would love the new “Power Paper”

computers with those “crystal image” screens, but

we just don’t have the funds to upgrade. I think it

is the nature of schools to have to work with yesterday’s technology but at least we have portable,

cordless computers. During the heaviest use time,

inter-term and term breaks, we borrow computers

from the Centers.

Quality Review Panelist: Who works at those

desks along the wall?

Barb Milner: Those open stations are primarily

for the entry teachers. Since they spend almost all

day in the Centers, they tend to keep their work

and materials in a Center desk. But these open stations provide a quick place for anyone to check

mail or type a letter.

Quality Review Panelist: I see phones. How

many lines do you have and how do you account

for phone use?

Barb Milner: There are phones on every desk, finally, but no, they are not private lines. In fact our

limited budget still makes it necessary for teachers

to have calling card codes and limits on the copy

machine and printing supplies. The difference is

that teachers set the limits and monitor themselves. When teachers get grants and contracts

from different groups, they include indirect costs

of 40 percent for phone, mail, and other office expenses. This is how we are able to maintain the office.

We are headed for the conference library to talk

about staffing. Josie is waiting for us and I think
Appendix C The Future of Teaching 107

Instructional Positions Academic Requirements Average Time at this Level Salary Range

Learning Guides ■

Entry Teacher ●

Mentor Teacher ■

■

Master Teacher ■

2-year College degree with

a Learning Guide Certificate

or B.A.

B. A. and provisional

teaching credential

Full teaching credential

Other certification or

education will be necessary

for some activities.

Administrative credential

and usually graduate

degrees

she will have some information that will help you

understand some of the things you have been seeing. I will be at the school planning office and will

meet you there later.

You say goodbye to Barb as Josie welcomes

you. The topic of discussion is different roles, responsibility, and, most important, the costs of new

staffing positions.

❚ Teacher Roles and Salaries

Josie Rowe: I hope you enjoyed your visit to the

Centers. Now we have more time to talk about the

changes in the career path of teachers. There are

two critical components that make our plan different than any that had been tried in the past. One is

the use of para-professional learning guides and

the other is the combining of outside resources

with public funding. I am going to describe the

teaching positions and pay scales (see table C-2).

Learning guides are para-professional positions. Learning guides don’t require a great deal of

academic preparation, but they need to have good

skills in working with and motivating students.

Basically we have two categories of people who

are attracted to this position. Some young people

3-year renewable contracts,

security of employment after

second contract.

Up to 5-year contract with

tenure decision between years

2 to 5.

Advancement beyond a Mentor

Teacher based on merit

determined by peer-review

process.

This is the top rank of educator.

$20,000-$25,000/year

$110/day

$25,000-$30,000/year

$120/day

$32,000-$50,000+/year

$175+lday

(unlimited)

$55,000+

$235+/day

(unlimited)

who are looking for a way to earn money between

college and graduate school find organizing learning for students an enjoyable break from studying.

Some are considering a career in teaching or feel

that some experience working with kids will be a

good way to prepare for their role as parents.

Then we have another group that is generally

older, some have had teaching experience. To be

very blunt, they are not interested in the intellectual challenges that face teachers in our career plan.

They just enjoy working with kids. You met Carl,

right? He is terrific with kids. They take to him

like the Pied Piper. He wasn’t great at organizing

academic lessons, but he gave life lessons that students rarely forgot. In the past, he ended up with

a class of the most difficult kids in the school because he was so good at reaching them. But this

was unfair to Carl who was overworked, and it

was unfair to the students who did not have the

same learning opportunities of other students. We

were creating a school within the school, segregating students and not providing all students the

learning environments they needed.15 Carl decided he would rather be a learning guide than a

teacher. He finds the work fulfilling and enjoys the

freedom after school and during term breaks.

15 Education tracking of students is not a productive strategy. For more extensive discussion of this issue see J. Oakes, Adam Gamoran &

Page (1992), Curriculum Differentiation: Opportunities, Outcomes and Meanings, In: Philip Jackson (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Curriculum (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1992). Also see H. Mehan, Understanding Inequality in Schools: The Contribution of Interpretive Studies,

The Sociology of Educational vol. 65, No. 1, 1992, pp.1-20.
108 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

Learning guides work from September to midJuly. During the one-week half-term breaks, they

have meetings and recordkeeping tasks, but they

get the two-week period between terms off. Their

salary works out to about $13 per hour. They open

and close the centers each day. They are in the centers or on the playground seven hours a day with

a 45-minute lunch and a 15-minute break. But

they do not have to prepare lessons, write report

cards, or work on weekends. They are the only

group in our district that is still represented by

traditional teacher unions. However we are all

members of the recently evolved American

Education Association (AEA). We believe this organization represents the transformation that we

are working towards.16

Quality Review Panelist: How do you react to

the criticism that you are de-skilling the role of

teacher? What if you just kept increasing the time

kids spent with learning guides versus teachers?

Does this worry you?

Josie Rowe: Yes, this does worry us and we have

spent many hours discussing this very issue. But

we try to look at the whole picture. We wanted to

arrive at a system that included those who wanted

a fast entry into working with kids, but also provided a system of rewards, a career ladder that

would attract talented men and women into the

challenge of continually assessing and evolving

the best possible educational system. There are

many teachers in other school districts with less

skill than our learning guides who work with students all year. We are trying to increase the level

of skill by not losing talented teachers to other careers. Because job opportunities for women have

expanded, it is important to create incentives to attract the level of teachers that we want in leadership roles in education. Remember that learning

guides are not teachers. They are there to supervise learning. Without teachers, there is no learning to supervise.

Our teachers did an analysis of how they spent

their time in the classroom. They found that they

spent an average of two-thirds of their time teaching either whole group or small group lessons but

that there were 20-minute periods throughout the

day when students were doing group work or individual writing or reading. Children, unlike older

learners, cannot be left without supervision. The

learning guides provide this supervision. But

maybe this will be more clear after I introduce our

different levels of teachers. There are entry teachers, mentor teachers, and master teachers—and

there are levels within each rank.

Quality Review Panelist: My concern is that the

daily rate you list for the different ranks of teachers looks very low, but you list a high yearly

salary. Can you explain this?

Josie Rowe: Entry teachers are beginning teachers. In practice, most have full credentials, but

they can be hired with a provisional credential and

finish their credential work while they teach.

Entry teachers are expected to spend five or six

hours a day with students in the Center and the rest

of their time is spent working with Center or team

teachers. Entry teachers are paid during term

breaks like learning guides, and they are also paid

during half term. Except for a day or so of supervising student exhibitions and attending team

meetings, they can structure their time during

term breaks, but the expectation is that they are

working during this time. They do have some

vacation time, one week at Christmas and one

week during the summer, but the rest of the time

they are learning. It is their time to develop an area

of expertise. The difference between a learning

guide and an entry teacher is in time rather than

money. Entry teachers have much more time for

16 Trade unions were set up to protect the rights of workers from the abuses of management. Professional organizations are set up by members to set standards, control certification, regulate members and provide channels of communication. With a shift from teachers as workers to

teachers as professionals should come a transformation of teacher unions to professional organizations. The American Education Association

does not currently exist but represents this evolution that I believe is vital to educational change. The new organization suggests a shift to shared

responsibility.
Appendix C The Future of Teaching | 109

planning and for developing ties in the professional community of educators. It is these ties that will

lead to professional work and pay.

The transition to a mentor teacher will be based

on the productive use of this time. Over the first

five years of teaching, entry teachers have almost

a full year of professional development time.

Entry teachers, like all teachers, have flexible control over their work. They can work in the school

office complex, at a resource center or library, or

at home. The normal career path has them come

up for a tenure peer review in their fifth year. They

are evaluated in a peer review process in terms of

their teaching skills, their expertise in an area of

their choice, and their service to the educational

community. Entry teachers are encourage to develop professional ties but not to take on additional responsibilities outside of Center teaching. We

believe it takes concentrated teaching for about

three to four years to develop one’s style as a

teacher. Most entry teachers begin as “team teacher” because this gives them the opportunity to collaborate with three different sets of Center

teachers over the year. While these new teachers

are analyzing student learning, they are exposed to

the teaching styles of our best teachers. This way

they learn the skills both from center participation

and observation. Team teachers prepare and teach

lessons in close cooperation with center teachers.

Once a teacher has demonstrated good teaching

skills, they are free to develop an area of expertise

which will eventually lead to professional opportunities. We provide the time and encouragement

for our teachers to pursue intellectual challenges

outside of the Center. Since we did not have funds

to pay teachers an increasingly higher salary for

teaching, we have instead made it possible for

them to essentially split a teaching position with

other work in the educational community. We give

teachers time to pursue intellectual challenges that

we believe make them better teachers.

Quality Review Panelist: What counts as “an

area of expertise” and how do teachers decide

what to do in this professional development time?

Josie Rowe: That is a good question and some

entry teachers find making that choice difficult

because it is a new concept. But in our early discussions of what made someone an ideal teacher—remember, we talked about that this

morning—we found that it wasn’t the particular

skill, like teaching writing, organizing innovative

science labs, or integrating technology. It was

more the very fact that these teachers had worked,

often on their own time, to develop a strong passion for some way of improving education. It was

this process of learning—not what they learned—

that characterized our best teachers. So we wanted

to develop a plan that would encourage teachers to

be learners. And we wanted them to have a choice.

Of course, like most choices, the options available are somewhat constrained by economic realities and regional opportunities. The goal is to have

this area of interest evolve into contractual work.

If you decide to become a specialist in an area in

which there is little need, such as a bilingual specialist in a language that is not spoken here, it is

going to be more difficult to find work in this area.

On the other hand, if there is grant money available for environmental science or district and

state opportunities for bilingual Spanish/English

specialists, developing expertise in these areas

might make it easier to make the shift to a mentor

teacher.

Mentor teacher positions are very different than

traditional teaching positions. Mentor teachers are

paid a slightly higher rate for classroom contact

hours. But, again, the advancement to this level is

a shift in the amount of time spent in the classroom. The expectation is that they will spend up

to two-thirds of a day teaching. However the other

one-third of their time is free for them to take on

other tasks that are related to their developing area

of expertise. These might be consulting contracts,

district resource positions, foundations and government grants, or work at the university either in

research or education. While teachers have written

and received grants in the past, they have been

largely for materials or salaries of other people. In

our district, mentor teachers can write grants

which include up to 50 percent of their salary.

If an entry teacher develops an area of expertise

early and is awarded a grant or receives a contract,
110 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

he or she can ask to be reviewed for mentor status

after two or more years of teaching. At the other

end, an entry teacher must develop an area of expertise within seven years or they will not have

their contract renewed. Basically, we are saying

that teachers are professional learners who want

the intellectual stimulation that comes from following personal interests.17 We have taken a

strong stance in this district. We don’t think someone can be a good teacher if they are not learning.

Ben Barrel (who enters the library to hear the last

comment): And similarly, we decided that all

school leaders should be “master teachers” as well

as master learners. This keeps the loop between

leading, learning, and teaching closely aligned.

Josie Rowe: Hi, Ben, I’m glad you have time to

join us. I am describing the steps from an entry

level teacher to a mentor teacher and then maybe

you could continue with a description of the process of becoming a master teacher.

Ben nods as Josie continues with the description of mentor teachers.

Josie Rowe: A mentor teacher is in the Center

working with kids for three to four hours a day,

some more, some less, depending on lots of factors. Some of our mentors provide services that

were in the past district positions. Our resource

teachers help identified students intensely during

inter-term weeks and sometimes between terms.

This way students who need extra help are not losing regular instruction for their special needs like

speech or language.

A mentor teacher is guaranteed a minimal

salary for teaching two-thirds of each of the school

days and participating in the three exhibitions.

This leaves almost half their time for work in other

areas of education, and more than half of a year if

they choose to work over summer break. All of

these work arrangements must be submitted and

approved through our contracts and grants office,

but it provides an open-ended salary for teachers

based on achievement. Each of our teachers can

choose how hard they want to work. Some of our

teachers work year round using the term breaks to

work on many exciting projects. They earn salaries that are comparable to other professionals

such as university professors, lawyers, high-level

administrators. Our district benefits from these arrangements in three ways. One, and most important, our teachers are intellectually engaged in

educational issues which often enrich Center

teaching. Two, the outside employment covers office and other “overhead” expenses which support

our office complex. And three, we rarely lose our

“best” teachers to jobs outside of the classroom.

Our district has one of the best records in the nation for pulling in grant money. This is not surprising since we provide time and incentives for

teachers to write grants. Some of our teachers are

partially funded by grants—in fact you might

have noticed the group in the Oceans Center working with the vernal pool fairy and tadpole shrimp.

Their work is part of Center teacher Noel Phillips’s grant from the Wildlife Federation. I think

some of the highest-paid mentor teachers have

contracts with publishers designing electronic

materials for home as well as education markets.

Since up to 50 percent of a mentor teacher’s salary

can be negotiated by the teacher with other organizations, a mentor teacher could, in theory, earn

more money than a master teacher. However, I

suspect that this level of recognition of skills

would prompt a review process and an early advancement to master teacher level.

17 The professional development of teachers requires taking an active role in learning new ways of teaching. The change is more likely to

happen if their professional development is linked to their career advancement in their chosen area of expertise. For more information on the

multiple factors involved in professionalizing teaching, see W. Fireston & B. Bader, Redesigning Teaching: Professionalism or Bureaucracy?

(Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1992).
Appendix C The Future of Teaching | 111

Quality Review Panelist: Is there an issue of

travel? If teachers are working for people outside

of your district, don’t they have to travel to meetings?

Josie Rowe: While some of these projects involve

travel, teleconferencing helps keep teachers on

site most of the time. The rapid development in

groupware has made it much easier for these

teams and committees to work together. In fact, I

personally feel more productive in online meetings, although I admit it is more fun to go and meet

with people face-to-face. However, there is plenty

of time between terms to arrange for travel.

I think I’ve said enough about mentor teachers,

so I will stop and give Ben a chance to tell you how

mentor teachers progress to master teachers. He

might want to address the issue of travel as he has

a 50-percent contract with a curriculum committee at the State Department of Education.

Ben Barrel: Travel is not a problem as most of my

work is done online. In fact, most meetings are at

conferences that I would probably go to anyway.

But let me describe the master teacher position.

The plan we have in place says that after five years

of teaching as a mentor teacher, a teacher can request or be recommended for a peer review for the

position of master teacher. Some teachers may not

be ready after five years and that is fine. A mentor

teacher can stay a mentor teacher for as long as he

or she wishes. There is no pressure for all mentor

teachers to be master teachers. Being a master

teacher is a way to reduce teaching responsibilities

to provide more time to pursue leadership roles in

a wide range of educational settings.

You have to be at the rank of master teacher to

be a member of the principal or superintendent

teams. But master teachers don’t have to be administrators. Because of the way we started, currently most master teachers have either principal

or superintendent positions. But this year that will

start to change. For example, Marilyn Quinsay is

up for review. She has developed an international

reputation as one of the leading developers of multimedia programs and she wants more time to

work on this.

In the past, teachers such as Marilyn would

have left teaching for the prestige and financial rewards of developing new materials. We give them

the option to stay connected and involved with

students. That is what I like about our plan. But I

do have a concern. I am worried that if all teachers

stay in education and become master teachers the

work in the Center might become too fragmented.

Right now we have an ideal mix of learning guides

and entry, mentor and master teachers and things

are working better than I ever expected. But I hope

that this system will be able to develop along with

teacher advancement.

Josie Rowe: Ben, you missed our discussion of

learning guides and concerns of de-skilling the

role of teaching. But I know these issues concern

you.

Ben Barrel: Yes, we are charting new territory

and it is difficult to see into the future. But we are

hopeful that the creation of the Teacher Senate and

the increased income to the school from master

teachers will be one of the resources that gives us

more flexibility in dealing with problems as they

arise. The system is not fixed. We know that

change is part of the plan and we are hoping that

our new collaborative structure will be open

enough to design this change. The excitement of

our teachers in having control of their lives in the

Teacher Senate is big step forward.

Quality Review Panelist: Well, I want to know

how this system compares in cost to the more

traditional plan of having one teacher for 30 kids.

I can see that there are some savings with learning

guides, but how many teachers do you have and

what is the pricetag of your payroll? How is teacher-student ratio computed?

Josie Rowe: I have prepared a chart so that you

can see how the number of teachers has shifted

at this school. In 1995, we had about 30 students in a classroom with a total of 18 teachers
112 I Education and Technology: Future Visions

Traditional Model (1994)

Beginning teachers Midrange teachers Highest teachers

3 full-time 4 full-time 11 full-time

3x$25,000 4x$38,000 11 x$46,000

$75,000 $152,000 $506,000

3 teachers 4 teachers 11 teachers

TOTAL: 18 full-time teachers $733,000

New Model (using 1994 equivalent figures)

Learning guides Entry teachers Mentor teachers Master teachers

7 full-time 4 full-time 12 two-thirds time 4 one-third time

7 x $22,000 4 X $27,000 12 X $32,000 4 X $24,000

$154,000 $108,000 $384,000 $96,000

7 teachers 4 teachers 7.92 teacher equivalent 1,32 teacher equivalent

TOTAL: 20.24 full-time guides and/or teacher equivalents $742,000

(table C-3).18 The 18 classroom teachers were

mostly at the top of the teaching pay scale.

With our new structure, it is difficult to make

direct comparisons, because of all the differences.

We have seven learning guides (one for each Center), four entry teachers, 12 mentor teachers, and

four master teachers. The Center time for mentors

and master teachers (two-thirds and one-third) is

an average and in practice it is different for specific teachers. This gives us, counting learning

guides, the equivalent of more than two additional

teachers, which changes the student-teacher ratio

from 30.5: 1 to 26.9:1. The payroll difference is

not significant given this reduction in studentteacher ratio.

Quality Review Panelist: So, in table 3 you have

only listed the money that mentor teachers receive

for teaching. But they essentially have other jobs

that add to this salary?

Josie Rowe: Yes, some of the mentor teachers

combine Center teaching with work as resource

specialists in a particular area of expertise. These

positions were covered by district funds and the

cost also remains about the same. Instead of one

teacher working across several schools, these resource positions are held by mentor teachers who

are at the school all of the time. They often have

the benefit of knowing much more about the students they work with since they see many of them

in regular Center teaching.

Other teachers developed expertise outside

these certified school or district positions. Some

of these are funded out of public education funds,

such as Courtney Balboa who supervises student

teachers for the university. Also, I think we have

two mentors working with the State Department.

Is that right, Ben? (Ben nods.) Two or three are

participating in research projects and testbed activities that are funded by a combination of government and foundation money. And then we have a

few that work with commercial firms, mostly

creating classroom materials. The most difficult

part is trying to keep up with the developments in

the lives of all of our teachers and organizing lessons and professional commitments into a single

system. I would be misleading you if I said this

system always works smoothly. But we feel the

benefits far outweigh the extra scheduling work.

18 For the sake of this comparison, all salary estimates are based on monetary values of 1994. The salaries listed for the traditional model are

drawn from the California Statewide 1992-93 Average Salaries and Budget Percentages for School Accountability Report Cards. I have also

consulted with school district superintendents and school principals to assure reasonable figures.
Appendix C The Future of Teaching 1113

Salary for Superintendent $100,000

Salary for two Assistant

Superintendents ($78,000 x 2) = $156,000

Costs associated with School Board $60,000

Salary for eight Principals

($66,000 X 8) = $528,000

Total Cost $844,000 —

Quality Review Panelist: For the master teachers, your chart shows only $24,000 which I assume covers one-third of their time that they

spend teaching. How are master teacher salaries

covered?

Josie Rowe: Yes, that is a good question and that

leads into these other two charts which I have prepared to compare our district administrative costs

to the past. Table C-4 shows our 1994 administrative costs.

Table C-5 shows how things look in our current

arrangement. I have subtracted the teaching salaries for master teachers as this amount is covered

in the teaching budget in table C-3. You can see

that our administrative costs have remained more

or less the same.

Quality Review Panelist: I see that you subtracted the costs associated with the school board.

I read somewhere that you don’t have a board.

Don’t you value community input?

uals and few people in the community had any

idea of what was going on in the schools.

Too often, well-intentioned people ran for

school board because they were concerned about

a single, controversial issue. But a school is a

complex system and any attempt to solve a single

problem without a systemic understanding of the

educational community causes problems. Every

two years our superintendent and her assistants

struggled to educate a new panel of citizens so that

they could make critical decisions that affected the

lives of teachers and students. The problem with

this model was that our school leader became a

school board tutor working overtime to educate

five people. This was problematic in two ways.

These five people had limited channels for gathering community input. And we needed the time of

our superintendent to work with teachers to provide leadership and direction. Most of us felt

strongly that if we were going to have the leadership that was necessary to be constantly evolving,

the decisionmaking power needed to be in the

hands of our teachers and not hastily trained outsiders to education.

We actually do have a school board but it has

changed in name and function. The decisions that

used to be made by the board are now made by our

“Teacher Senate.” Each teacher at our school, regardless of level, has one vote in the Teacher Senate. The voting takes place electronically. This

way our superintendents work with teachers to

Josie Rowe: We do! So much so that we wanted create the best quality program possible. But I

to find a way to strengthen it, but we didn’t believe don’t want to ignore the issue of community leadthat a school board, as it operated in 1995, was ac- ership in education. We have arranged a luncheon

complishing this goal. The school board was set

up in the early part of the last century to make the

schools accountable to the public. The problem Five Master Teachers/

was that, in practice, school board members did Co-Superintendents (4x $82,000) $ 328,000

not always have the background in education to 16 Master Teachers/Co-principals,

two per school, (16 x $65,000) +$1 ,040,000

provide the level of leadership that was required.

Each newly elected board had be reeducated. The

Total $1,368,000

Master Teacher (one-third) teaching

more serious problem was that the school board salary ($2400,00 x 21 Master

members had almost no links with the community teachers) $ 504,000

they represented. They made decisions as individ- Total $ 864,000
114 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

over this topic because we are absolutely interested in keeping the community highly involved

in all decisions that affect their children. As you

will see, our community is entirely behind our decision to put educational decisions in the hands of

experts.

Quality Review Panelist: How would you describe the benefits of your changes in teacher’s

roles and responsibilities?

Ben Barrel: Well, the teachers here are alive with

passionate interests and they have time and support to pursue them. When they teach, they teach

from what they are learning. It is fresh and they are

not bored. In fact, I doubt that you will find anyone, teacher or student, who uses “bored” to describe what they do here.

Quality Review Panelist: I did find one child

who said that a computer game she was working

on to reinforce the times tables was boring. But in

some ways it supports what you said because she

was eager to return to her project work, or at least

that’s what she said.

Ben Barrel: All right, I probably do overstate

things a bit (laughter). But I am sure you see the

excitement that all of us here feel. I work with excellent school leaders from all over the globe using telecommunication to explore new ideas. And

I bring that excitement and the ideas back to inform my work with teachers and students. I often

share ideas that I learn with students when I teach.

And I learn so much about leadership from listening to students. I think the students enjoy being

part of the design. They know that they are partners with the opportunity to exchange ideas with

everyone in our school community.

Co-Principal Nancy Broyles had entered the

room and been listening. She joins in the conversation.

Nancy Broyles: I find having a principal team has

helped us make tough decisions. This is my second year. This shifting responsibility within a

partnership keeps us from either changing things

too drastically or becoming too fixed in a single

way to accomplish a task. Since any master teacher can represent our school, there are more people

to be on those endless committees and task forces

and to be present at school functions. I can now

have dinner with my family on at least some weekday evenings. Ask any principal outside of our

district how many times he or she makes it home

for the evening meal!

Quality Review Panelist: What if a master teacher becomes too busy to teach?

Josie Rowe: Master teachers must teach at the

very minimum the equivalent of one hour a day.

But this does not mean that a master teacher has

to teach every day. One of our district master

teachers does televised teaching and tapes all of

the segments in one term. We can teach summer

school, but we have to spend some time teaching

the age group we serve. That was one of our Charter District arrangements. I really enjoy my teaching.

Nancy Broyles: By the way, mentor teachers also

have this flexibility. That’s the headache in scheduling we referred to earlier. We try to balance the

requests of the teachers, but we also have to make

sure that all of the Centers are well staffed with

teachers who are skilled in the appropriate areas.

In the classroom arrangement, the principal used

to spend so much time sorting kids into classrooms and responding to parents’ complaints

about placement decisions. Now the parents are

mostly content because the student teams cycle

through all of the teachers. The strain now is to

balance all of the teacher requests. But, like before, things have to work out and they do.

Josie Rowe: An important difference is that we

can support each other informally. If I have a

meeting to go to and it is scheduled for a time

when I am teaching, I can check with one of the

Center teachers and just trade times or days. With

more people, there is so much more flexibility. I

remember my days as a classroom teacher when

you couldn’t go to the bathroom without causing

staffing problems.
Appendix C The Future of Teaching | 115

Well, I can see that our lunch has arrived and

also members of our community advisory boards.

I think we can shift to the topic of community

leadership and involvement.

❚ Parent and Community Interactions

At this point, a number of people enter the room

and a buffet lunch is set up on one side of the room.

As we bring our lunch to the table, Bill Parks (in

a fire fighters’ uniform) is introduced as the chairperson of Central’s School Community Council

with Amelia Leff, Bud Porter and Lensci Denny

as council members. Dee Sharp is Central’s representative on the District Community Board. Josie

excuses herself and leaves while Ben and Nancy

stay and Barb rejoins the group.

Barb Milner: Welcome and thanks to all of you

for being here. Our guests have heard that we have

a different model of community involvement.

They know about our community exhibition but

we haven’t said anything about Central’s Community Council. Bill, I am going to let you talk about

this group.

Bill Parks: Sure, Barb, I would be happy to. Our

Community Council is a combination of our former PTA and school site council. We meet three

times during each term to discuss schoolwide issues. We form study teams to think about ways to

solve different school problems and ways to support our Center teachers. One of our tasks is to circulate information before the exhibition and to

prepare community feedback forms for each exhibition. Because so many of the people in the

community come to these presentations, we use

this opportunity to get parent and community input on issues that face our schools. This way no

one person or group has the say about what the

“community” thinks. Teachers have worked very

hard to be responsive to our collective positions.

Dee Sharp: Our District Community Board

works in much the same way. Each school community elects one person to serve on this committee. These elections are done during our

exhibitions at the end of the year. Council members have much less decisionmaking power than

school board members did in the past. Their role

is to provide community input to the district

Teacher Senate. One important service we perform after every exhibition is to collect the information from each school and publish a

summary of results in local newspapers.

Amelia Leff: One of the things we do as part of the

council is to encourage all community members

to come to our exhibitions—even if they don’t

have children. We want them to see the school as

their school. Everyone needs to be involved, not

just parents. Some of the students take their presentations to hospitals and convalescent homes

for people who find it hard to come to the school.

We post signs and banners in stores and banks and

CD rental libraries inviting everyone to come to

school. We have found that our community is

more willing to support our schools and vote for

school bond issues if they visit the Centers and see

how hard students work with such outdated equipment.

Dee Sharp: The Centers are a wonderful source of

public education. They are like evolving museums with exhibits designed by kids. I really like

learning with my kids, and I feel so much more involved when I see not only what my child is doing,

but what teachers, other experts, and other kids are

doing. I always look forward to the exhibitions.

And I like seeing kids learning outside of the

classroom in our community.

Amelia Leff: Our community council has also

taken the lead in solving a long-standing problem.

Kids out of school without parent supervision became a problem about 30 years ago when unpaid

“homemaking” mothers moved out into the paid

workforce. Some kids went off to organized preschool programs, but many kids were left in

empty buildings. So, over the past few years, we

set up an after school community program on the

school site. We passed a bond to help with initial

costs. Basically, we created a contractual agreement between the city and schools to work together to provide a community after school program.

Then we scheduled a number of classes offered by

people in the community. Some are routine like
116 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

scouting and sports, but we added different options including clubs for hobbies like reading,

chess, gardening and kite making. One of the parents designs unusual kites and sells them worldwide. She offered to work with students for an

hour a week.

The most controversial issue, which I think is

finally worked out, has to do with religious education. We understand the recent Supreme Court ruling to mean that religious education can be held on

school grounds under the following conditions.

1. Religious instruction is a parental choice and

other options are available.

2. Teachers are not involved in the religious training because of students’ strong emotional attachment to their teachers.

3. All religions are given an equal opportunity to

provide classes.

4. All expenses other than the use of school buildings are covered by the religious group.

So, we have about 10 different religious training courses. There is also a values clarification

and self-esteem program that is funded by the Coalition for Religious Education in Our Schools.

This is an organization of all the religious groups.

They felt it was important to offer a non-denominational discussion of basic social values for children whose parents do not want religious

education but would like their kids to think about

difficult social problems.

Bud Porter: I just wanted to add that one of the

benefits of this program is that many of the students who in the past were segregated in religious

schools are back in public education. This makes

our community more integrated. This option deflated the effort to resurrect voucher initiations

that took money away from public education. The

effect on overall school climate has been great.

And I think it is great to have such an extensive after-school program provided by the community.

Community services are so much more effective

than police in reducing crimes.

Bill Parks: And, there are other class options.

Some have more expenses associated with them

so we ask parents to donate the cost of supplies,

but we don’t exclude students. We have interschool teams and tournaments in jump rope, track,

soccer, and basketball. Students can take classes

to learn to be referees. And we have Science

Olympiad training classes for intermediate students during the spring to prepare a team for this

regional competition. This has been run by parent

volunteers for seven years now. Also, Planned

Parenthood offers a course called “Our Bodies and

Ourselves” for our 11- and 12-year-olds. The

school library/media center is open and Friends of

the Library sponsors storytelling and craft programs for our younger students. On our stage there

are often “dress rehearsals” and kids in the library

program serve as an audience

Quality Review Panelist: Who provides all of the

teachers for these clubs?

Dee Sharp: As you might guess, it involves a

coordination of the efforts of a number of groups.

The city pays small teaching stipends for teachers.

Some teachers hold special education classes during this period and these are funded with federal

money. All religious education classes are paid for

by their congregations. Some programs have

community sponsorship. For example the Seaside

Botanical Garden Society is sponsoring the gardening club and mostly retired people help kids

learn these skills. Some of the other clubs, like

Science Olympiad, are run by parent and teacher

volunteers. The coordinator for the service component from our high school arranged to send

about a dozen high school students to each of our

schools each afternoon. Most of the high school

students come on a once-a-week basis over the

year, which fulfills their service requirement.

They provide supervision for our sports tournaments and some coaching in both sports and

school. We don’t charge for any of the programs

but we do accept donations and many of our parents become sponsors of a club or program.

Quality Review Panelist: How many students

participate in these programs?

Bill Parks: Usually about 80 percent of our students stay on any given day, but I would venture

to say that most kids are in some program. The
Appendix C The Future of Teaching | 117

kids who do not stay are usually kids who are involved in community programs that we can’t offer

at school, like swimming, gymnastics, club

sports, or other activities.

Quality Review Panelist: How do you deal with

the issue of equipment and classroom materials

being taken or destroyed?

Dee Sharp: This was one of the biggest problems

in past programs, but we’ve had less trouble. I

think it’s because kids see it as school and they respect property just as well as they do during the

rest of the day. Students are used to moving

around and working in different spaces. For many

students, the program is just part of the school day.

The computer equipment locks into those recharging units you saw. The biggest concern is always

damage to kids’ work and we deal with that the

same way we do during the day. We want kids to

learn to respect the work of others. I think it helps

that we know exactly who is in which room each

session so that there is some accountability. Overall, we’ve had fewer problems in this area than we

expected.

Bill Parks: We are pleased with our success and

we are constantly considering new ideas as well.

At every exhibition we show what we have accomplished and ask students, parents, and community leaders for their input on how to make the

school better. Right now, for example, we are exploring an idea for programs during term breaks.

There has always been federal money to provide

special tutorial work for “at risk” kids and some

special education programs. But we are working

on plans to provide inter-term opportunities for all

students, like our extended community school

program, maybe on a sliding scale for cost.

Barb Milner: So, I hope this makes it clear that

while we don’t have an elected school board making education decisions as in the past, we have

found other vehicles for keeping us connected

with the community. This gives our educational

leaders more time to deal with pressing school

problems and we feel that these open exhibitions

make us publicly accountable to our community.

Quality Review Panelist: I guess I would like to

know how you managed to get such a vibrant community effort going.

Amelia Leff: I can respond to that because I think

I have been involved in this school the longest.

My son is now in high school and comes back as

part of his community service. I just consider it

my community service to stay involved and I enjoy it. But, you ask how we got from a detached

school to this new arrangement where the school

is “central” to our lives.

I think the first step was when teachers starting

to teach integrated themes and they did not have

enough resources. So they appealed first to parents and then to everyone in the community. Then

in 1994 we received one of the “Service Learning”

grants and the kids moved out of the classroom

and into community projects. They started producing information sheets and newsletters that

were available in stores and banks. Then I think

we started to move our displays into the community. Our small airport let us use their hallways for

our public education campaigns. Once the kids

had a purpose, they were more geared into learning. And this relationship with the community

continued to grow as teachers pulled more of us

into the classroom and the kids took more of their

learning out to the community.

Lensci Denny: Here is another example of this

service learning. One of our teachers, Clare Devlin, took a survey in a local senior citizen organization about what their members would like to

learn about computers and specifically what applications interested them. Then she had her students learn how to use these programs so they

could teach them to the seniors. For one month the

seniors were invited to come to the school and

learn from the students. This program was very

successful. But what Clare never realized is what

a powerful resource the seniors would be to the

classroom once they were computer literate and

interested in what was going on in the school.

They have contributed in so many ways, both in

time and money; they gave us a big thrust forward.
118 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

So, an attempt to help this others ended up helping

us. And I guess that is how it went.

After more discussion, the lunch is cleared and

the community representatives leave. The review

panel returns to the school planning office to look

over school records, student performance scores

and tests, and other documentation. The test

scores show a steady climb in averages but lots of

student variation. Barb describes how some students who have done well in the past because of

good memories are taking longer to adjust to this

new way of demonstrating their thinking.

Later in the afternoon, you meet with the entry

and mentor teachers. They reinforce the same

story that you had heard all day. Everyone has

more time to engage in teaching and learning.

One of the mentor teachers is explaining why this

is so important.

Michel Lickte: The most significant difference

from the past is that we have time—time to think,

time to reflect, time for collaboration with others

making the important decisions that set the stage

for learning. Most of us had an “area of expertise”

before these changes, but we had to develop it

while teaching full-time and we rarely received

the recognition or encouragement to really pursue

it. Being able to retreat to the office and make professional contacts during business hours—this is

a rare benefit for teachers. And the school offices

are a great place to work, I really enjoy working

with other teachers on projects. The changes have

encouraged an entrepreneurial sense to professional development which many of us have found

very rewarding.

Sandi McCan: I love teaching but I also enjoy my

work testing, reviewing, and editing materials for

School Media Tools Service. And I enjoy doing

this work in the evening at home. I teach between

9:00 and 12:00 and between 1:00-2:00. Since I

have extra time during the day, I sometimes help

a child who needs some individual help. And I am

not the only one. We all have much more flexibility now that we don’t have to be with the students

all day. I can’t tell you what a sense of freedom I

feel when I have all of my students working on

some project and I can just leave the room knowing that the learning guide will supervise student

work. Since my work involves testing new curriculum, I sometimes teach special classes making it

possible for scheduled teachers to work with

smaller groups.

Clare Devlin: In contrast, I like getting here about

5:00 in the morning and working in the office for

about three hours. I have a grant to explore lifelong learning which helps me bring the seniors

into the school. I am working on an article about

our project. Sometimes I stop by the Senior Center

on the way to school. Like Sand, I really enjoy the

freedom to be at the school and not always in the

classroom. I can come in here and just talk with

other teachers. We have planning meetings and

workshops during school hours! And I don’t mind

filling in for other teachers or even helping out in

the office, especially working with Marilyn. I

have learned so much about computer graphics

that I think my next project will be doing something with her.

Quality Review Panelist: How would you characterize the most significant change that has taken

place in your charter district?

Hernando Borja: I know how I would answer

that. For me it is becoming part of a vibrant community working collaboratively in the learning

centers, at the school, and in the local community

and across the country in the educational community. The collaboration is intellectually satisfying

to me and to all of us. It provides many more opportunities for quality learning. We are all proud

of what the students are accomplishing in the

learning environments that we have created together. The rewards are collective rewards. In the

past, there was always a bit of competition among

teachers about who was the “best” teacher at a

grade level, who had the best classroom. Parent requests caused so many conflicts as we tried to

place students in individual classes. But in this arrangement teachers as well as students work and

learn from each other. The multi-age teams are

working very well—kids are more supportive in

helping one another learn as there is not the under-
Appendix C The Future of Teaching | 119

lying assumption that everyone in a team should

already know something. We have always know

that teaching is one of the best forms of learning

but it was much harder to arrange for it to happen

naturally in traditional classrooms. But in the centers, teaching and learning are part of almost every interaction.

And the other part of this is the shift in the relationship between teachers, principals and superintendents. The decisions that effect our schools and

our work as educators are made by us in the Teacher Senate. We are all asking ourselves about what

we can do to improve education and we all have

a say in the answers to this question. We are more

concerned about creating a shared vision then following the education ideas of a charismatic leader.

The design of this school district is our design and

that is what makes it so powerful.19

Quality Review Panelist: How would you evaluate the role of technology in the changes that have

taken place?

Mary Stanley: As Central’s technology coordinator, I can respond to that. The tools that we have,

and the new tools that are available each year, are

incredible. But they are tools and we need to know

how to use them to accomplish important educational roles. In some ways, we no longer even

think about the role of the technology separate

from the activities because we are beginning to

take it for granted. But I think Hernando just gave

the answer to your question. Access to information resources in the Net World has been extremely helpful, and we have a better match between our

teaching objectives and supporting materials. But

the most significant change is the ability to work

in groups with educators who share similar interests or face similar challenges. Everything from

teacher senate decisions to student group projects

are facilitated by our communication tools. I can

say, without a doubt, that the rich network of human resources is the most significant technological advancement we have.

The meeting draws to a close. You are impressed by the strong sense of professional respect

the teachers have for themselves and one another.

The Teacher Senate is more than a symbolic

step toward teacher responsibility for education.

The teachers themselves convey the feeling that

their advancement in the field of education is

unlimited.20

19 The view of the school as a community with self-management by professional teachers is an ideal that many would like to see as reality.

T.J. Sergiovanni, in his book Moral Leadership: Getting to the heart of School Improvement (1992) (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1992)

advocates replacing strong centralized leadership in education and with collaboration communities. Collaboration is time consuming and it is

different to implement a high degree of teamwork without changing the existing dimensions of the role of classroom teaching.

20 “You” is used in the plural in this paper to refer to two different groups, those who have read the paper and those who will read it in the

future. Many of the statements and questions of the review panelists have come from this first group of readers and I am grateful for their comments and suggestions. For those of you who have just finished reading the paper, I would enjoy reading the report of your Quality Review

Panel. What did you think of this school and school district? Where do you suspect that they will run into problems? What are the strengths of the

program, and what policy recommendations would you offer to them? If “you” want to write the Quality Review of Central School, or of the

Pacific School District, I would enjoy reading it: Margaret Riel, InterLearn, 943 San Dieguito Drive, Encinitas, CA 92024, (mriel@weber.ucsd.edu).
Appendix D

Year 2005:

Using Technology

to Build Communities

of Understanding

igital information technology is changing how people

learn, teach, work, and play. By the year 2005, the capabilities and the affordability of digital technology could catalyze and facilitate the wholesale transformation of

education and the communities that support it. SRI International’s Center for Technology in Learning believes the effective use

of this technology could alter the relationships between homes,

schools, and workplaces and in so doing assist the creation of new

kinds of communities (29,32). In this paper, we offer one vision of

these new communities—communities that have learning and

teaching at their core and use digital technologies to foster higher

levels of community participation, enable deeper levels of cognitive and social engagement, and structure new kinds of relationships that support education. We analyze the social, pedagogical,

and technological trends that support the realization of this vision, and we discuss the implications for teacher training, school

accountability, and equity.

A community is a collection of individuals who are bonded together either by geography or by common purpose, shared values

and expectations, and a web of meaningful relationships (33). In

the communities that we envision in this paper—what we call

“communities of understanding”—education is the common purpose, learning is highly valued, and a high level of academic

achievement is expected of students and their schools. Mutual respect, honesty, and fairness are basic values, and there is a common dedication to see that each member of the community strives

and succeeds. These values are enmeshed in the everyday activities and relationships of community life. There is a strong social

network in these communities and a high degree of commitment

to and involvement in the educational endeavor. This commit- | 121

by

Robert Kozma and

Wayne Grant

Center for Technology in Learning

SRI International
122 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

ment is shared by students, teachers, parents, and

other members of the community. Although this

description may seem utopian, many of these

qualities characterize successful learning environments in inner-city public schools of choice, Catholic schools, and Asian schools of today

(5,17,35,37).

Clearly, these qualities can exist in a community, independent of advanced technology. And

there can be communities based on geography

rather than values or on values different from

those described above. But in our vision for the

year 2005, digital technologies are used to create

a web of relationships, engagement, and participation that transforms the educational enterprise and

makes it the center of community life. Today,

schools, homes, and workplaces function separately—connected by geography and circumstances but infrequently by common purpose and

collaborative action. But in our vision of communities of understanding, digital technologies are

used to interweave schools, homes, workplaces,

libraries, museums, and social services to reintegrate education into the fabric of the community.

Learning is no longer encapsulated by time, place,

and age, but has become a pervasive activity and

attitude that continues throughout life and is supported by all segments of society. Teaching is no

longer defined as the transfer of information,

learning no longer as the retention of facts. Rather,

teachers challenge students to achieve deeper levels of understanding and guide students in the collaborative construction and application of

knowledge in the context of authentic situations

and tasks. Education is no longer the exclusive responsibility of teachers but benefits from the participation and collaboration of parents, business

people, scientists, seniors, and, of course, students

of all ages.

How can technology support this transformation? First of all, the emerging information superhighway (18,38) will connect schools with each

other and with homes, businesses, libraries, museums, and community resources. The connections between schools and homes will help

students to extend their academic day, allow

teachers to draw on significant experiences from

students’ everyday lives, and allow parents to become more involved in the education of their children and to have extended educational

opportunities of their own. Connections between

school and work will allow students to learn in the

context of real-life problems, allow teachers to

draw on the resources of technical and business

experts, and allow employers to contribute to and

benefit from the fruits of an effective educational

system. Connections between schools, homes,

and the rest of the community will enable students

to relate what is happening in the world outside to

what is happening in school, will allow teachers

to coordinate formal education with informal

learning, and will allow the community to reintegrate education into its daily life.

To make these connections pay off, this infrastructure will be filled with effective and engaging

materials and tools that challenge students, afford

new activities, and motivate learning. When users

access the superhighway, they will find rich, multimedia resources in mathematics, sciences, and

humanities and rich contexts of authentic situations and tasks. They will have access to tools that

allow them to communicate and collaborate with

others, consider ideas from multiple perspectives,

express their ideas in multiple ways, build models, and explore simulations.

As important as digital information technology

is to our vision of the future, we have deliberately

avoided the temptation to become overly technocentric and speculative about cutting-edge developments. Because we have chosen to limit

ourselves to technologies likely to be in wide use

in 2005, our scenarios of the future are actually

quite conservative on the technology side. The

technological capabilities we describe are fairly

straightforward extrapolations and amalgamations of the capabilities available today in advanced systems, which we believe will be

affordable by schools and homes in the year 2005.

No doubt, the cutting edge of technological capability will have advanced beyond those presented

in the scenarios that follow.

Rather than emphasizing cutting-edge technology, we stress the collateral social change and

educational reform that must occur for this trans-
Appendix D Year 2005: Using Technology to Build Communities of Understanding | 123

formation to be realized. To realize the full impact

of digital technologies on our educational system,

there must also be massive changes in the larger

social structures, relationships, and interactions

within which the education system is embedded.

The forces constraining educational transformation are not technological but pedagogical and social. Where we have been daring with this paper

is in developing a vision in which many of the

educational, social, and equity issues facing our

country have been addressed in systemic and positive ways. In our analyses, we describe the needed

social and pedagogical changes that can support

and be supported by the emerging technological

developments. When advanced technology is integrated into a broad effort for school reform, then

educators, students, parents, and communities

will have a powerful combination that can bring

necessary, positive change to this nation’s educational system (21).

Our optimism is tempered by an acknowledgment of all the earlier technological revolutions

that failed to change the classroom (10). On the

other hand, our enthusiasm is buoyed by a growing number of policy discussions, community experiences, and educational experiments in social,

pedagogical, and technological change at local,

state, and national levels that seem to suggest that

our visions are not outside the realm of possibility.

Nonetheless, what we present is our vision of

communities of understanding; it is not a prediction. We do not assert that this will happen, only

that it can and should.

With that introduction, welcome to the year

2005.

A VISION OF THE YEAR 2005

❚ Characters (in order of appearance):

 Steve Early, a 14-year-old African-American.

 Nelson, a 17-year-old living in South Africa;

Steve’s electronic pen pal.

 Carmela Zamora, 15-year-old of Philippine descent.

 Mr. and Mrs. Zamora, Carmela’s parents.

 Valerie Spring, a senior teacher with a science

degree.

 Sharon Gomez, a mathematics teacher.

 George Shepherd, an apprentice language arts

teacher.

 Christopher Lindsay, a school-work coordinator.

 Lynda Lucero, a 13-year-old of Hispanic descent.

 Mrs. Lucero, a design engineer at the Global

Car Company.

 Vincent Tracy, 14 years old and visually impaired.

 Other children, parents, and community members.

Settings: Some of the events take place in children’s homes. Most of the events take place in the

McAuliffe Learning Center, which serves as the

physical locus for formal learning, community activities, and social services. McAuliffe is divided

into a variety of spaces specifically designed for

technology-supported learning. Facilities include

learning-team pods, each with a workstation and

project resources (microscopes, fabrication materials and tools, etc.); small-group meeting rooms,

each with collaborative technologies, a flat-panel

display, and personal interaction devices; multimedia production and editing suites; and a large

multimedia auditorium and performance center.

These resources are used by students and teachers

during the day and are open to community members and groups at other times (see box D-1).

❚ Social Perspective: Connecting

Learning to the World

An important motivation for learning comes from

membership in a community. The meaningfulness

of a learning activity is increased by relating

events that happen in the larger world to things

that are happening in the student’s world. The

need to understand these events and do something

about them creates a context and a motivation for

learning. Connecting the informal experiences

and learning of the outside world with the formal

learning of the classroom makes the knowledge
124 I Education and Technology: Future Visions

As he does every morning, Steve Early eats breakfast in front of the teleputer. While he watches a

news program m one window, his personal communication service relays a video message from his

South African friend, Nelson, m another window. Nelson’s vid-message is about a train derailment near

his hometown that caused a huge hazardous-fuel spill, made people sick, and now endangers a wildanimal preserve. Nelson explains. “I am afraid the chemicals will poison our water and hurt the animals “ Steve clicks on a button that Nelson embedded in the message and activates a “knowbot." This

software agent presents the news story as it originated m Nelson’s community and then goes off to

search for additional information about the train accident on the GlobalNet. After Steve checks out the

Net pointers, he constructs his own agent to search the local and national video news servers for other

stories about the accident He Instructs his agent to find video clips that run less than three minutes,

sort them chronologically, and store them on the school server so he can access them later, As he finishes his breakfast, Steve watches the video that the agent retrieved.

Meanwhile, another student, Carmela Zamora, is flipping through channels to the Hispanic MTVNews and hears about the South Africa train derailment. A budding naturalist, she is alarmed by the

news and wants to do something to save the animals. When her dad comes in to remind her about

getting off to school on time, he sees the news and they talk about it. Carmela shares her concern and

asks, “What can we do to keep this from happening?” He tells her, “We all have to help. The telecourse

I’m taking is to learn a new manufacturing process that will make the rail cars my company builds stronger and less likely to crack open if they are hit or fall off the tracks Maybe you’d Iike to come to the

plant sometime and see how they’re made “

Walking to school, Carmela meets Steve and asks whether his South African friend knows anything about the accident. “Yeah, he’s worried. It happened close to his town, ” he says In the playground, they meet up with three other members of their Iearning team, the Falcons. This morning, they

must present an idea for a project to their teaching team. Carmela launches in, “I saw a report on the

news this morning about an accident in South Africa. There was a fuel spill from a train near a wild-animal park I want to find out what can be done to save the animals. “ “Me too, ” Steve says, “My friend

Nelson lives nearby, and I watched some video clips this morning that we could use. Let’s ask the

teachers if we can figure out how to stop hazardous spills from hurting the environment. ”

The other three students agree. In the project planning room, teachers Valerie Spring, Sharon Gomez, and George Shepherd and the five students gather around the teleputer and open their project

planning tool. Valerie Spring starts off, “OK, let’s fill in the goals for the project. What do you kids have in

mind?” The students chime in with their ideas.

“Your ideas about reducing hazardous spills sound interesting, ” Ms. Spring responds, “but what

would you Iike to do about it? What would you like to accomplish with your project?”

“1 would like to find a way to keep hazardous waste from hurting plants and animals, ” Carmela

replies.

“1 think we should get a law passed that makes tank cars safer, ” says Steve.

“My dad’s company is working on that, Steve. Maybe we could talk to him about that, ” she says

“1 think that’s a good idea, ” says Ms. Gomez Always looking for a way to bring math into he conversation, she asks, “What other kinds of things might reduce the risks connected with transporting hazardous wastes?” Carmela puzzles for a moment and then offers, “In addition to making tank cars safer,

what if we reduced the number of cars needed to transport fuel?” Steve adds, ‘(l wonder how many car

loads of fuel are delivered in a year. ” Excited by the prospect of a solution, Carmela volunteers, “What if

we Increased the efficient use of fuel by 10 percent?” “We wouldn’t need as much fuel, ” Steve replies.
Appendix D Year 2005: Using Technology to Build Communities of Understanding 1125

“Wouldn’t it also reduce the number of cars on the tracks?” asks Ms. Gomez. “if we reduced the

number of cars, wouldn’t that also reduce the chance of accidents?”

“Yes, and it would also make the air cleaner, ” Carmela shouts, “Let’s think of ways to increase fuel

efficiency”

Hanging on the wall is a large, color, flat-panel display for plotting the project. The use of pointing

devices with the display makes it easy for students and teachers to rearrange the software symbols and

objects that represent their developing ideas. Working with the display and the software planning tools,

students and teachers develop the project’s organization, timeline, and goals, as well as each student’s

learning objectives and tasks, As the discussion progresses, the teachers check the goals that students suggest with those Iisted in the curriculum. They also look at learning-history profiles that show

each student’s current knowledge in terms of the goals. The tool lets them see the skills, activities, and

subject matter that past projects have emphasized The teachers suggest activities that will help the

students gain the skills, knowledge, and experiences identified as absent from their learning profiles.

For example, in her planning tool, Ms. Gomez Indicates that the new project will help the students

strengthen certain mathematical skills and concepts, including measurement of liquid volumes, graphing number relationships, and making mathematical connections to real-world problems. She also Iists

science facts, skills, and concepts appropriate to the project, including thinking critically and logically

about the relationships between evidence and explanations, understanding ecosystems and organisms, and describing transformations of energy. Like most of her colleagues, Ms. Gomez has become

adept at thinking in terms of broad, ambitious goal statements established by her school and district.

As a result of the discussions, the students decide to make an interactive multimedia report as

their final product “You need to think about your audience for the report, ” comments Mr. Shepherd,

their language arts teacher, “and what they would want to know about your topic. ”

“We need to think about why our report would be important to them, ” adds Steve.

“If someone dumped fuel in your backyard, you would want to know how to stop it, ” replies another team member. “Maybe we should show what happened to Nelson’s neighborhood and then look for

spills in our neighborhood, too, ” adds a fourth member.

“But we need to find a way to stop it, ” demands Carmela.

The students decide they will interview Steve’s South African friend Nelson and ask his schoolmates to collaborate with them by gathering video images and other local information about the train

accident that can be integrated with the information they create. They will also talk to community members in the McAuliffe neighborhood and see whether there have been any fuel spills in the area during

the past year. Finally, they will come up with some suggestions for how to stop fuel spills. They will store

their report on the community video server and make it available through the community-access cable

channel and send it to Nelson and his South African classmates. The report will conclude by taking

viewers to the Environment Chat Room on the GlobalNet, where they can talk to scientists, environmentalists, and others about the problem and potential solutions.

Each student has an assignment and downloads the project plan into a personal digital assistant

with a beginning set of pointers to resources both inside and outside the neighborhood. “1 think we

might really make a difference here, ” Steve says. “1 can’t wait to tell Nelson. ”

acquired more useful and the world outside more increasing the authenticity of learning activities.

comprehensible. Today’s technologies—television, telephones,

Technology helps motivate learning by bring- computers, electronic mail, and videodisks----ofing the world into the learning environment and fer ways of infusing real-world issues into con4
126 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

ventional, discipline-based curricula. However,

the usefulness of these technologies is limited by

a paucity of interactivity—there is not much the

student can do with this information. As technology evolves during the next decade, a host of personal communication and information services

will become increasingly understandable, affordable, and accessible to consumer and education

markets.

An interactive connection with the world can

dramatically increase learning resources. Teachers and students can get access to expertise and information not otherwise available. More

importantly, students can do something within

this technological environment. They can interact

with and influence other people. They can explore

far-off continents, and they can add to the contents

of far-off libraries. They can share a museum visit

with their schoolmates or take a field trip without

getting on a bus. Scientists can come into the

classroom, and students can go off into space.

They can identify people with similar concerns

and find others who can help them solve their

problems. This interactive web of people and resources can become a foundation for building the

community of understanding.

❚ Pedagogical Perspective:

Project-Based Learning

In recent years, consensus has evolved around a

set of National Education Goals to improve student learning. By the turn of the millennium, the

individual states and local school systems are likely to implement these goals into an extended set of

standards that students must achieve (for example, see references 6 and 7). These will serve as a

focus for the design of learning environments and

activities. Prominent among the National Goals is

the objective of increasing student ability to solve

problems and demonstrate competency over challenging subject matter, particularly in mathematics and science. In our vision, the “learning

project” is the mechanism used to accomplish

these goals.

Project-based learning involves students in the

identification of some problem or goal of personal

or group interest and the generation of activities

and products that will accomplish the goal or

solve the problem (4). Within this framework, students pursue solutions to nontrivial problems, ask

and refine questions, debate ideas, design plans

and artifacts, collect and analyze data, draw conclusions, and communicate findings to others. Because they bring problems in from their own

personal lives, students are more motivated to

pursue a deep understanding of a cluster of topics

across related domains. This approach contrasts

with the current practice of superficial coverage of

many topics in a single domain.

The project is also a way of valuing and integrating knowledge from multiple perspectives

and multiple disciplines. Naturally occurring

problems are not compartmentalized into mathematics, science, and language arts. Furthermore,

problem solutions benefit from the multiple expertise, perspectives, and modes of expression

that come from multiple members of teams—both

teams of students and teams of teachers. No one

person is likely to have the solution to complex,

real-world problems, and differences among students in expertise and experience are valued.

Project-based learning, particularly projects

that emerge from student-identified interests,

makes planning and accountability more complex. The challenge for teachers is to begin with

these student-generated interests and guide the development of a particular project to make sure that

students are challenged and that they accomplish

important educational objectives. They must

build on individual strengths and accommodate

the individual needs of students within the group.

In addition, they must work with students to generate productive activities and provide them with

access to useful resources.

Technology can help both teachers and students

manage the complexities of project-based learning. In the scenario above, teachers and students

use project software to help them keep track of

student progress with respect to curriculum goals.

Teachers use the software to support students in

structuring their projects by providing students

with access to resources and activities they can use
Appendix D Year 2005: Using Technology to Build Communities of Understanding | 127

to accomplish their goals. And students benefit

when they externalize their ideas by representing

them explicitly as concrete objects with which

they can interact more easily. Finally, both teachers and students can use the environment to share

experiences and resources with others.

❚ Pedagogical Perspective: Scaffolding

“Scaffolds” are external aids that provide cognitive and social support for people new to a task or

knowledge domain, much as scaffolds on a

construction site support workers and materials

while a building is erected. These external aids

consist of questions, prompts, or procedures provided to students that more knowledgeable people

have internalized and provide for themselves. By

performing part of the task, scaffolding allows

students to manage tasks that are more challenging than the ones that they could do on their own

(41). When these aids are a normal part of the

classroom discourse, students can model these

skills for each other and get assistance from the

teacher and others in the group (25). As students

refine and internalize these new skills, the supports are gradually withdrawn and students perform more of the task on their own.

Problem solving and critical thinking are particularly challenging curricular goals for young

students. They must learn to analyze problems

and specify goals, identify information and plan

activities that will help them solve the problem,

identify the products of their work and specify criteria that will be used to evaluate them, and work

as a team to accomplish their goals. The use of

scaffolding helps students work through these

cognitive and social processes. By using these

processes repeatedly across projects, students will

come to generalize them, take them out to the real

world, and apply them to problems they encounter

there.

In our scenario, students use a combination of

technological and social supports to scaffold their

problem solving. They use a computer-based project tool along with the guidance of teachers and

each other to design and manage their project. The

tool and the teacher team scaffold students’ work

by stepping them through the planning process,

asking them to define their goals, prompting them

to select activities to accomplish these, guiding

them to resources, and structuring their assessments. Students begin to use these prompts socially with each other, and ultimately the skills

become internalized and they can use them on

their own. While students work on their project,

the tool keeps their goals and plans visible so that

they do not lose track of them while in the thick

of their activities.

❚ Technological Perspectives

In this scenario, a number of technological tools

and software utilities support student learning and

connect it to the experiences, resources, and

people in the outside world.

Computer-Based Planning Environment

Although pedagogically appealing, projectbased learning and scaffolding present new challenges to teachers and learners. Teachers need

help to ensure that open-ended, bottom-up, project-based approaches provide a comprehensive,

balanced education, and learners need help in

planning and executing their projects. Technology

can provide this help.

Embedded coaching systems and intelligent

critics that assist users while they are actively carrying out their tasks are beginning to appear in

commercial products (for example, Apple Guide

in Macintosh System 7.5) and will become much

more common in learning software environments

in the next 10 years. These approaches are particularly effective for open-ended exploratory environments (14) that emphasize the discovery

process as well as project design and development. These software coaches and critics will provide timely curricular support for teachers, and,

along with the teachers, scaffolding for students.

In this scenario, teachers and students use a

project planning tool that helps provide students

with guidance and feedback on the design, development, and execution of their projects. By

constructing a “learning-history profile,” or model of each student’s current knowledge state, the
128 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

project planner functions as an assessment tool

that enables teachers, students, and parents to see

areas that past projects have emphasized, as well

as the objectives a student might address in the

current project. In the process of constructing their

project plan, the students and teachers work with

the tool to decompose each activity into its constituent curriculum objectives. The tool makes

suggestions for improvements to the project by referring to similar cases and draws from a database

of activities known to have been successful in the

past. A record for each activity in the database

contains a description of the activity, a set of links

to useful content, and a list of technologies these

students will need to use to meet their learning objectives. Over time, the use of such tools, in the

context of project-based learning, supports deep

engagement in problems and content without sacrificing the comprehensiveness of the curriculum.

Integrated Personal Communication Services

Current approaches for exchanging electronic

messages assume that users send, receive, and

store messages within a single information utility

(such as the on-line services CompuServe or

America Online). These electronic communication services are separate from services for communicating by voice and from other information

services, and these differences create difficulties

and barriers for users. Several trends suggest significant changes by 2005 that will integrate these

services, and make them easier to use.

For the past few years, telephone services have

expanded to include voice mail (voice messaging)

and personal telephone numbers (unique addresses). The telephone companies are increasing the

capability of their infrastructure to transmit text

and high-quality audio and digital video, and, as

a consequence of recent FCC rulings, they are beginning to offer these services on a limited and experimental basis. Similarly, trends in the cable

television industry suggest that, besides video-ondemand, cable providers plan to offer message

services and access to the kinds of databases currently carried by information utilities. Despite the

falling through of the proposed TCI/Bell Atlantic

deal and the failure to pass federal telecommunications reform legislation, the complementary

capabilities of communication companies continue to make them attractive partners (1,36), as witnessed by the recent Intel/AT&T deal to develop

services for corporate video phones (39). Extrapolating these trends, it will not be long before an

array of familiar consumer products can be used

to send and receive digital messages in a variety

of forms with a variety of devices at prices similar

to those currently charged by cable providers, telephone companies, and other information utilities.

In this scenario, when Steve checks the personal communication service on his television for

vid-messages, he does not leave the television experience and go to a desktop computer to enter a

communications mode in a different medium (that

is, text). Because of windowing and multitasking

features offered by his “teleputer, “ he mixes the

informational perspectives Nelson sent him from

South Africa with those available from his local

news service. These capabilities allow him to

more seamlessly intermingle South African perspectives with local ones and to connect these perspectives with other information available in the

system. Nor does Steve have to interrupt the train

of thought he developed during his news viewing

experience to log on to an information utility. The

integration of services frees the cognitive capacity

normally used to operate different systems and allows a deeper engagement with the ideas contained in the messages.

Smart Mail, Intelligent Agents, and

Programming by Example

As a result of the integration of information and

communication services, the amount of information and the number of people available on the network increase dramatically. Tools will be needed

to make this mass of information useful and usable. Smart mail, intelligent agents, and programming by example will increase the power of

communication, decrease the difficulty of finding

and using information, and make the system easy

to operate.
Appendix D Year 2005: Using Technology to Build Communities of Understanding | 129

General Magic has recently organized a consortium of companies—including Sony, Motorola,

Apple Computer, AT&T, Philips, and Matsushita—to develop personal communicators and advanced communication software and services to

be offered at prices geared to the average consumer. The heart of these services is a communicationoriented programming language called Telescript.

In Telescript, each message is an agent, or a

“knowbot.” The agent is a small program that can

perform functions besides just expressing a text

message, such as searching, collecting, organizing, and distributing information to certain people

at certain times. In the future, scripting languages

like Telescript will enable users to add computational capabilities to their messages (27).

For this technology to be broadly successful,

the ability to construct a smart message cannot require a user to learn a difficult programming language or write lines of code. New approaches are

simplifying this task by allowing users to “write”

a program by example (11). In programming by

example, a software agent monitors a user as he or

she performs a task, such as constructing and

sending a message. The agent forms a model of

what the user is doing, and once it is “confident”

that it understands the process, it will offer to carry

out the actions in the future. Thus, by simply performing a task, the user creates a program that the

system can implement under similar future circumstances. By 2005, such approaches will be so

evolved that users will be able to construct agent

scripts so naturally that they will be completely

oblivious to the fact that they are “writing” a program.

The “smart” message Nelson sent Steve includes a set of computer scripts, which, when triggered, link Steve to more information. Nelson

wanted Steve to see the train derailment and

chemical spill from a South African and other perspectives, so in his message he included a hypermedia link that Steve can follow to see the South

African news clip and an agent that Steve can activate to search for information about the train accident on the GlobalNet. Steve also constructs his

own agent to search for and organize additional information of a certain kind. Construction of this

agent is easy because these are the kinds of things

Steve usually does with information, and the

agent knows that (see box D-2).

❚ Social Perspective: Connecting

Learning to Work

Society is recognizing that students must be better

prepared for productive jobs within the competitive world market and that those skills and knowledge could be better obtained if academic work

more closely resembled authentic work. Reports

such as America’s Choice: High Skills or Low

Wages! (24) rang the alarm that the United States

is not providing an education that prepares young

people for productive careers in the technologydependent and highly competitive 21st-century

work environment.

School-to-work transition programs should

help students acquire the conceptual underpinnings of the skills they learn without becoming

trapped in training on specific procedures or

equipment, much of which will be outdated by the

time the students enter the adult work world.

Ideally, students should be exposed to both the

practical contexts and the meaningful tasks of

adult work as well as the conceptual knowledge

and generalizable skills normally associated with

formal learning (31). The teacher guides the transfer of knowledge between these two areas and

helps students reflect on their experiences.

With this approach, students should be challenged by tasks that:

 Have analogs in adult work, but also reflect students’ interests.

 Are complex and open-ended, requiring students to work through the definition of the

problem and regulate their own performance.

 Relate to practical situations so that experiences

from work and daily living provide important

information, strategies, or insights.

 Can be accomplished in multiple ways, typically with more than one good answer or outcome.

 Are performed by student teams, with different

students taking on different specialized roles.
130 I Education and Technology: Future Visions

Later that day, Carmela and Steve join one of their other learning teams the Cheetahs which is

designing a car to compete in the National Cyberspace Derby against cars created by students from

other communities around the country, The team is preparing for the regional competition; the winners

compete in the national finals. Students are coached by school-work coordinator Chris Lindsay and

math teacher Sharon Gomez, Chris Lindsay starts the meeting: “There are two designs you folks have

been working on; we need to decide which one we wiII use to compete in the regional, ”

“Lynda and I want to race our fastest car, ” explains Vincent Because he is visually impaired and

cannot see the car being designed, Vincent relies on auditory and tactile feedback provided by the

computer system, As he traces his hand over a flat-panel display, the system provides auditory information about the coordinates he is interacting with, He has learned to use this information to build an

image of the car in his mind At the same time, graphic and text information is fed to a Braille printer so

he has documented information that can be used in the future and shared with other blind students, “I

like this design, ” he says, “Now that we have modified the spoiler and tuned the manifold, this should

be the fastest, ”

“Remember, the race rules state the best overall car wins, ” replies Ms. Gomez, “What other factors do you think you need to consider, given that rule? What might the judges include in determining

the best OVERALL?”

Carmela responds, “Well I’ve been thinking about a new hazardous-waste project that Steve and I

are working on, and I think building the most fuel-efficient car will be safer for the environment “

‘(Yes, and thinking about it from a business view, what about the cost of production? You do need

to make a profit, right?” offers another team member

With these ideas in mind, the student team consults with an engineer who works at the local office

of Global Car Company, an automobile manufacturer and one of the race sponsors, The engineer is

also the mother of team member Lynda Lucero. For weeks, Ms. Lucero in person and remotely responds to students’ questions as they encounter problems with their designs, The students use a highend workstation and computer-aided-design (CAD) program supplied by Global Car, The students’

CAD tool has all the basic features of professional design tools but runs on less powerful and less expensive computers than the one in Ms. Lucero’s office. However, the two machines are connected so

that the same image appears on both screens and can be altered by both the students and the engineer,

■ Are performed with the same information and out linkages between project activities and the

the same kinds of technology tools (though not

necessarily identical tools) that are used by professionals.

Networked communications and collaborative

software can be used to create new relationships

between work and school. As reflected in this scenario, teachers and experts from various professions can jointly design realistic activities based

on authentic tasks that motivate the learning of

generalizable skills and concepts. Teachers provide an overall structure, assess student work and

create ways for student self-assessment, and point

concepts under study. Mentors work with students

on specific tasks, providing guidance and assistance when students reach an impasse, modeling

the way practitioners in the field solve problems

and providing guidance that is not associated with

the grading process. All of this is supported by the

electronic infrastructure and a set of software

tools.

❚ Pedagogical Perspective: Modeling

There are two meanings for the word model

( 15)—an “of’ meaning and a “for” meaning—and
Appendix D Year 2005: Using Technology to Build Communities of Understanding 1131

Ms. Lucero’s image appears in a small window in the corner of the screen next to the large window that displays a wire-frame model of their favorite design. Back in her office, she uses her stylus to

lower the roof line on the model, and the students see the results on their monitor “If we make the roof

line lower, it looks better and it will reduce friction—or what we call the drag coefficient—which results in

increased fuel efficiency, However, manufacturing a sleek racing car can be expensive, and you have a

limited budget for your design, This is what your teachers mean when they talk to you about

‘constraints’ in design. You are going to need to think carefully about whether to spend that money on a

better engine, a more comfortable interior, or reducing the drag. ” The team discusses these and other

complex issues with Ms. Lucero.

The cars the students create are not static drawings but functioning models that they can test on

a simulated cyberspace race track. So after they make changes to their cars, Ms. Gomez has the students conduct simulations to test each change scientifically by running the car and studying the effects

of their changes on speed/fuel consumption comparison graphs. To increase their understanding of the

issues, working with Ms. Lucero, she introduces them to velocity and acceleration graphs. The students

begin to see that there is a lot of math and physics as well as artistic talent revolved in making a car that

is attractive, fast, and fuel efficient,

At the end of the mentoring session, each student uses a personal digital assistant (PDA) to record new information and knowledge and a reflection on the day’s activities in a “learning log, ” Meanwhile, as they work with each Iearning team, the teachers use their PDAs to keep track of new skills the

students have demonstrated and their impressions of how well the exercise fosters collaborative skills.

“OK, team, ” Ms. Gomez announces, “everyone please put a note in your PDAs so you’ll remember to have the people in your family conduct a simulated test drive of the prototypes by next Monday

You’ll need their comments on how each car handles. Ask them to compare each design to the cars

they drive Remember, customer satisfaction counts, too. ”

“The race is just two weeks away, ” Mr. Lindsay reminds them. “You must decide on the final design by the end of the week so there’s plenty of time to prepare your multimedia reports and rehearse

your presentations. You will have to explain why you designed the car the way you did, Remember,

we’ve invited families and neighbors to watch the race, so you need to be sharp. ”

both are relevant to new pedagogical approaches.

In the first sense, models are constructed, symbolic artifacts that simulate the “real thing” in some

important ways. These artifacts may be scale

models, flow charts, or computer simulations that

display or operationalize the structural or functional relationships of a physical system, such as a

mechanical device, or of a conceptual system,

such as Newton’s laws of motion. By building,

manipulating, and explaining the design of such

models, as illustrated in the scenario, students

come to understand these structural and functional

relationships (42). When modeling a phenomenon, students must represent their understanding

of the world in an explicit way, as the students did

with their design of fast, fuel-efficient cars in the

scenario above. By representing these phenomena

explicitly, students may uncover weaknesses in

their understanding that they can work to correct.

If students operationalize their understanding in

computational models, they can compare the behavior of these models with the behavior of realworld phenomena, using these to judge the

validity and reliability of what they know.

In the second sense, a model is a symbolic representation of something that is intended to become real. In this sense, behaviors, practices, and

attitudes are modeled with the intent that students

will come to be like these models. In cognitive ap4
132 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

prenticeships, an expert carries out a task so that

students can observe and understand the processes

that are required to accomplish the task (9). This

modeling requires the externalization of cognitive

processes and activities that are usually performed

internally. In the scenario above, Ms. Lucero was

modeling how designers think, solve problems,

and use their tools. In demonstrating the process

by using the shared CAD tools, she not only modeled the use of the tool but the decision processes

and procedural knowledge that are used to design

cars.

Technology can be used to help make these internal processes external and observable while

students are working on their authentic task. As

well, the system can keep track of students’ processes and make these traces available to both student and mentor. These traces can become the

focus of cognitive mentoring in which both students and mentor examine the thinking processes

behind specific decisions. Thus, the students’

thinking processes themselves, as represented in

these traces, can become a direct object of mentoring.

❚ Pedagogical Perspective:

Collaborative Problem Solving

Traditional school learning emphasizes individual achievement and solving problems without the

aid of other people or resources (28). Although

this approach works when learning facts and solutions to simple, contrived problems, it is insufficient for the application of knowledge to solve the

complex problems of the adult work world. In the

real world, complex problems are frequently

solved by teams of people who bring to bear a variety of perspectives and expertise. Preparation for

this environment involves learning to collaborate

and to use a variety of tools and resources.

Collaborative learning focuses on problems

rather than topics and engages students in activities where they produce and promote theories, interrelate ideas, and explain how things work or

how they are caused. This shifts the pattern of discourse from teacher-initiated questions, followed

by student responses and teacher evaluation, to

a pattern of teacher- and technology-supported

discourse in which students initiate inquiries,

provide responses, and evaluate each other’s contributions. That is, the focus of education shifts

from teaching to learning.

Technology can be used to structure and facilitate this collaboration. Currently, there are several

technology-based learning environments that illustrate this capability. Scardamalia and Bereiter’s (30) computer-supported intentional learning

environment (CSILE) is structured so that the students use a computer to collaboratively build a

text and graphical database of information on topics of mutual interest. In creating this database,

students engage in electronic interactions in

which they pose problems, ask questions, and

share their understanding. Pea (26) provides a

graphical simulation environment with which

groups of students construct ray diagrams that

replicate actual or videotaped experiments illustrating principles of light and vision. White (42)

designed a simulation environment with which

students formulated and tested hypotheses about

force and motion. Environments such as these,

and the CAD environment in the scenario above,

when used along with appropriate educational activities, transform the roles of students from recipients of transmitted facts to active participants in

knowledge-building communities.

❚ Technological Perspective

In this scenario, the school’s computers provide

processing power sufficient to render and manipulate CAD graphics and run simulations. The software enables students to create powerful project

documents quickly and easily. In addition, the collaborative software, coupled with a broadband

network infrastructure, makes school-work mentoring a reality. These capabilities enable new

relationships, new levels of participation, and new

activities that support connections between

school and work.
Appendix D Year 2005: Using Technology to Build Communities of Understanding | 133

High-Performance Workstations

According to “Moore’s law, “ the density of

computer chips quadruples every three years. This

trend is expected to continue until the year 2000,

when extrapolation suggests that a single memory

chip will store 256 million bits. The 256-millionbit figure may be slightly optimistic, however,

since Meindl (22) predicts that growth will slow

down sometime in the near future. Using Meindl’s

projections, the density of chips will grow at 20 to

35 percent per year through the year 2111. If that

trend—and a similar trend of increases in processing speed—holds, computers developed and

priced for consumer and education markets will be

able to process data at speeds approaching 400

MHz by 2005.

While power and speed quadruple every three

years, historically computer hardware prices drop

by half. Following similar trends, prices of RAM

and VRAM will continue to fall and enable learning environments to upgrade workstations so that

they can render and manipulate detailed graphics

images at speeds greater than those afforded by

today’s dedicated graphics workstations. Additionally, the cost per megabyte of storage will drop

to enable storage systems for low-end workstations to reach into the gigabytes.

Consequently, in this scenario, students use

what would be considered, by today’s standards,

a high-end graphics workstation to develop their

cybercars. These students and teachers take advantage of this processing power by working on

authentic and appealing car design problems to

learn physics and math.

Compound Documents

Supported by trends in object-oriented programming, software developers are moving away

from current applications-centered models of

software development toward document-centered

approaches. Applications-centered models focus

on separate task clusters, like writing or budgeting, and design software with functionality that

corresponds to these clusters, such as word processors and spreadsheets. This model assumes

that users enter a task mode (such as writing) and

will need only the functionality pertinent to that

mode, as narrowly defined. Therefore, a user who

wants to add pictures and sounds to a document

must move back and forth between several other

software packages (such as a graphics or sound

package) and deal with the operation of these other programs.

Document-centered approaches assume that

users will want access to different tools all the

time. Thus, document-centered approaches encapsulate functionality in software components

that users can access within any document. For example, instead of working with a word processor,

drawing application, or spreadsheet, users can

work within generic documents and import into

those documents the specialized capabilities

needed to perform specific tasks. This capability

will make systems easier to operate and tasks easier to perform. As with integrated communications

technologies, a document-centered approach frees

the cognitive capacity normally used to operate

different systems and allows users a deeper engagement with their ideas.

In this scenario, document-centered approaches enable students to easily import dynamic

modeling capabilities into their designs, so that

their cars can actually race in cyberspace. They

can also export components of their design document into their multimedia report document, so

that they can demonstrate design features as they

present the rationale for their design.

Simulation and Modeling

The opportunity to model a phenomenon offers

students a significant new way to represent and

operate on their understanding of the world—in

this case, a world of cars, what makes them work,

and how they are designed. Document-centered

approaches enable students to import “smart objects” from a car design object suite into their project document. The objects themselves “know”

how they can interconnect. And because these objects are fashioned in view of an overall model of

how cars operate, when interconnected they can

contribute to critiques of students’ evolving car
134 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

designs. These objects also “know” about properties of the world in which cars operate.

Consequently, when students carry out simulations, they receive feedback about performance

and efficiency. For example, in this environment,

students can even carry out wind tunnel simulations, which, with the help of visualization, enable

them to assess the aerodynamic efficiency of their

designs. Thus, the technologies that support modeling constitute a learning environment that

involves students in a systematic process of recursive design—a process that requires them to

construct a grounded understanding of physics

and math while simultaneously developing a

mental model of systematic inquiry.

Collaborative Computing

Currently, researchers are focusing a great deal

of attention on workgroup computing, also known

as groupware or computer-supported collaborative work environments. These are hardware and

software environments that connect people, perhaps at different sites, to work on shared tasks.

These environments allow users to exchange and

work on shared documents, in synchronous or

asynchronous mode. The connections may provide for the exchange of formatted files, voice

messages, graphics, or video. The environment

scaffolds collaborative problem solving and design. Computer-supported cooperative learning

environments are just beginning to spin out of

these technological developments (26, 30, 31).

Because they have access to collaboration capabilities, when students in the scenario above

reach a stumbling block in their approach, they

can connect to a car design expert who shares their

document space. Ms. Lucero not only sees the design that the students are creating, she can manipulate this design on her workstation. The students

can see and hear Ms. Lucero and see what she is

doing with the design, and they can work together

on its development. The collaboration environment also records a history of the group’s design,

so that Ms. Lucero can see earlier versions of the

design and review the design process. The expert

collaborates with students to solve special problems that teachers do not have the expertise to

tackle, and she collaborates with teachers to create

authentic tasks and experiences for the students.

In this way, the technologies enable new kinds of

relationships and new levels of participation that

can support learning.

Assistive Technologies

Advances in computer and other technologies

have long offered the potential of enhancing the

education of children with disabilities, and in the

past decade, many applications of software, computer peripherals, and other technologies have

been developed or adapted to increase the participation of these youngsters in learning experiences. Because of the increasing awareness and

acceptance of disabilities in our society, and the

rapidly accelerating pace of technology development, we foresee an increasing range of assistive

technologies by the year 2005.

The full range of children with disabilities who

can benefit from technologies is too broad for us

to address in this paper. For this reason, in our scenario, we have selected just one area on which to

focus attention—visual impairment. Currently,

there are a number of assistive technologies designed to help persons with visual impairments.

They include fully speaking, hand-held dictionaries, screen readers with audio feedback that allow the user to get an audio “dump” of a computer

screen, Kurzweil readers, Braille printers, and so

on.

In our scenario, assistive devices designed for

the visually impaired and specialized interfaces

for technologies used by his fellow students enable Vincent to share his learning experience and

reduce the isolation his disability imposes. For example, students with no visual impairment might

be using a graphical user interface (GUI) to interact with the software; Vincent would use speech

recognition technology and an interface that uses

the same graphic metaphors but presents them in

words (40). In addition to recognizing his speech

input, the technology provides Vincent with the

same information that others can read on a screen

as text or graphics. This can be done by translating
Appendix D Year 2005: Using Technology to Build Communities of Understanding | 135

this information to voice, so that Vincent can hear

what is on the screen instead of seeing it. In our

scenario, we have also projected that Vincent

could use a touchscreen to enable him to visualize

graphics or schematics, the information being

provided to him by voice according to the coordinates that he touches on the screen. These powerful assistive technologies not only increase the

participation of disabled students but provide students with environments of equivalent experiences that enable new relationships between

disabled students and their nondisabled friends

(see box D-3).

❚ Social Perspective: Connecting

Learning to the Home

A key factor in building “communities of understanding” will be the extension of learning environments to include home and parents. Although

most parents want to be involved in their children’s education (13), a number of factors make

this difficult. The rise of single-parent and dualcareer families has reduced the amount and flexibility of time that parents have to assist their

children and communicate with teachers. Some

parents are inhibited by cultural differences, feelings of mistrust, or their own lack of education.

Unfamiliar curricula and recent developments in

knowledge make it difficult for some parents to

draw on their own education to help their children.

As a result, parents of all educational backgrounds

believe they are ill-equipped to help. Several national surveys of parents of all income levels have

found that they want schools to tell them how to

help their children at home, and they want more

information about their children’s performance in

school (16).

Teachers face similar constraints on their time.

Many lack training for dealing with parents or

have difficulty relating to culturally different families. But studies show that school programs that

support parental involvement affect participation

more than other factors, including the parent’s

race, education, family size, or marital status, and

even student grade level (13,16,23). Parents

whose children’s teachers involve them in the

learning process report feeling more compelled to

help, report that they understand what their child

is being taught, and rate the teacher higher in overall teaching ability and interpersonal skills.

When parents are involved with children’s

learning, teachers maintain higher expectations

for students and report stronger, more positive

feelings about teaching and their school. They

also are less likely to make stereotypical judgments about poor, less-educated, or unmarried

parents than other teachers do.

Most importantly, the children of involved parents—especially students from low-income families and ethnic minorities—earn higher grades and

test scores (16). Schools also perform better when

parents are involved at school. It is estimated that

when as few as a third of the parents become actively involved, a school as a whole begins to turn

around (16). The performance of all children in the

school tends to improve, not just that of the children of those who are more involved. The highest

level of student achievement happens when families, schools, and community organizations work

together.

The increased presence and connectivity of

technology in the home can increase the level of

parental involvement by making it easier, more

convenient, more interesting, and more productive. Connections with the school can not only accommodate parents’ time constraints, but they

situate parents’ interactions with teachers in the

comfortable, familiar context of home experiences and tasks.

In this scenario and the first one, a number of

school programs and technological capabilities

support parental involvement and communication

between the school and the home. Connections

between school and home allowed Mr. Zamora to

participate in Carmela’s experience even though

he could not attend. He is also able to help her and

her classmates within the constraints of time and

place. Finally, he is able to use technology to extend his own learning. Other activities and services facilitated by these connections could be:
136 I Education and Technology: Future Visions

Four weeks later, the families of the students and other community members gather to cheer on

the student teams as they pit their cars against others in the finals of the National Cyberspace Derby.

Steve and his parents walk into the performance center where the other students and neighbors are

gathered. Excitement is thick in the air.

“Thank you, everyone, for joining us this afternoon, ” Mr. Lindsay, the school-work coordinator,

says. “We appreciate Global Car Company’s sponsorship of this race and providing the students with

our engineering mentor, Ms. Lucero. In the finals, the winner of the race wiII be the car that is the fastest

while getting at least 40 miles per gallon of fuel. All cars have raced in series of regional qualifying runs,

and now the best 12 will compete in today’s final race. These cars have already rated high on tests of

user satisfaction and have come within production budgets. ”

On the large projection screen, the audience sees the race from four perspectives. In one window, there is an overhead view of the entire track and the position of each car. Another window displays

the track from the driver’s seat as students maneuver among their competitors. A third view focuses on

the car’s instrument panel of gauges showing speed and fuel consumption. Because each car is a

computational model, the students can tap into any car on the track, read its gauges, and display them

in a fourth window

Lynda, Vincent, Steve, and Carmela huddle around their teleputer as the voice of the announcer

comes through the speaker. “Good luck, everybody. Ready, set, GO!”

As the audience cheers, the McAuliffe Cheetahs accelerate their car around the track, moving to

the front of the pack

“You’re off to a good start, ” Ms. Lucero cheers

As the cars lap the cyberspace track, two cars from other communities pull ahead. “Look how

much fuel they’ve used, ” yells one parent, pointing to the projection screen. The audience watches the

indicator drop quickly as the car in the lead bursts ahead. “See our fuel gauge; we still have plenty left, ”

Steve shouts.

The community audience groans as the cars reach the finish line. Two cars cross the line ahead

of theirs. Then the voice of the announcer says: “While the first two cars that crossed the finish Iine were

the fastest, the winner is the car that is both fast and fuel efficient, so our winner is the car that crossed

the line third: the McAuliffe Cheetahs!”

Later that night, those from the community who couldn’t attend the race live can access a replay

of the race on the community’s dedicated learning channel. Carmela returns home with her mother to

find her father finishing up his latest telecourse lesson. “Congratulations!” he beams. “1 watched the

results in the background while I was working on my lesson. Great job!”

Carmela smiles back, “1 knew we could win if we made it more fuel efficient. We checked the fuel

efficiency every time we changed the car design. Keeping track of fuel efficiency is really important. We

are using it a lot. Ms. Gomez asked us to enter the fuel efficiency of our family cars in the class database for our project on hazardous spills. Can you help me transfer the data from our car’s computer?”

Mr. Zamora reaches for the family PDA and calls up the database for their car. The database is

automatically updated by wireless communication every time the car pulls into the garage, so the family

can keep track of its efficiency and catch problems before they become big ones. “Let’s link these data

to your classroom database, like this, and it will automatically be updated, too. Let’s sit down tomorrow

night and go over the data together. We can look at why some cars are more fuel efficient than others “

“Dad, will you mentor this project?” Carmela asks. “The kids want to see how the rail cars are built

so they don’t spill hazardous waste “

“Sure, let’s send electronic mail to your teachers asking how I can help, ” he says. “But first, let’s

replay that winning race!”
Appendix D Year 2005: Using Technology to Build Communities of Understanding | 137

 Videotext service and dedicated school video

channels that provide continual updates of

school activities.

 Electronic mail or voice-mail messages that allow parents and teachers to discuss student

progress asynchronously, at times convenient

to each.

 Video programs that explain student assignments and provide tips for how parents can participate and help.

 Computer-based assignments, educational

projects, and multi-player games that parents

can do with their children.

 Extended video-based programs or minicourses that supplement parents’ knowledge of

a range of topics from parenting skills to school

subjects.

 Switched, interactive video so parents and other

community members can tutor children from

their homes.

 Community-access video servers that allow

parents to share personal photos and audio and

video recordings of historical note or personal

meaning.

❚ Pedagogical Perspective:

Authentic Assessment

Paralleling several other developments described

above, there is a national move to change student

assessment so that it reflects knowledge as it is

used in the world rather than knowledge in the

classroom. Authentic assessment moves from the

recall of facts and the computation of “answers” to

the application of knowledge in situations similar

to those in which knowledge will be used in the

real world. Correspondingly, judgments are made

on authentic processes and products, and the “correctness” of these assessments moves from being

the sole responsibility of the teacher to being the

shared responsibility of those who participate in

and are affected by the application of knowledge.

 Authentic assessment can be supported by

technology in many ways, including:

 Designing multimedia assessment tasks that

present richly textured scenarios.

 Allowing learners of disparate knowledge,

learning styles, challenges/impairments, and

language to be equally engaged in the assessment process.

 Archiving the learning process, draft materials,

and finished products.

 Recording time spent on tasks and tracking

scaffolding.

 Supporting “remote” evaluation of student

work.

 Publishing student work and making it available to parents and others in the community.

❚ Pedagogical Perspective: Multiple

Representations and Visualization

External representations are the primary means by

which people come to understand a phenomenon

or concept and express this understanding to others (20). We use words, pictures, sounds, diagrams, numerals, and other symbols to construct

these representations and convey meaning to others. Each type of symbol, or symbol system, expresses the meaning of a phenomenon or concept

in a different way. A picture of a car racing down a

track says something different from the equation

f=ma, yet both say something about motion,

force, acceleration, etc. Making connections

across symbol systems or representations is important; in fact, the ability to make these connections is frequently what we mean when we say

someone “understands” something. For example,

someone understands f=ma when he or she can

read a paragraph about speeding cars and use the

equation to determine which car will go fastest or

need the least force to accelerate.

Technology can be used to support understanding by providing students with one or more symbolic representations of a phenomenon or concept.

Students can act on these in some way and observe

the results. These multiple coordinated representations can make difficult concepts more accessible to students, and students can build a deeper

understanding of the concept by combining the

different information provided by each representation (19,20). For example, a student could enter

an equation and the technology could provide a
138 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

graph of the equation. As a consequence, the student has a deeper understanding about both equations and graphs. Or the technology can build on

a student’s understanding as represented one way

to understand the phenomenon as expressed in a

different way.

“Stepping on the gas” is a common, everyday

experience for students. In the scenario provided,

the students can manipulate the graphic object of

a racing car so as to “step on the gas” (that is, increase the force), thus increasing its velocity and

acceleration. Not only do they see the car speed up

(a consequence with which they are very familiar),

they also see a numerical representation of its

speed and see this numeral change over time.

They also see a graph of the relationship between

force and acceleration. Thus, they can use their

understanding of speeding cars, as represented by

pictures, to understand force and acceleration, as

represented by numerals and graphs.

❚ Technological Perspective

Networks

During the next 10 years, pressure from four

market forces will drive service providers to

support broadband (10 Mb/s to 100 Mb/s) and

wideband (greater than 100 Mb/s) demands for

metropolitan-area networks (MANs) and widearea networks (WANs):

 Increases in computing power.

 The public’s growing appetite for media-rich

information.

 Increases in workgroup computing (that is,

groupware).

 Performance expectations based on the broadband and wideband capabilities of local-area

networks (LANs).

Encircling the McAuliffe community of our

scenario is a switched, high-bandwidth, wide-area

network composed of fiberoptic cable and highcapacity video servers. The network is extended

into homes, schools, automobiles, and offices by

an amalgam of fiber, coaxial cables, wireless communication, and a few residual copper wires. Its

capacity is increased by a variety of software and

hardware compression and decompression utilities. The network is connected to networks around

the world via satellite and microwave. Tapped into

the network are a range of electronic devices that

act and look sometimes like telephones, sometimes like televisions, and sometimes like computers, but they all communicate with each other.

Sometimes they are combined into a single

information-entertainment “teleputer.” This network interconnects the various devices we have

described and supports the connections between

school, home, and work.

Personal Digital Assistant (PDA)

Learners and teachers will have small, wireless,

very powerful information appliances at their disposal and within reach of their budgets in 10 years.

Capitalizing on trends in miniaturization,

manufacturers are packing more and more computer power into smaller and smaller cases. These

developments herald a new class of computing device called a personal digital assistant (PDA).

Prices of these devices are dropping rapidly, and,

well before 2005, their price points will meet

those currently offered by more specialized game

platforms such as Nintendo. For example, most

analysts anticipate that prices for Apple Computer’s Newton PDA will fall to $200 or less by 1996.

Because they carry their PDAs everywhere,

learners in our scenarios can work on their projects regardless of their location. In addition to approaching the task in a structured way, students

work opportunistically, adding voice annotations,

comments and ideas from friends and parents, and

pointers to new information that arise during discussions. The major importance of these devices

is that they bring computer processing and communications to situations anytime, anywhere.

These capabilities will enrich many “informal”

(outside the physical school building) learning situations, such as those that occur in the home.

Interactive Digital Video

Cable service providers are scrambling to provide interactive digital video services. As first

steps, they are putting in place the infrastructure
Appendix D Year 2005: Using Technology to Build Communities of Understanding | 139

to provide video-on-demand and interactive home

shopping as a replacement for conventional subscriber TV. They are examining both the impact

and the requirements of such services in testbeds

across the country (27). And, fueled by customer

surveys that already underscore the attractiveness

of these offerings, companies are building the video servers and set top boxes necessary to support

these initiatives. One can already preview modest

examples of these capabilities in hotels that offer

guests the option to select and watch a movie at a

time that matches their schedule or check out

through the TV without going to the front desk.

The advent of digital video-on-demand, coupled

with the development of user-friendly agent

technologies, will allow people to search video

servers for specific kinds of information and make

selections just as people today search and retrieve

information from conventional databases.

In this scenario, both the replay of the race and

the telecourse that Mr. Zamora is taking are available on large digital video servers. Carmela and

her fellow students will also store their multimedia reports on these servers. These and other

resources are available to members of the community as they are interested in using them.

Large, Color Display

It is likely that in the next 10 years flat-screen

technology will improve sufficiently to accommodate modest display sizes in limited locations.

The federal government has made a financial

commitment to keep the United States competitive in this technological arena. For example, Xerox Corporation has recently received significant

amounts of government funding to develop flatpanel technology for the U.S. military. We expect

that in 10 years, following this developmental

phase, the prices of large (4-ft x 3-ft ) flat panel

displays will reach price points equivalent to

today’s high-end consumer televisions

($2,000-$3,000).

In this scenario, the community has access to

this still-expensive technology through the multimedia performance auditorium at the McAuliffe

Learning Center. This display serves the important purpose of providing a common experience to

a large group of people. The community members

can participate in the achievements of their children and share in the satisfaction of their accomplishments.

IMPLICATIONS

Reiterating the point that began this paper, the vision that we present has significant implications

for social change that go beyond the development

of advanced technologies. Some of these implications we have embedded in our scenarios and their

analysis. Others are more pervasive and represent

the larger social context beyond school, home,

and business connections and relationships. Making the vision that we present a reality will depend

on changes in the way teachers teach and use

technology, on the way education is supported and

schools are held accountable, and on the universal

availability of the services we describe.

❚ Teachers and Teacher Training

Sheingold (34) concludes that the human side of

technology introduction is a much bigger barrier

than lack of technology per se. To fulfill our vision, teachers would need to learn not only to use

the various technologies described in our scenarios, but also to design, structure, guide, and assess

progress in learning centered around student projects.

This kind of teaching, which most teachers

have rarely experienced in their own education,

requires wide-ranging subject matter expertise,

creativity, and intellectual confidence. Teachers

need to help students design projects that will incorporate important content and be able to provide

key ideas or strategies for helping students overcome impasses encountered in their work. Teachers need to be comfortable letting their students

move into domains of knowledge where the teachers themselves lack expertise; teachers need to

have the intellectual confidence to be willing to

model their own reasoning process when they encounter phenomena they do not understand or

questions they cannot answer. Teachers need to be

creative in finding ways to embed measures of stu-
140 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

dent understanding within group projects, no easy

task when multiple groups are working concurrently and different students assume different

roles within their groups. Teachers must be able to

roam from group to group physically and electronically, providing stimulation and coaching

without dominating the group process.

This new role for teachers is challenging and requires a very different kind of teacher education

program, one in which prospective teachers are

taught in the way we wish them to teach, and

technology use is integrated into all preservice

education classes rather than treated as the topic

for a single, isolated class. Today’s teachers need

a great deal of professional support for learning to

teach in new ways and to incorporate technology

into these practices. They do not need the one- or

two-hour workshop that is so prevalent today.

They need regular blocks of time built into their

work schedules in which they can plan projectbased, technology-supported activities and assessment methods, as well as opportunities to

observe classrooms where such work is going on.

They need a chance to interact with a professional

group of colleagues interested in the same kinds

of instructional approaches and subject matter to

get feedback on their new approaches, pointers to

useful information, and encouragement for getting over the inevitable setbacks. Technology can

help develop such groups through electronic networks and through “video clubs,” in which teachers share and discuss videotaped excerpts from

their classrooms. However, administrators and

policy-makers need to provide the resources to

support time for teachers to engage in these activities and develop expertise in their new roles.

If learning and teaching change in the ways we

envision in these scenarios, the profession of

teaching will change drastically. Teachers will assume a more executive role, setting goals and providing guidance, support, and evaluation, but

letting the students carry out most of the learning

activities. This new role entails curriculum development (as they work with students to design projects), team building, diagnosis of individual

learning needs, assessment of individual student

progress, and exploration of questions in a broader, unspecified range of content domains. Just as

business professionals employ a variety of

technology tools to increase their access to information and ability to make sense out of it,

teachers will need a range of technology supports

for designing learning materials, performing assessments, keeping track of curricular goals and

achievements, and communicating with other

teachers, information resources, students, and

parents. No longer will teaching be the single profession in which practitioners cannot expect ready

access to a telephone. Teachers will need to have

technology tools available to them for their own

as well as their students’ use.

The teachers we describe, with well-developed

skills as technology users and greater interaction

with the worlds of research and commerce, are

likely to find an increase in their status and in the

number of nonteaching opportunities available to

them. Side effects of this change in role could well

include pressure to increase teacher salaries and a

greater diversity among those who choose the profession.

❚ Accountability and Public Support

From a public policy perspective, accountability

concerns are a driving force in federal, state, and

local education spending. Federal and state education agencies are offering local jurisdictions more

flexibility in their education programs in exchange for accountability with respect to curriculum standards. Some might infer quite different

visions of technology use from those described

here, based on trends stressing curriculum standards and assessment of student performance relative to those standards. One could extrapolate

from the national Goals 2000 legislation to the use

of technology as the transmission mechanism for

“approved” instructional content tied to curriculum standards and as a tool for collecting student

assessments (for example, through computerized

adaptive testing, which permits the coverage of

more content with fewer test items per student).

Many software publishers are looking forward to

the development and voluntary adoption of national curriculum standards because they have the
Appendix D Year 2005: Using Technology to Build Communities of Understanding | 141

potential to create broader markets for instructional software tied to a single national curriculum,

rather than the patchwork of state and local curricula that makes software design difficult and fragments the market.

We offer a very different vision of technology

use, one in which the same kinds of technology

tools used in work settings and homes are available to students and teachers, and are incorporated

into challenging learning activities where students design projects around their own interests

with guidance and support from their teachers and

outside mentors. We have not ignored these policy

concerns, however. We suggest that sophisticated

software tools can be developed to support teachers in injecting important curriculum content into

student projects and in keeping track of student

achievement of instructional goals. This technological aid is quite feasible, provided that teachers

have the training and time for its use.

What is perhaps less clear is public acceptance

of this approach to learning and of a system of

assessing students in the context of authentic

group projects. As Cohen (8) points out, the majority of the public adheres to a very conventional

model of education as knowledge transmission

and assessment as performance on standardized

multiple-choice tests. In many cases, departures

from conventional content, teaching practices, or

assessment are seen as attempts to avoid high

standards. Parents want to know where their children stand in relation to other children and where

the student body of their school stands in relation

to those of other schools on traditional academic

subject matter.

Our scenario for the future requires a real

change in this perception. It will come about only

if there is increased dialogue between educators

and the community they serve, as well as strong

evidence that project-based learning activities

support the attainment of higher skill levels and

that authentic assessments provide information

that is at once educationally useful and predictive

of how well students will perform future tasks of

interest, whether college performance or ability to

function effectively on the job. Given the difficulty of making widespread, fundamental changes in

teaching practices, a strong body of research and

evaluation evidence supporting these practices

must be generated and disseminated to policymakers and the public if the kinds of practices we

describe are to be commonplace in the year 2005.

❚ Equity and Access

The biggest assumption in our scenarios is that

students and their families will have near-universal access to high-end technologies. As technology connects learning environments and homes, it

becomes increasingly important that differences

in socioeconomic status not create an electronic

form of school segregation between the technological haves and have-nots. Government and

school programs and regulations will need to assure the accessibility and affordability of at least a

minimum form of network service for all homes.

Although the growth in the number of computers and video-based technologies in schools has

been exponential (2), the number of hours per

week that individual students have access to

technology is still very low in most schools.

Moreover, those schools serving children from

economically disadvantaged homes have less access to technology than do those serving more affluent communities (3) and, when they do have

access to computers, are less likely to use them in

ways other than drill-and-practice (12). In some

states, school budgets are stretched so tightly that

students must share basic texts; under such circumstances, teachers have a hard time building

enthusiasm for learning to use new technologies.

There are positive signs, however, that the issue

of equity is getting more attention. School financing mechanisms that leave areas with low property values with very limited per pupil educational

funding are being challenged successfully in

many states. At the same time, federal compensatory education programs are focusing more on

schools serving the largest proportions of poor

children. Federal guidelines are encouraging

schoolwide programs and supporting the acquisition of technology and implementation of parent
142 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

involvement programs as part of the effort to improve the educational prospects for children at risk

of school failure.

Corporate support for education programs, particularly programs that incorporate technology, is

at an all-time high and is likely to continue. The

business community has become much more

aware of its dependence on a well-educated workforce and of the changing cultural, gender, and

ethnic composition of that workforce. Many corporations are making a particular effort to reach

out to schools serving large numbers of children

from less affluent homes, where computer

technology is usually absent.

Current trends are not sufficient to reach our vision, however. Stronger efforts are needed on the

part of federal, state, and district education agencies to make sure that schools serving larger concentrations of students from poor homes have not

only equal access to equipment, but also equity in

terms of the quality of technology-supported

learning activities.

The concentration of government resources for

technology in schools serving larger proportions

of children from low-income homes will not bring

real equal opportunity, of course, if the students do

not have the same kinds of home resources used

by other students and their caregivers. Our scenarios assume that a rich array of broadband services

will be as commonplace and low in cost as television or the telephone. Without something approaching universal access and perhaps special

rates for low-income households, we will not see

the kind of across-the-board parental participation

described here.

Another way to make technology accessible to

parents is to make school equipment and services

available during nonschool hours. Part of the scenario takes place in a technologically and socially

rich community center located in the school. The

coordination and co-location of community

groups, social services, and educational programs

can increase the impact of these services and increase their efficiency. Making these resources

available to parents and students during nonschool hours can further increase impact and reinforce educational goals. As a place where parents

and children come together to engage in learning

activities, the learning environment can become

the center for building communities of understanding.

CONCLUSION

The technological developments that we have discussed will be driven to a large extent by the business and consumer markets and funded by private

capital. There is an important role, however, for

government leadership, regulation, and support.

Central to our vision of communities of understanding, of course, is the community. Community leaders will play a pivotal role in making

education the focus of community life and in

nourishing the values that support education.

State and federal governments also can facilitate the development of communities of understanding in the policies and regulations that they

make related to the emerging National Information Infrastructure (NII). Current models of the

NII envision schools connected to each other and

to libraries and museums. This level of interconnection is insufficient to realize our vision;

schools must also be connected to homes and

workplaces. As state and federal agencies review

regulatory policies, they should require telephone

companies and cable companies to provide

phased-in universal service as they install advanced technologies, much as telephone companies are currently required to provide universal

voice services. At the same time, policies should

be structured so that service providers are responsive to community needs, much as current structures require cable companies to negotiate with

local communities around the terms of their franchise. Policies and funding should encourage and

support the experiments of local communities to

interconnect schools, homes, and workplaces to

support education.

In forming policies, it is vitally important that

differences in socioeconomic status not result in

an electronic form of segregation between the

technological haves and have-nots. Policies will

be needed to assure accessibility and affordability

of at least a minimum form of network service for
Appendix D Year 2005: Using Technology to Build Communities of Understanding | 143

all homes, schools, and communities. Furthermore, it is important that this minimum service be

interactive. An NII that allows some to both create

and receive information while others are able only

to receive it would institutionalize radical inequities and disenfranchise segments of society. Equity and access must be paramount considerations.

Finally, state and federal agencies dealing with

education, labor, commerce, and science and

technology should act in a coordinated fashion to

encourage collaboration between the public and

private sectors and to foster the development of

tools, materials, services, and resources that support educational reform and make the NII pay off

for students and schools.

APPENDIX D REFERENCES

1. Bank, D., “Telecom Deals in Air Again. Consolidation: With the Delay in Legislation, the

Major Players are Poised for Action,” San

Jose Mercury News, p. E1, Sept. 27, 1994.

2. Becker, H.J., “Computer Use in United States

Schools: 1989. An Initial Report of U.S. Participation in the I.E.A. Computers in Education Survey,” unpublished paper presented at

the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA,

April 1990.

3. Becker, H.J., and Sterling, C.W., “Equity in

School Computer Use: National Data and Neglected Considerations,” Journal of Educational Computing Research 3(3):289-311,

1987.

4. Blumenfeld, P.C., et al., “Motivating ProjectBased Learning: Sustaining the Doing, Supporting the Learning,” Educational Psychologist 26(3 and 4):369-398, 1991.

5. Bryk, A.S., Lee, V.E., and Holland, P.B.,

Catholic Schools and the Common Good

(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,

1993).

6. California State Board of Education, Science

Framework for California Public Schools,

Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve (Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education, 1990).

7. California State Board of Education, Mathematics Framework for California Public

Schools, Kindergarten Through Grade

Twelve (Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education, 1992).

8. Cohen, D.K., “Educational Technology and

School Organization,” Technology in Education: Looking Toward 2020, R.S. Nickerson

and P.P. Zodhiates (eds.) (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1988).

9. Collins, A., Brown, J.S., and Newman, S.E.,

“Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the

Crafts of Reading, Writing and Mathematics,” Knowing, Learning and Instruction, L.

Resnick (ed.) (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1988).

10. Cuban, L., Teachers and Machines. The

Classroom Use of Technology Since 1920

(New York, NY: Teachers College Press,

1986).

11. Cypher, A., “EAGER: Programming Repetitive Tasks by Demonstration,” Watch What I

Do: Programming by Demonstration, A. Cypher (ed.) (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,

1993).

12. DeVillar, R.A., and Faltis, C.J., Computers

and Cultural Diversity: Restructuring for

School Success (Albany, NY: State University

of New York Press, 1991).

13. Epstein, J.L., “School and Family Connections: Theory, Research, and Implications for

Integrating Sociologies of Education and

Family,” Families in Community Settings: Interdisciplinary Perspective, D.G. Unger and

M.B. Sussman (eds.) (New York, NY: Haworth Press, 1990).

14. Fischer, G., et al., “Embedding ComputerBased Critics in the Contexts of Design,”

Human Factors in Computing Systems,

INTERCHI’93 Conference Proceedings,

(New York, NY: ACM, 1993).

15. Geertz, C., The Interpretation of Cultures

(New York, NY: Basic Books, 1973).

16. Henderson, A.T., and Berla, N. (eds.), A New

Generation of Evidence. The Family is Critical to Student Achievement (Washington, DC:
144 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

National Committee for Citizens in Education, 1994).

17. Hill, P.T., Foster, G.E., and Gendler, T., High

Schools with Character (Santa Monica, CA:

The RAND Corporation, 1990).

18. Information Infrastructure Task Force, The

National Information Infrastructure: Agenda

for Action (Washington, DC: 1993).

19. Kaput, J.J., University of Massachusetts,

Dartmouth, MA, “Democratizing Access to

Calculus: New Routes to Old Roots,” unpublished draft report, 1992.

20. Kozma, R.B., et al., “The Use of Multiple,

Linked Representations to Facilitate Science

Understanding,” International Perspectives

on the Psychological Foundations of Technology-Based Learning Environments, S.

Vosniadou et al., (eds.) (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, in press).

21. Means, B.M., and Olson, K.A., “Tomorrow’s

Schools: Technology and Reform in Partnership,” Technology and Education Reform.

The Reality Behind The Promise B. M. Means

(ed.) (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1994).

22. Meindl, J.D., “Chips for Advanced Computing,” Scientific American 257(4):78-88,

1987.

23. Moles, O.C., “Resource Information Service.

Synthesis of Recent Research on Parent Participation in Children’s Education,” Educational Leadership 40(2):44-47, 1994.

24. National Center on Education and the Economy, America’s Choice: High Skills or Low

Wages! The Report of the Commission on the

Skills of the American Workforce (Rochester,

NY: 1990).

25. Palincsar, A.S., and Brown, A.L., “Reciprocal Teachings of Comprehension-Fostering

and Comprehension-Monitoring Activities,”

Cognition and Instruction 1:117-175, 1984.

26. Pea, R.D., “Seeing What We Build Together:

Distributed Multimedia Learning Environments for Transformative Communications,”

The Journal of the Learning Sciences

3(3):285-299, 1993/1994.

27. Reinhardt, A., “Building the Data Highway,”

BYTE 19(3):46-74, 1994.

28. Resnick, L., “The 1987 Presidential Address:

Learning In School and Out,” Educational

Researcher 16(9):13-20, 1987.

29. Rheingold, H., The Virtual Community.

Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier

(New York, NY: Addison-Wesley, 1993).

30. Scardamalia, M., and Bereiter, C., “Computer Support for Knowledge-Building Communities,” The Journal of the Learning Sciences

3(3):265-283, 1993/1994.

31. Schlager, M.S., Means, B.M., and Poirier, C.,

SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, “Enhancing Skills Through Distant Mentoring,” unpublished draft report prepared for the

Applications of Advanced Technologies Program, National Science Foundation, October

1993.

32. Schuler, D., “Community Networks: Building a New Participatory Medium,” Communications of the ACM 37(1):39-50, 1994.

33. Sergiovanni, T.J., Building Community in

Schools (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Publishers, 1994).

34. Sheingold, K., “Restructuring for Learning

with Technology: The Potential for Synergy,”

Phi Delta Kappan 73(1):17-27, 1991.

35. Smrekar, C., “Impact of School Choice and

Community: In the Interest of Family and

School,” Youth Social Services, Schooling,

and Public Policy (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, in press).

36. Software Publishers Association, Educational Content on the Big Wires. Partnership

Between Developers and the Cable and Telephone Industries (Washington, DC: 1994).

37. Stevenson, H.W., “Learning from Asian

Schools,” Scientific American 267(6):70-76,

1992.

38. Stix, G., “Domesticating Cyberspace,” Scientific American 269(2):100-110, 1993.

39. Takahashi, D., “Intel, AT&T Link Up. Former Rivals to Develop Services, Products for

Corporate Video Phones,” San Jose Mercury

News, p. 1E, Aug. 23, 1994.
Appendix D Year 2005: Using Technology to Build Communities of Understanding | 145

40. Vanderheiden, G.C., Mendenhall, T., and Andersen, T., “Access Issues Related to Virtual

Reality for People with Disabilities,” unpublished paper presented at Conference on Virtual Reality and Persons with Disabilities,

March 1992.

41. Vygotsky, L.S., Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes

(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,

1978).

42. White, J.Y., “ThinkerTools: Causal Models,

Conceptual Change, and Science Education,”

Cognition and Instruction 10 (1):1-100,

1993.
Appendix E

Public School

Teachers Using

Machines in the

 Next Decade

t is hard to be clever about the folly of making predictions. I

could cite instances of those who have predicted everything

from the end of the world to the end of printed books. I could

cite others whose business is forecasting the immediate future as, for example, Central Intelligence Agency executives who

missed the collapse of the Soviet Union. Or I could turn to those

who saw a revolution in schoolteaching with the invention of

film, radio, television, and computers. None of these is clever or

even amusing.1

I prefer candor to cleverness so, with the risks of forecasting in

mind, I will create three plausible “futures” of teachers using

computers, CD-ROMs, modems, and other telecommunications

in their classrooms. These scenarios will have a patina of credibility because they are anchored in what exists now and are seasoned

with the experiences of both partisans and opponents of teachers

using these machines in their classrooms. I then will identify the

most likely of these three scenarios to occur in teachers’ classrooms. I am reasonably confident which scenario will materialize, although the less courageous side of me surrounds the likely

“future” with at least one qualifier.

So, I want to be clear at the very beginning of this essay that my

“prediction” is no more than an educated guess based upon the

claim that schools are unique organizations, the fabric of social

1 For recent prophesies about the end of printed books, see D.T. Max, “The End of the

Book?,” Atlantic, vol. 274(3) September 1994, pp. 61-71. For forecasts on electronic machines’ impact on public schools, see Larry Cuban, Teachers and Machines: The Use of

Classroom Technology Since 1920 (New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 1986).

| 147

by

Larry Cuban

Stanford University
148 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

beliefs woven around public schools, and what

has occurred in the past when practitioners faced

electronic machines.

In this paper I will argue that the spread of telecommunications in businesses, industries, the

military, and other organizations make comparisons to getting teachers to use computers in their

classrooms facile but misguided because the

classroom as a workplace, the nature of teaching

groups of children, and public expectations for

schools differ substantially from other institutions.

Such casual comparisons, I will argue, are driven more by a mind-set that frames the problem of

snail-like progress in getting teachers to use the

technology as an engineering problem. That is, the

organization is basically in good order; what it

needs is a heavy dose of efficient managing and

quality control. If teachers are not using the damn

machines, get more of them, train the teachers to

use them, provide continuous hardware maintenance and technical assistance to teachers and, by

God, there will be more students on those machines. Framing the problem this way is popular

and dominates the thinking of many advocates for

telecommunications in schools.

A less popular way of framing the problem is

seeing the very slow (and, as partisans would say,

unimaginative) use as a problem of poor design

and stubborn traditional beliefs. That is, the present school structures (e.g., age-graded schools)

and cultures (e.g., norms of teacher self-reliance

rather than collaboration) that dominate the teacher’s workplace need to be redesigned with teaching and learning kept foremost in mind for

innovative technologies to be used in classrooms

routinely. Second, the redesign will have to take

into consideration dominant popular beliefs about

what teaching is, how learning occurs, what

knowledge is proper in schools, and the teacherstudent relationship. These traditional beliefs inform mainstream views of a proper schooling. It

is, however, the engineering approach, not the redesign approach, to getting teachers to use telecommunications that currently dominates the

popular and research literature on teacher use of

technologies.2

There are very good reasons why the problem

of limited teacher use of technology is framed less

often in design terms. Previous school reforms

that swept across the nation largely ignored technology. Moreover, the entangled impulses that

drive reformers to press teachers to use new

technologies seemingly mirror those very same

impulses in manufacturing, banking, medical science, the armed forces, and other organizations

that have automated many of their essential operations. Engineered solutions worked there. Why

not in schools?

I then turn to three scenarios that I constructed

as credible alternative futures and assess which

one is likely to occur. To make this entire argument concrete and coherent I will concentrate on

teacher use of computers.

THE SPREAD OF COMPUTERS

IN SCHOOLS: CONFUSION OVER

ACCESS, USE, AND INNOVATION

School use of computers has spread swiftly, widely, and, on occasion, deeply. In 1981, for example,

there were, on average, 125 students per computer; in 1991, there were 18. As new schools are

built that are wired for information technologies

2 See, for example, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Power On!: New Tools for Teaching and Learning, OTA-SET-379

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988); Office of Technology Assessment, “Project Proposal: Teachers and Technology,”

1993, pp. 1-12.
Appendix E Public School Teachers Using Machines in the Next Decade | 149

and the ratio of machines to students drop to 4:1

or even less, hopes escalate for wider and more sophisticated uses of the machines.3

 A closer inspection of those and other figures

commonly used to display the swift penetration of

the technology into schools, however, reveals the

frequent confusion between access and use. For

those individual students who use computers (and

not all do) they spend, on average, a little more

than one hour a week (or 4 percent of all instructional time). Moreover, what students do with

computers varies greatly. For 11th grade students

who use the machines, to offer another example,

computers were seldom used in subject areas;

where they were used, the purpose was to teach

about computers. An Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) study concluded that students

from high-income families have far more access

to computers in schools than peers from low-income families. Black students use computers in

schools less than white, especially in elementary

schools. Pupils whose native language is not English have even less access to computers. Finally,

low-achieving students are less likely to use machines to enhance reasoning and problem solving

and more likely to use them for drill and practice.4

What appears as a rampaging innovation threatening to reform the conduct of teaching and learning,

then, is much less than meets the eye. And that has

been the case with earlier technologies groomed

as tools for reforming traditional classrooms.

TECHNOLOGIES AND SCHOOL REFORM

What is curious about current information

technologies and their earlier incarnations is that

none were associated with national reform movements. If there is any pattern at all in the movements to reform schools that have swept across the

nation since the middle of the 19th century, none

were dependent upon instructional technologies

beyond a teacher, blackboard, textbook, and pen

and paper.

Mid-nineteenth century common school leaders Horace Mann, Henry Barnard, and others

sought to make schooling accessible to all students regardless of ethnicity or class. They created

thousands of schools where students could attend,

prepared teachers for those schools, and installed

a common curriculum accessible to those who attended. Although instructional technologies were

absent from such a movement, a managerial technology—a systems perspective—was present in

the organizing of age-graded elementary schools

3 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of The United States, 1991 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1991), p. 150; Quality Education Data, “Technology in Public Schools, 1991-1992: Extract (Denver, CO: Quality Education

Data, 1992), pp. 1-2. For examples of new schools there is the $19.6-million Quince Orchard High School in Montgomery County (Maryland)

where there are 288 computers for 1,100 students. Or the Juan Linn School in Victoria (Texas) where a computerized Integrated Learning System (ILS) provides instruction to 500 students and records daily their work. See “Computers in School: A Loser? Or A Lost Opportunity,” Business Week, July 17, 1989, p. 108.

4 Power On!, op. cit., footnote 2, p. 6. These figures, however, obscure the imaginative applications of computer technology to instruction in

special education where blind, deaf, and multiply-disabled students are able to read, write, and communicate in ways that heretofore were unavailable and of new software for drafting courses, auto mechanics, business, and other vocational courses. See The Alliance for Technology

Access, a network of resource centers that specializes in using computers to help individuals with disabilities. They publish an occasional newsletter, CompuCID, the Computer Classroom Integration Project; also see Susan Russell, Rebecca Corwin, Janice Mokros, and Peggy Kapisovsky, Beyond Drill and Practice: Expanding the Computer Mainstream (Reston, VA.: The Council for Exceptional Children, 1989).

Such figures also ignore the massive computerization of administrative work in districts and schools previously done by typewriters and

telephone. Computerized data processing, for example, has converted the making of district bus schedules, high school course selections, payroll operations and the reporting of grades into routine activities that take a fraction of the time formerly used for these tasks. Increasingly, teachers use software to prepare lessons, notes to students and parents, classroom newsletters, attendance and grade-report records. In libraries, card

catalogues are electronically available. The overall picture after the introduction of the personal computer a decade ago and persistent efforts to

improve schooling suggest, at best, that computers are an expanding but marginal activity in schools with wide variation in administrative,

teacher, and student use.
150 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

and subject-centered, departmentally-focused

high schools with their multi-period daily schedule of recitations.5

A half-century later, another generation of

reformers sought to transform schools into instruments of social reform. These progressive education reformers wanted schools to turn millions

of immigrants into Americans and reduce the

corrosive effects of slum housing, urban crime,

and poverty. Moreover, reformers wanted these

schools to focus on more than the child’s mind;

their psychological and social development were

part of the educator’s responsibility. Furthermore,

what children studied had to change because they

learned best when their interests were harnessed to

what occurred in the home, community, and nation. Throughout the early 20th century, progressive educators sought ways of transforming

schools to secure these aims. Many educators in

pre-World War II schools saw the invention of the

motion picture and radio as useful tools to help

achieve their aims. But these new technologies

were marginal to their vision for new forms of

teaching and learning.6

Since World War II, a series of national reform

movements to improve schools included raising

academic standards in the 1950s, desegregating

schools and creating open classrooms in the

1960s, and instituting back-to-basics and minimal

competency testing in the 1970s. New instructional technologies were mentioned and even promoted temporarily (such as television and

programmed learning in the 1950s and 1960s and

computer-assisted instruction in the 1960s and

1970s), but the center of gravity to any of these national reforms was nontechnological. Machines

were mere blips on the outer edges of reformers’

radar screens.7

This has not been the case in the 1980s and

1990s. With massive technological changes in the

workplace and daily life, school reformers

throughout the last decade increasingly have

turned to putting computers in schools as a hightech, engineered solution for ineffective, even

primitive, teaching by textbooks. Hundreds of

formal reports from corporate leaders, foundations, professional associations, and federal agencies consistently have underscored how schools

have failed in achieving their academic purposes

and how, in that failing, have contributed to the

nation’s economic decline.8

Thus, in the 1980s and early 1990s, strong impulses to introduce higher quality control into

public schools moved these coalitions of reformers that included corporate executives, public officials, foundation officers, school administrators,

and teachers to embrace computers and telecommunications as a way of unfreezing the perceived

inefficiencies and rigidities of American schooling.

IMPULSES FOR USING LATEST

TECHNOLOGIES IN SCHOOLS

Basically, three impulses converged in reforming

schools through electronic technologies. Al5 For the common school movement, see David Tyack and Elisabeth Hansot, Managers of Virtue (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1982); Carl

Kaestle, Pillars of the Republic (New York, NY: Hill and Wang, 1983).

6 For general history of progressive movement in education, see Lawrence Cremin, The Transformation of the School (New York, NY:

Vintage, 1961); for the penetration of these ideas into schools and classrooms, see Larry Cuban, How Teachers Taught, 2d edition, (New York,

NY: Teachers College Press, 1993) and Arthur Zilversmit, Changing Schools: Progressive Education Theory and Practice (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1993).

7 For post-World War reforms, see Diane Ravitch, The Troubled Crusade (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1983).

8 The Nation at Risk (1983) report, for example, forged the linkage between economic decline as a nation and decline in standardized

achievement test scores. The report recommended a half-year of computer science as a high school graduation requirement. See National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983), p. 26. Also see, for example,

David Hornbeck, “Technology and Students at Risk of School Failure” in Arthur Sheekey (Ed.) Education Policy and Telecommunication

Technologies (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1991), pp. 1-2.
Appendix E Public School Teachers Using Machines in the Next Decade | 151

though I offer them separately, they are entangled

and technological enthusiasts often combine one

or more of these impulses in their advocacy for a

particular technology.

First, there is the drive to bring schools technologically in step with the workplace because of the

fear that students will be unprepared both to compete in the job market and adjust to the changing

marketplace where bank teller machines, bar

codes on products, answering machines, and other

electronic devices prevail. The computerized

workplace and the ubiquity of telecommunications in daily routines outside the home have convinced advocates of modernizing schools that

students must become familiar with electronic

technologies. Computers, in other words, are the

future and schools must prepare students for it.9

A second impulse has come from a diverse coalition of academics, educators, and foundation

officials who have neoprogressive values of children engaged in self-directed learning. This coalition, leaning upon the work of American (John

Dewey and Jerome Bruner), European (Maria

Montessori), and Russian (Lev Vygotsky) scientists and educators, seeks to overhaul classrooms

where learning is tediously absorbing knowledge

largely unconnected to daily life. They want

schools where teachers help students construct

their own understanding. Neoprogressives view

students as active learners creating knowledge

that makes sense to them. They want schools

where such knowledge is shared by all members

of the community; schools where diverse mixes of

adults and children work easily together in varied

groupings. Hence, interactive computers and telecommunications are mind-tools that help students

grasp concepts, use all of their senses, and practice

what they have learned creating self-directed

learning communities, according to such advocates.10

Finally, there is the impulse for productivity.

This highly prized value of making teaching and

learning efficient is historic and, when harnessed

to electronic technologies, unrelenting. The lure

of productivity—teaching more in less time for

less cost—can be traced back to the origins of public schools in the early 19th century and has been

a consistent goal for schooling ever since.11

Advertisements for computers make similar

points today without hesitation or subtlety. IBM

has run an ad for the last few years that has a clever

set of photos showing the same teacher working

with different students in her class simultaneously. The caption reads: “With IBM, there’s a practical way for teachers to be everywhere at once.”

The ad copy says:

9 In examining the impulses driving recent reform coalitions, I read the reasons reformers used in explaining why new technologies were

crucial in improving schools. I merged reasons that I felt were close enough to be cousins and, in doing so, probably created both ambiguity and

mild confusion, if not annoyance, for some readers who wanted clarity. For a more exact delineation of the specific impulses for computers in

schools, see Israel Scheffler, “Computers at School?,” Teachers College Record, 87(4), Summer 1986, pp. 514-528.

10 I use the word “neoprogressive” to link the ideas of these reformers with those of a century earlier who were pedagogical progressives

challenging the then-inflexible ways of teaching, learning, and organizing schools. The ideas of Francis Parker, John Dewey, William H. Kilpatrick, and such diverse practitioners as William Wirt and Ella Flagg Young were applied to schools and classrooms in the decades before and

after the turn of the century. Notions of active engagement of children in what they were learning, group work on projects, and focus on both the

mind and emotions of children as they developed were central to this earlier generation of reformers. See Lawrence Cremin, The Transformation of the School (New York, NY: Vintage, 1961); David Tyack, The One Best System (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1974).

For instances of these ideas in print, see Howard Gardner, The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach (New

York, NY: Basic Books, 1991; John Seely Brown, Allan Collins, Paul Duguid, “Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning,” Educational

Researcher (Jan.-Feb., 1989), pp. 32-41. For a clear portrayal of the neoprogressive view insofar as using computers, see articles by Judah

Schwartz, Sylvia Weir, and the writers for the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition in “Visions for the use of Computers in Classroom

Instruction (February 1989) and “Responses to ‘Visions for the Use of Computers in Classroom Instruction’” (May 1989) in Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), pp. 206-225.

11 See, for example, Carl Kaestle, (Ed.) Joseph Lancaster and the Monitorial School Movement (New York, NY: Teachers College Press,

1973); Raymond Callahan, Education and the Cult of Efficiency (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1962) Arthur Melmed, “Productivity and Technology in Education,” Educational Leadership, February 1983, pp. 4-6; Power On!, op. cit., footnote 2, pp. 171-172.
152 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

With an IBM network, teachers are discovering how to do the impossible: deliver quality, individual instruction to every student. It is

possible because students are working with a

tool that is infinitely patient . . . teachers are free

to evaluate student progress and help when a

need arises. 12

“Faster, better, and cheaper” is the drumbeat of

the productivity impulse.

These interlocking impulses have fueled the

surge in school purchases of information technologies in the 1980s and early 1990s. But as the figures cited earlier revealed, teachers’ use of

computers and telecommunications have yielded

mixed results.

Some obvious questions arise. Is the growing

number of new schools devoted to using computers and telecommunications a sign that these are,

indeed, schools of the future? Or is the apparently

marginal use of computers in classrooms a sign

that this technology is going to be used just like

earlier ones, that is, peripherally, seldom disturbing customary ways of teaching and learning? Or

is this marginal use of computers in schools a sign

of steadily growing acceptance of the new

technologies and that, within time, most classrooms will become more machine-friendly?

These questions ask about the future so I will

sketch out three scenarios of what might be 10

years from now. Each storyline is plausible and

has substantial evidence to support it. After describing each I will pick one that I believe is likely

to be dominant a decade from now.

THREE SCENARIOS

❚ The Technophile’s Scenario:

Electronic Schools of the Future, Now

A decade from now schools will have enough machines, software, accessories, and wiring to accommodate varied groups of students in

classrooms, seminar rooms, and individual workspace. The technophile’s vision driving such

schools is anchored in making teaching and learning far more productive and meaningful than both

are now. 13

Better machines and software are central to this

vision; they are seen as tools for both teachers and

students to liberate themselves from inflexible

ways of teaching and learning. Students will come

to rely on the machines and one another to teach

each other; teachers will become coaches to help

students with what needs to be learned. Frequent

lectures, recitation, textbook assignments, and

50-minute periods will be as implausible as dinosaurs in a zoo.

The strategy for achieving the vision is to create

total settings that have a critical mass of machines,

software, and like-minded people who are serious

users of the technologies. Technophiles believe in

making big changes swiftly rather than creating

pilot programs in schools or incrementally buying

a few machines at a time.

Two examples of the technophile’s vision inspired by mixes of the three impulses described

earlier may help make the scenario vivid. Consider first a productivity-driven version of the scenario that emphasizes, in a phrase favored by

advocates, “instructional delivery systems.”

A student would take his paper to a writing

center where he would be asked by a terminal to

type his name, his teacher’s name, and the title

of his paper. Having done this, the computer

screen will then ask him to input the first symbol

that the faculty member has written on his paper.

Here the student might type CS or rule #42, and

the screen would say, ‘John, this is the third time

you have missed a comma splice. In your papers

entitled ‘My Most Embarrassing Moment’ and

‘An Analysis of Two Poems by Emily Dickin12 The School Administrator, May 1989, between pages 15 and 18.

13 What I call “technophiles” Thomas P. Hughes calls “technological enthusiasts.” His study of American inventions and growth of systems

for using technology (electrical industries, manufacturing, etc.) between 1870 and 1970 makes clear that the present moment of vibrant hope for

the future that technophiles aspire to is part of a larger enthusiasm that is typically American. See Thomas P. Hughes, American Genesis: A

Century of Invention and Technological Enthusiasm (New York, NY: Viking, 1989).
Appendix E Public School Teachers Using Machines in the Next Decade | 153

son’ you had comma splices, and you have not

yet mastered what a comma splice is. I am going

to explain it to you once again, give you some

drill and practice until you have mastered it, and

urge you not to make this mistake again. . . .’

At the end of each instructional period in the

computer center, a list will be given to the teacher which divides the students into various groupings of approximate ability as of that day. Thus

the teacher will be able to work individually

with groups that are quite close together back in

the classroom. The [computer lab] managers

will also generate individual seatwork on a highspeed printer that the students can take back to

their rooms with them. Thus, while some may be

working with teachers in individual groups, others might be doing individualized seatwork with

problems generated to their precise level at that

moment. . . .14

Other technophiles offer neoprogressive flights

into the future to dramatize how new technologies

can create student-centered schools. One example

will give a distinct flavor for this version of the

scenario. In this instance, a high school senior

from a fully computerized school is applying for

a job at a TV station.

She looked through her portfolio for the hundredth time. She hoped she had everything that

she needed and that the battery on her notebook

computer held up. She had her early work from

the other clusters too. She had even brought her

ID disk, in case Mr. Martin wanted her to see the

hologram that showed the paths she chosen to

reach Mastery [in the curriculum].

‘Come on in, Laura. . . .’ Laura sat nervously

on the edge of the chair next to Mr. Martin.

“Well, Laura, how are you? Are you ready to

show me what you’ve accomplished?’

’Yes, sir, I sure am!’ Laura relaxed as she began to talk about her projects. . . . ‘I’m interested in long-range weather planning and its

implications on international relations. . . .’

Laura handed Mr. Martin her disk as he activated the laser wall display. As the images of her

data began to appear, she described in detail the

steps she had taken in the completion of her prediction simulation....

’Well, Laura, you’ve done a good job. Tell

me about some of your other activities in

school.’

’I did my first rotation when I was eight. It

was at the Materials and Manufacturing Cluster.

We compared the differences between bread

baked in a bakery and bread baked at home. Boy,

did we eat a lot of bread!’ Laura showed Mr.

Martin the IBM floppy disk that she had kept all

these years....

Laura left the interview with a good feeling. . . . She knew he appreciated her computer

skills. She just hoped he looked at the hologram

so he could see all the other things she had

done.15

❚ The Preservationist’s Scenario:

Maintaining While Improving Schooling

In this scenario, policymakers and administrators

put computers and telecommunication technologies into schools largely to improve productivity

but not to alter substantially existing ways of organizing a school for instruction. While some teachers and administrators use these technologies

imaginatively and end up being profiled by the

media, most uses are fitted by teachers to the durable grammar of the classroom and school.

The vision buried within the preservationist’s

story is one of schools continuing to do for society

14 Dustin Heuston, “The Future of Education: A Time of Hope and New Delivery Systems,” unpublished paper, WICAT systems, Orem, UT,

1986, cited in Royal Van Horn, “Educational Power Tools: New Instructional Delivery Systems” Phi Delta Kappan, March 1991, pp. 527-533,

quote is on p. 533.

15 Draft of Texas Technology Model for 2061 Project, 1991, pp. 2-4; For another example of older students using technologies in an early

21st century “school,” see Christopher Dede, “Imaging Technology’s Role in Restructuring for Learning,” in Karen Sheingold and Marc Tucker (eds.) Restructuring for Learning and Technology (New York, NY: Center for Technology and Education, Bank Street College of Education,

1990), pp. 51-52.
154 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

what they have historically done: pass on prevailing values, and accumulated knowledge to the

next generation, improve ways of teaching and

learning the prescribed curriculum, sort out those

children who achieve academically from those

who do not, and give taxpayers as efficient a

schooling that can be bought with available funds.

Skepticism towards major changes, hammered

out of these traditional aims for schooling, leads

to adding-on to what exists now.16

Much evidence makes this scenario plausible.

Some examples: mandating computer literacy as

another graduation requirement; adding computer

science courses to the curriculum; creating computer labs where teachers bring their classes; placing one computer in each classroom; buying

software that is part of a textbook adoption; finally, a school buying an integrated learning systems

(ILS) that centralizes daily math and reading lessons for each student with results of the students’

work being reported the next day. 17

In this scenario, computers and other forms of

technology are seen as important but peripheral to

the main business of teaching students. The result

is that new technologies reinforce what schools

have done for over a century.

❚ The Cautious Optimist’s Scenario:

Slow Growth of Hybrid Schools

and Classrooms

In this scenario, cautious optimists believe that

putting computers into classrooms will yield a

steady but very slow movement towards fundamental changes in teaching and schooling. Advocates of this scenario see it occurring slowly but

inexorably, much like a turtle crawling towards its

pond. It is slow because schools, as organizations,

take time for their teachers to learn how to use

computers to guide student learning. It is inexorable because, as Allan Collins says, “[T]he nature

of education must inevitably adapt to the nature of

work in society.” 18

Here again appears reformers’ productivitydriven dream of efficient machines freeing

students from the tedium of traditional teaching—

but in this scenario enthusiasts for faster, better,

and cheaper instruction and learning need to be ultra-patient. A competing neoprogressive picture

of the future also rests within this story: schools

can become small learning communities where

students and adults teach one another through a

deliberate but slow application of technologies to

schooling.

There is some evidence for this scenario.

Introducing a half-dozen computers into a classroom or creating micro-computer labs, over time,

alters how teachers teach (e.g., they move from

teaching the entire class as one group to using

small groups and for example, David K. Cohen,

“Educational Technology and School Organization,” in Raymond Nickerson and Philip Zodhiates (eds.) Technology in Education: Looking

Toward 2020 (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, 1990), pp. 231-264. Cohen examines

16 The essays of David K. Cohen describe well this scenario. He has analyzed elegantly why electonic technologies are marginal to the

conduct of schooling. See, for example, David K. Cohen, “Educational Technology and School Organization,” in Raymond Nickerson and

Philip Zodhiates (Eds.) Technology in Education: Looking Toward 2020 (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assosiates, 1990), pp. 231-264.

Cohen examines the fit between innovative technolieges—in general—and the scarcity of incentives for changes within public education. HIs

emphasis on the social organization of the school mirrors my own and has enriched my anlaysis. Also see David Tyack and Elisbaeth Hansot,

“Futures That Never happened: Technology and the Classroom, “ Education Week, Sept 4, 1985, p. 40. My first foray in this subject, Teachers

and Machines, offered an argument and evidence for this scenario also. Brian Winston makes the preservationist’s point by his “law of suppression of redical potential.” A new technology that can substantially alter organizational routines and practices, he argues, is viewed by members

of an organization as a way of accomplishing more easily and efficiently what thay are already doing. See Misunderstanding Media (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986).

17 Power On!, op. cit., footnote 2, pp. 201-202.

18 Allan Collins, “The Role of Computer Technology in Restructuring Schools” in Sheingold and Tucker, Restructuring for Learning with

Technology, op. cit., footnote 15, p. 36.
Appendix E Public School Teachers Using Machines in the Next Decade | 155

the fit between innovative technologies—in general—and the scarcity of incentives for change

within public education. His emphasis on the social organization of the school mirrors my own

and has enriched my analysis. Also see David Tyack and Elisabeth Hansot, “Futures That Never

happened: Technology and the Classroom,”

Education Week, Sept. 4, 1985, p. 40. My first foray in this subject, Teachers and Machines, offered

an argument and evidence for this scenario also.

Brian Winston makes the preservationist’s point

by his “law of suppression of radical potential.” A

individualized options) and how students learn

(e.g., they come to rely upon one another and

themselves to understand ideas and to practice

skills). In schools where the numbers of computer-using teachers and hardware reach a critical

threshold, different organizational decisions get

made. Teachers from different departments or

grades begin to work together and move towards

changing the regular time-schedule. Schoolwide

decisions on using technologies become routine,

as do decisions on nontechnological matters. Hybrids of the old and the new, of teacher-centered

and student-centered instruction, proliferate in

this scenario. 19

Hybrids also can be found in individual teachers working alone in their classrooms. Teachers

report how they wove computers into their regular

work with students:

Telecommunications has helped students in my

French classes use the language they are learning

in a meaningful context. We have written collaborative stories with students in other schools, exchanged ideas on pollution and the French

Revolution with students in France, participated

in an international conference based in Paris, and

consulted French travel databases in the French

MINITEL. . . .20

Now, which of these scenarios is likely to occur, that is, has a 75 percent chance of happening

in most schools across the country?21

WHICH IS THE LEAST

LIKELY SCENARIO?

The least likely scenario is the electronic school of

the future. While such schools will be built, they

19 Denis Newman, “Technology’s Role in Restructuring for Collaborative Learning,” (Paper presented to the NATO Advanced Research

Workshop on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Maratea, Italy, September 1989. David Dwyer’s work at Apple Computers in researching and evaluating Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) has yielded a number of studies, in particular, schools that support this neoprogressive vision of teaching, learning, and slow change in organizing of instruction. See Jane David, “Partnerships for Change,” ACOT Report #12, Apple Computer, Inc., Cupertino, CA, 1992; Robert Tierney, Ronald Kieffer, Laurie Stowell, Laura Desai, Kathleen Whalin, and

Antonia Moss, “Computer Acquisition: A Longitudinal Study of the Influence of High Computer Access on Students’ Thinking, Learning, and

Interactions,” ACOT Report #16, Apple Computers, Inc., Cupertino, CA, 1992.

A hybrid of neoprogressive and behavioristic influences can be seen in recent generations of ILSs. One of the most sophisticated that I have

seen (as of 1992) is RAMA 3, a multi-subject computer-assisted instructional program for grades 1-8 created at the Center of Educational

Technology in Tel Aviv, Israel. Earlier versions of the ILS are being used by over 100,000 students, or almost 10 percent of the total school

population. The system not only includes powerful computers and software programs but printed booklets, continuous staff development for

teachers, and a large maintenance department. See Luis Osin, “A Computerized Learning Environment Integrating Prescribed and Free Student

Activities,” Proceedings of the East-West Conference on Emerging Computer Technologies in Education, Moscow, April 1992; Centre for

Educational Technology, “Annual Report,” November 1992, Tel Aviv, Israel. Also see Trish Stoddart and Dale Niederhauser, “Technology and

Educational Change,” Computers in Schools 9(2/3) 1993, pp 5-22.

20 Karen Sheingold and Martha Hadley, “Accomplished Teachers: Integrating Computers into Classroom Practice” (Center for Technology

in Education: Bank Street College of Education, September 1990), pp. 1, 13.; Also see Decker Walker, Bruce Keepes, and George Chang,

“Computers in California High Schools: Implications for Teacher Education,” (unpublished paper, 1991) and their designation of teachers who

were “pioneers.”

21 As I said earlier, “predicting” walks the thin line between risk and foolishness but, for purposes of prodding discussion, I will do so. In

doing so, I assume that no major political, economic, or social trauma dramatically alters popular perceptions about the expected role or organization of schools in this culture. Were a serious political upheaval in the national government to occur, a severe economic depression, or grave

urban disturbances requiring sustained military intervention, popular views of what schools ought to do would probably alter and calls for fundamental changes in the purposes and organization of schools would ensue. Under such conditions, the notion of “likely scenarios” would be

foolish.
156 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

will remain exceptions and, in time, will probably

disappear as the next generation of technology, invariably cheaper and improved, comes of age.

Thus, although such schools exist now, I find it

unlikely for two reasons that they will spread

within districts or to most other schools.

First, technophiles typically underestimate the

influence of the age-graded school organization in

shaping teachers’ workplace routines. Furthermore, they often minimize the power of social beliefs that have endured for centuries and perform

important functions in society. Beliefs that teaching is telling, learning is listening, knowledge is

subject matter taught by teachers and books, and

the teacher-student relationship is crucial to any

learning dominate much popular and practitioner

thinking. Most parents expect their schools to reflect those centuries-old beliefs.

In not paying much attention to the age-graded

school, technophiles fail to see how this centuryold form of school organization shapes classroom

practice with its self-contained classrooms separating teachers from one another, a curriculum divided into segments of knowledge and skills

distributed grade by grade to students, and a

schedule that brings students and teachers together to work for brief periods of time. These structures, profoundly influencing how teacher teach,

how students learn, and the relationships between

adults and children in each classroom are especially difficult to alter after a century of popular and

practitioner acceptance. Because of these factors,

school practitioners have learned how to tailor

technological innovations to fit the contours of the

age-graded school and the self-contained classroom. For the most part, technophiles disregard

these beliefs and organizational traditions.

Second, previous experiences of instructional

television, language laboratories, and programmed learning in the 1960s and 1970s suggest

caution to policymakers. Districts built new

schools, purchased and installed hardware for

those technologies. In less than a decade administrators found that the machinery was either unused

by teachers, obsolete, or could not be repaired after breakdowns.22

These reasons suggest strongly that districts

will be reluctant to make major investments in

new hardware beyond a model program or demonstration school. Thus, the technophile’s scenario

is least likely to occur.

HOW LIKELY ARE THE

PRESERVATIONIST AND CAUTIOUS

OPTIMIST SCENARIOS?

The other two scenarios are most likely to occur

but there are important differences between them.

Both are basically the same story of modest computer use in schools, but each scenario stresses different facts and, from them, derives entirely

different meanings.

Preservationists argue that schools are durable

institutions, taking any new technology and tailoring it to fit millennia-old social beliefs about

the nature of teaching, learning, and knowledge.

Thus, when IBMs and Apples appear in schools

they get drafted to continue what is deemed important. Even when a few teachers creatively use

computers, preservationists acknowledge such

pioneers but see them as mutants, exceptions far

removed from the evolutionary trajectory of

technology in schools.

Preservationists also point out how the popular

age-graded school not only persists through reform after reform but offers many advantages for

a democracy seeking to educate millions of students from diverse backgrounds. Such schools

have moved wave after wave of immigrants

through a system with much-admired efficiency,

preservationists argue. Such schools have learned

to customize technological innovations to fit the

contours of the age-graded school and its self-contained classroom. Thus, this scenario will continue for the immediate future, given the power of

social beliefs and organizational forms.

22 Cuban, op. cit., footnote 1, pp. 27-50.
Appendix E Public School Teachers Using Machines in the Next Decade | 157

Cautious optimists, however, reinterpret the

same facts, giving them a breezy, sunny-day spin.

The optimists’ version of the story displays much

patience with the time that it will take to make

schools technologically modern. Conceding that

there are many instances of technologies being

used to reinforce existing practices, optimists shift

their attention to the slow growth of technological

hybrids, those creative teacher mixes of the old

and the new in schools and classrooms.

Optimists point to hybrids of teacher-centered

and student-centered instruction and see them as

the leading edge of an evolving movement—rather than mutants—that eventually will bring

schools more in sync with the technological

imperatives of the larger society. These hybrids of

teacher-centered and student-centered instruction,

the optimists say, are early signs of the near and vital future, not instances of powerful machines being used for trivial purposes. Thus, the current

reasons for the fumbling incorporation of hightech machinery into schools—e.g., not enough

money to buy machines, teacher resistance, inadequate preparation of teachers, and little administrative support—gradually will evaporate as the

hybrids slowly spread and take hold. It is an evolutionary scenario using a clock that measures time

by decades rather than years.

If preservationists assume the familiar realities

of popular beliefs about schooling and age-graded

schools as permanent and make straight-line projections into the future, prudent optimists recognize that these familiar realities continually

undergo imperceptible changes. They acknowledge that the age-graded school needs to be transformed into a more flexible, ungraded,

collaborative organization. They see it occurring

steadily albeit at a glacial pace. All of the hybrids

of teacher-centered and student-centered instruction that optimists point to with pride reveal teachers working differently with their students, more

as coaches and helpers, and, in doing so, ever so

slightly altering school structures.

Finally, optimists know that schools adapt every innovation to fit organizational imperatives,

but they also know that administrators and teachers have brought new technologies into classrooms after putting their fingerprints on them.

These practitioner-made hybrids are instances,

optimists argue, of the power of practitioners to alter their circumstances and make students grin

rather than groan over school work.

WHICH SCENARIO IS MOST LIKELY?

I argue that the preservationist’s scenario will continue in the immediate future for high schools, and

the cautious optimist’s scenario will emerge for

elementary schools. My evidence for both scenarios occurring at different levels of schooling

derives from how schools are organized for

instruction at the two different levels and my studies of how teachers have taught over the last century.

Public elementary and secondary schools differ

markedly in the complexity of content students

face in classrooms, teachers’ formal training, allocation of time to instruction, and external arrangements imposed upon both levels from other

institutions.23

Children in elementary grades learn basic verbal, writing, reading, and math skills. Content is

secondary and often used as a flexible vehicle for

teaching skills. But in the upper grades of elementary school, and certainly in high school, not only

are more sophisticated skills required of students,

23 Note that I use the phrase “secondary schools.” In doing so, I refer to both middle (or junior) and high schools. I draw sharp distinctions

between elementary and high school because the structures, roles, and teacher cultures are obviously different. For those middle schools that

have embarked on fundamental changes, i.e., eliminated departments, created interdisciplinary teaching teams, teacher advisers, and large

blocks of time where students and teachers work together, then they have recreated an elementary-like school. For such middle schools, what I

say about elementary schools applies. Many middle schools, however, have adopted only one or two of these reforms and still resemble a junior

high school or a miniature version of senior high school. Such places, then, would be counted in my analysis of high schools. See Larry Cuban,

“Why Reforms Last: The Case of the Junior High,” American Educational Research Journal, summer 1992.
158 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

but these skills are embedded in complex subject

matter that in and of itself must be learned. Literary criticism, historical analysis, solving advanced math problems, quantitative analysis in

chemistry—all require knowledge of complex

facts and their applications. High school teachers,

therefore, university-trained in subject matter,

often turn to didactic methods because content

often drives classroom teaching practices.

Also, student and teacher contact time differ

markedly at both levels. While the self-contained

classroom remains the dominant form of delivering instruction at both levels, elementary school

teachers generally spend five or more hours with

the same 25 or more students. They see far more

of a child’s strengths, limitations, capacities, and

achievements than a high school teacher who sees

five groups of 25 students less than an hour a day.

Over a nine-month school year, the elementary

school teacher sees her 25 children nearly 1,000

hours; a high school teacher sees 125 students

about 200 hours in class during the year, or about

one-fifth of the time that elementary school colleagues spend with pupils. Contact time becomes

an important variable in considering organizational issues of grouping, providing individual attention, varying classroom tasks and activities, and

rearranging furniture.

In elementary schools, the potential to make organizational changes in these and other areas is

present because the teacher has more contact time

with the same children than high school teachers

do with their students. Whether such changes occur in the lower grades is, of course, an entirely

separate issue, but the organizational difference in

allocation of instructional time allows for changes

in elementary school classrooms.

Finally, external pressures from accrediting

associations, college entrance requirements, and

job market qualifications have a far more direct,

unrelenting influence on high schools than on

lower grade classrooms. In the high school, strong

pressures on teachers and students derive from

meeting the demands of Carnegie units, College

Boards, Scholastic Aptitude, Advanced Placement, state and national standardized achievement exams, certifying agencies, and other

external constraints.

While some urgencies press teachers and students in the lower grades, especially in getting students ready for the upper grades, flexible

responses are possible. Grades (e.g., fourth and

fifth) can be merged. Groups within a class can include a range of ages and performance. Whole

days and even weeks can be set aside for special

concentration in academics or other events. Not so

in high schools.

These four structural differences—emphasis

on subject matter, teachers’ prior training, contact

time, and external pressures—may well account

for why I found many shifts in elementary school

teaching practices and fewer changes in high

school classrooms.

My research into how high school teachers

have taught subject matter since the 1890s clearly

supports the preservationist’s story. High school

teachers, bound by a social organization of

instruction that includes teaching two or three different subjects and seeing 150 to 200 students daily in five or more 50-minute classes, have created

a durable, practical pedagogy that researchers

have documented consistently in English, history,

science, and math over the last century.24

In elementary school classrooms, I also found

evidence of this practical pedagogy but I also

found strong evidence of substantial changes in

teaching practices that resembled the hybrids that

optimists identified. I found, for example, that in

the 1890s, the one form of grouping for instruction in both elementary and secondary school

classrooms was teaching the entire group of students at the same time; within three decades, under the insistent pressure of progressive educators,

24 Cuban, How Teachers Taught, op. cit., footnote 6; Also see Ernest Boyer, High School (New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1983) Theodore

Sizer, Horace’s Compromise (Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin, 1984), and Arthur Powell, Eleanor Farrar, and David Cohen, The Shopping Mall

High School (Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin, 1985).
Appendix E Public School Teachers Using Machines in the Next Decade | 159

newer forms of grouping began to appear in elementary schools to teach reading and math. A

growing array of instructional materials made it

possible for teachers to tailor teaching to student

differences. A century later, elementary school

teachers routinely use a mix of whole-group,

small group, and individual options in their classrooms. While some high school teachers do use

varied groupings in their classes, dominant practice remains teaching the entire whole group for

fifty-minute periods.

Also teachers’ repertoire of classroom practices have broadened over the last century. In the

1890s, lecturing, using the textbook, questioning

students on what they know, assigning homework, and tests were the primary tools of the classroom teacher. A century later, these tools persist

as standard practice in secondary school academic

subjects. In elementary schools, however, that

teaching repertoire has expanded with the addition of visits to community institutions, new materials and technologies. While field trips, films,

videocassettes, television, and computer labs may

not yet be mainstays of most classroom instruction, they testify to the slow growth of instructional hybrids. Such instances of changes in

classroom practice provide additional evidence

for the cautious optimist’s scenario of technological hybrids slowly changing the conduct of

schooling.25

The point that I wish to make is that how the

age-graded school is organized for instruction at

the two levels determines to a large degree which

scenario will most likely occur. The preservationist’s scenario is most likely in high schools where

academic subjects reign, teachers’ training was in

disciplinary content, and the number of classes

and students teachers teach remain high. The cautious optimist’s scenario is more likely to occur in

elementary schools where organizational differences make shifts in practice possible and where

hybrids of teacher-centered and student-centered

instruction have, indeed, evolved slowly over the

last century.26

There are, however, emerging national policies

that may influence both the pace and direction of

these scenarios materializing in the 1990s. One is

the current movement (and legislation) for national goals, standards, and testing. If the movement

continues its momentum, especially in its concentration on national examinations with strong

consequences for individual students’ futures and

school funding, the movement may largely channel new technologies to fit existing patterns of

teaching and learning because what fuels the drive

25 Cuban, How Teachers Taught, op. cit., footnote 6, pp. 135-136; 199-200.

26 One way to assess this prediction of what will occur in high schools, for example, is to compare the penetration of computers into college

and university classrooms. High school teachers are much closer to college professors in their training and allegiance to subject matter than

elementary school teachers. Hence, one would expect, given my interpretation, that professors would use computers for their classroom teaching about as much as high school teachers, which would be less than elementary ones.

While there is much evidence that individual professors across most disciplines, including the humanities, have adapted with gusto the use

of the computer for their writing (as word processors), research (for statistical analysis), and communication (e-mail, internet bulletin boards)

there is much less evidence that in their weekly teaching the presence of the computer has altered traditional lectures or seminars. See Donald R.

McNeil, “Technology in College: Where Is the Impact?” The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 7, 1989, p. A44; Robert Jacobson, “As

Instructional Technology Proliferates, Skeptics Seek Hard Evidence of Its Value,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 5, 1993, p. A27. In a

survey of its 32,000 members, the Modern Language Association found extensive computer usage among its English and foreign language

professors in preparing manuscripts (95 percent) and routine correspondence (84 percent). Almost 80 percent said they used the computer to

prepare teaching materials. But there was no category for responses of whether professors used computers in classroom instruction—an amazing omission. See The Chronicle of Higher Education, Apr. 21, 1993, p. A27. Stanford University Professor Patrick Suppes, an early advocate of

computer-assisted instruction in the 1960s and a teacher whose courses in logic and math were taught wholly by computer in the 1970s and

1980s answered a reporter’s question about the future impact of the machine on teaching at Stanford by saying it would be “substantial over the

next half-century.” When the reporter expressed surprise at the length of time, Suppes replied: “[T]he actual structure of universities is extraordinarily conservative.” The Stanford University Campus Report, Jan. 12, 1994, p. 4. In short, for all the organizational and governance differences between colleges and high schools, there is a striking similarity in the limited use of computers in both sets of classrooms.
160 | Education and Technology: Future Visions

toward national goals, standards, and testing is the

lure of increased student productivity. Concentration on quantitative standards reinforced by highstake test results usually diminish practitioners’

appetites for taking risks in classroom and school

innovations. My guess would be that continued

national pressure would bolster the preservationist’s scenario for both elementary and high

schools, while limiting innovations in information technologies that might not meet the standard

of higher test scores such as the ones pushed by

neoprogressive reformers. 

SUMMARY

With all the talk of school reform and computers

over the last decade, why has electronic technology been used far less on a daily basis in classrooms

than in other organizations? My answer is that

schools are different from those organizations in

which telecommunications have spread swiftly.

Moreover, technological innovations never have

been central to any national movement to improve

schooling since the origins of public schools a

century and a half ago. Not until the 1980s and

1990s have new technologies been part of the rhetoric of reform. Yet after all has been said and done,

more has been said than done.

The seemingly marginal use of computers and

telecommunications in schools and classrooms is

due less to inadequate funds, unprepared teachers,

and indifferent administrators than it is due to

dominant social beliefs about what teaching,

learning, and proper knowledge are and how

schools are organized for instruction.

There are at least three plausible stories for

what the next decade holds in store for teachers’

use of computers. The likely scenarios point to

little substantial change in the closing years of the

20th century. Where two scenarios differ is that

cautious optimists see hope in the hybrids that

have emerged, a hope that over the ensuing decades these hybrids will become routine, producing significantly different classrooms and

schools; preservationists see far more stability

than change in the years to come, with teaching

and learning staying pretty much as it currently is.

The most likely scenario is the one predicting

slow but dynamic changes in both teaching and

school structures that will occur as more hybrids

of old and new forms of instruction are merged

with the next generation of computers. Those

changes will seem glacially slow to impatient reformers but, perhaps, just the right pace for those

aware of the complexities of changing unique

places called schools.

APPENDIX E REFERENCES

1. Cohen, D.K., “Educational Technology and

School Organization,” in Raymond Nickerson and Philip Zodhiates (eds.) Technology in

Education: Looking Toward 2020 (Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990), pp.

231-264.

2. Collins, A., “The Role of Computer Technology in Restructuring Schools” in K. Sheingold

and J. Tucker, Restructuring for Learning

with Technology.

3. Cuban, L., Teachers and Machines, (New

York, NY: Teachers College Press, 1986).

4. Cuban, L., How Teachers Taught, 2nd edition

(New York, NY: Teachers College Press,

1993).

5. Heuston, D., “The Future of Education: A

Time of Hope and New Delivery Systems,”

unpublished paper, WICAT systems, Orem,

Utah, 1986, cited in Royal Van Horn, “Educational Power Tools: New Instructional Delivery Systems” Phi Delta Kappan, March,

1991, pp. 527-533.

6. Hughes, T., American Genesis: A Century of

Invention and Technological Enthusiasm

(New York, NY: Viking, 1989).

7. Newman, D., “Technology’s Role in Restructuring for Collaborative Learning,” (paper

presented to the NATO Advanced Research

Workshop on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Maratea, Italy, September

1989.

8. Quality Education Data, Technology in Public Schools, 1991-1992: Extract (Denver, CO:

Quality Education Data, 1992).
Appendix E Public School Teachers Using Machines in the Next Decade | 161

9. Sheingold, K., and Hadley, M., Accomplished Teachers: Integrating Computers into

Classroom Practice (Center for Technology

in Education: Bank Street College of Education, September 1990).

10. Texas Technology Model for 2061 Project,

Draft,1991.

11. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Power On!: New Tools for Teaching

and Learning, OTA-SET-379 (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988).

12. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, “Project Proposal: Teachers and Technology,” Washington, DC, 1993, pp. 1-12.

13. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of

the Census, Statistical Abstract of The United

States, 1991 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1991).
Appendix F

Contractor

Reports

Copies of contractor reports prepared for this study are available through the National Technical Information Service, either by mail (U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service,

5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161) or by calling NTIS directly at (703) 487-4650.

Appendix A

James Bosco, Western Michigan University, “Schooling and Learning in an Information Society,”

November 1994, NTIS No. 95-172227.

Appendix B

Beverly Hunter and Bruce Goldberg, Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., “Learning and Teaching in

2004: The Big Dig,” December 1994, NTIS No. 95-171005.

Appendix C

Margaret Riel, Interlearn, “The Future of Teaching,”November 1994, NTIS No. 95-172219.

Appendix D

Robert Kozma and Wayne Grant, Center for Technology in Learning, SRI International, “Year

2005: Using Technology to Build Communities of Understanding,” November 1994, NTIS No.

95-172235.

Appendix E

Larry Cuban, Stanford University, “Public School Teachers Using Machines in the Next Decade,”

October 1994, NTIS No. 95-172243.

| 163