|
Phi Delta Kappan, June 2000, 81: 774:779
FOLLOWING THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD
Judith M. Newman, Ph.D.
Do you remember The Wizard of Oz? The wonderful Wizard can
do everything -- that's what Dorothy, the Scarecrow, the Tin
Woodman and the Cowardly Lion believe.
"I'm going to the great Oz to ask him to give me [brains],"
remarked the Scarecrow, "for my head is stuffed with straw."
"I'm going to ask him to give me a heart," said the Woodman.
"And I am going to ask him to send Toto and me back to Kansas,"
added Dorothy.
"Do you think Oz could give me courage?" asked the Cowardly
Lion.1
So the four friends set off down the yellow brick road through the
dark, scary forest and deadly poppy field towards the Emerald City never
suspecting what awaits them when they come face to face with Oz the
Terrible himself.
Well, when it comes to information technology and education it seems
to me that we're a lot like Dorothy, the Woodman, the Scarecrow and
the Cowardly Lion following the yellow brick road hoping Oz will grant
our impossible wishes. Read any recent government education policy paper
and it looks as if people believe information technology will cure all
of education's ills --
it facilitates the development of communication, decision-making,
and problem-solving abilities; facilitates students' formulation of
complex questions as they manipulate information to discover patterns
and relationships, and reach conclusions in the pursuit of knowledge....2
This particular curriculum document promises even more -- "[information
technology] allows [students] to develop and maintain a competitive
advantage in the Global Information Economy." Heady stuff, indeed.
3
However, information technology can't produce marvelous outcomes if
the classroom environment doesn't provide opportunities for communication,
decision-making and real problem-solving to occur. The electronic resources
available today do permit communication with the world. But if we use
these new tools no better than we've used more traditional instructional
technologies, we're guaranteed to be disappointed. That's because like
more traditional information technologies (such as books, pencils and
paper, overhead projectors, blackboards, slide and film projectors,
telephones and fax machines, etc.), computers and internet connections
are only a means of achieving some end. What matters ultimately is the
experience that learners have and what they make of that experience.
There are several aspects to the problem of marrying information technology
and education. For a start, in spite of what many people believe, nothing
about information technology is neutral -- all software packages have
biases about learning built into them. A number of tools I've worked
with recently, specifically designed for use in education settings,
clearly embody a "transmission" 4
model of learning. Take, for example, the courseware package I'm supposed
to be using to "deliver" a web-based graduate course. The
deeply embedded transmission bias inherent in several components of
this software creates a host of frustrations for me since my teaching
flows from an "interpretive" or "constructivist"
paradigm. 5
What sort of problems does this courseware set up for me? To begin
with, the design of the web authoring tools assumes that teaching is
a uni-directional activity -- from teacher to learners. As teacher I
can edit messages submitted to a "forum" but students don't
have access to one another's submissions; so no collaborative writing.
While it's possible to submit lengthy reflections, you can only see
the first ten lines of a message you're replying to; so forget about
a thoughtful sustained discussion of substantive issues. The website
is set up for students to submit assignments to the instructor via an
"evaluation" module -- in other words, no communal dialogue
here. Quite clearly, a definite distinction is made between "chit-chat"
and "real" work. As instructor, I can't post a note in the
evaluation module saying "just email me your thoughts on the readings"
-- I can only create a "test" or "quiz." Just little
things like that, which make this software much less effective than
an ordinary listserve for communicating and building a collaborative
learning community. I've tried discussing my problems with the software
developers but they think I'm nit-picking -- "a listserve,"
I was told "that's old technology;" they aren't interested
in the biases built into their web tools and the barriers they erect
for the decentralized, complex, dynamic and collaborative learning community
I want to create.
In the process of infusing schools with technology there are also a
host of complex decisions about how to help teachers become proficient
users. It flies in the face of reason to expect teachers and other school
staff to use technological tools without giving them access to those
tools and helping them use them effectively. However, in my local area,
as elsewhere, school districts are hiring expensive outside consultants
to do batches of one day inservice sessions or courses offering nifty-tips.
I was approached by one outfit to "teach" their course --
what I was handed was a thick black binder with fifteen scripted sessions.
The sessions systematically ran the teachers through ten different computer
applications: wordprocessors, data bases, web browsers, etc. These tools
were being "taught" in a vacuum, no opportunity to explore
how they might be useful for engaging in some kind of classroom investigation.
Just "here's this tool, here's how it works."
Realistically how much can anyone learn about the ins and outs of a
particular application in three hours? I took me over three weeks to
get a reasonable handle on PowerPoint. Even after several years using
Microsoft Word I'm still learning how to do new stuff and when the next
upgrade becomes available I'll have to learn the program all over again.
Can you imagine the information overload after fifteen three-hour sessions
in which you learn "everything you need to know about...".
We can't expect teachers to "teach" using these tools when
they're not proficient and comfortable with them themselves. It takes
time, a lot more time than a fifteen week "tips" course to
achieve that. Nor can we expect teachers to see the instructional potential
if they haven't personally experienced using these various tools for
learning something useful themselves.
Curriculum & Technology: An Alternate Vision
Built in sorftware biases and teachers' lack of experience aren't the
only problems associated with bringing information technology and education
together but they are two major ones. I was confronted with both of
them this past summer when I developed and taught a two week graduate
course attended by thirty teachers.
A quick overview of the course. I wrote the teachers before we met
--
I am writing to welcome you to LITERACY, CURRICULUM & TECHNOLOGY
and to say I am looking forward to working with you in August.
Our enterprise should be an interesting one. The course will be organized
as a collaborative investigation of various beliefs about learning
and curriculum. It will help you bring what you have learned about
language and literacy to the implementation of curriculum in your
classroom/school. We will create a classroom community, negotiate
curriculum, discover the multiple roles of language in learning, and
explore how literacy (particularly writing) plays out in various disciplines.
We will use an investigation of "Our Community" as a focus
for developing and enacting a collaborative curriculum inquiry --
we will use current local issues to explore a number of facets of
community life. The course will begin by identifying several topics
of current public interest reflected in concerns raised at that time
by the media. We will become investigative reporters, use a range
of electronic resources for research purposes, and explore current
community issues as the basis for curriculum development.
We will, at the same time, also engage in a reflective examination
of literacy and learning. We will look at common myths about reading
and writing, about learning to read and write, about literacy instruction,
and about learning and using technology. Our collaborative investigation
should help us become more aware of our own literacy and learning
strategies and consider what implications this has for teaching. This
hands on learning experience will be backed by reading in curriculum
as inquiry to help us think about negotiated curriculum and other
major issues in learning and literacy. It will raise questions about
what we can learn from carefully observing students' responses to
literacy instruction. And we will explore the role of technology in
developing and implementing curriculum.
Notice the focus on learning and investigation. While I was planning
to help the teachers learn about wordprocessors, email, databases, browsers
and browsing, webpage construction, and so on, it was all going to be
done in the context of learning something they wanted to know about.
Unlike the consulting firm with the thick black binder of scripted lessons,
I was planning to have the teachers participate in a collaborative investigation
6 so they might
discover, first hand, how various information technology tools can come
into play in a comprehensive, supported and collaborative learning environment.
We started off the first morning with a discussion of several articles
I'd asked the teachers to read in preparation for our meeting; following
this we listed on a whiteboard some tentative inquiry topics people
were considering. We spent that afternoon becoming acquainted with the
computer setup in the new high-tech junior high school where the course
was being held.
Generally, the first tool most people have a use for is a wordprocessor.
That was certainly the case in this situation. We needed to write and
share thoughts and questions arising from the collaborative investigations
and to reflect on the readings. 7
Most of the teachers knew how to use a wordprocessor; a few were familiar
with more than one. We spent a bit of time that first afternoon familiarizing
ourselves with the two wordprocessors available on the network. I didn't
conduct a formal class showing people how to use these wordprocessors.
I didn't need to. There were plenty of experienced wordprocessor users
about. Any instruction I might have provided for the whole class would
have bored these knowledgeable users silly. They, in fact, were busy
exploring browsers, trying out sticky notes as well as other tools on
the system. So the few people who did need some help logging on, locating
a wordprocessor, and using it, had help from me, from the computer teacher
(a fellow student in the class) and anybody else who was willing to
assist. By the next morning everybody had a written reflection to share.
We ran into trouble on the second afternoon. We'd again spent the morning
discussing new readings and sorting through the list of potential inquiry
topics. We finally agreed on five 8
and the teachers formed working groups. Now it was time to visit the
internet to see what we could find on our topics.
Easier said than done. As often happens with high-tech equipment, we
ran into a major obstacle. A month before our course began, the new
high-tech junior high school where we were meeting had been hit by lightening
and the entire computer network, including server access to the internet,
had been wiped out. Now, because technical support is expensive, many
school districts and schools outsource services. In this case, tech
support for a school in Nova Scotia was being provided by IBM from Toronto.
Dealing with this "small" problem wasn't a high priority;
in spite of repeated requests from the Principal and District Superintendent,
the system had yet to be fully restored. We were able to use the local
area network but we were unable to access the internet!
We improvised. We used the afternoon for groups to talk about what
information they might look for, where they might find it, and who they
might interview. The next morning I sent the teachers off to browse
the internet anywhere they could log on. Some of the teachers used facilities
at the local community college. Some went to other schools. Others met
in homes with modem connections.
The hitch with this arrangement was the teachers were on their own.
I wasn't able to ask questions, offer suggestions, demonstrate strategies,
or provide other support. We needed a computer lab and some space where
small groups could meet and talk. I got on the phone. I was able to
make arrangements with the local community college to use one of their
computer labs for two days. So for days four and five we moved to the
community college.
For two days, we surfed the internet, actually locating many useful
sites.9 I had
an opportunity to ask questions and share strategies with individuals
and small groups when it was helpful to do so. From time to time the
class as a whole met in the cafeteria where we set up a classroom for
ourselves. We discussed reading and browsing strategies, what we were
learning about how the internet was structured, and the value of different
sites. At the end of the two days each group had collected useful information,
done telephone and personal interviews with relevant informants, checked
out newspaper and other print sources, and so on. (While we were working
at the community college an out-of-province technical person finally
had finally been dispatched to repair the network connection. On Monday
we returned to the junior high school.)
The teachers spent the second week sorting out what they'd learned.
Now they were faced with the problem of creating webpages. Many of the
teachers had no real idea what a webpage was like, so I sent them back
to the internet to examine carefully some of the sites they had found.
I roamed among the groups helping people see the various ways in which
webpages are constructed: some relying more on textual information;
others using graphic and picture elements. The teachers needed to figure
out how to present what they'd learned in some sort of concise, yet
interconnected, fashion. I wanted them to see that they would need to
think about how to segment the information, link the segments, and link
to other sources.
Here's where the teachers discovered the value of dividing up the work.
It took some planning on their part. Once each group decided what information
it wanted to present, the teachers had to create it in a form that could
be used for their webpages. Some people began producing written text
using a wordprocessor. Others created elements using graphics software.
Still others learned how to scan photographs and print materials. Toward
the end of each day I met with each group to discuss what they'd accomplished,
problems they were dealing with, decisions they were making, etc. I
wanted the teachers to discover that "writing" for this medium
is not a linear process -- they needed to create separate elements before
they could think about how to assemble them in a way that made sense;
they would not, for example, be able to construct an opening page until
they had sorted out everything else. This, however, was not how most
of the teachers were used to writing. Many of them were uncomfortable
because they didn't have a detailed outline to follow. I wanted them
to see how a plan would emerge as they developed materials for their
pages.
Tuesday afternoon we began using a web authoring package. I showed
a few people how to import wordprocessing files, graphics and pictures.10
Once someone in a group understood the process I moved onto another
group. I showed people how to create links. A couple of the teachers
knew about importing backgrounds and helped their groups add that element.
In the meantime, some group members were rechecking web addresses, making
sure they were correct. Others were busy transcribing interviews, formatting
them so they could be included.
As Wednesday afternoon came to a close, it was clear to me, and to
the teachers themselves, that we would succeed -- the webpages, although
still rough, would be completed. Most of Thursday was spent putting
final touches on pages. One group finished during the morning; those
teachers helped others, showing them refinements, assisting with technical
details, making sure links worked. During this time, I had managed to
create an entrance to the site. All I needed, now, was to download the
collected pages onto my computer so I could link to each group's work.
Friday morning we viewed all the webpages. There were still glitches,
but everyone was able to see just what we'd accomplished. Literacy,
Curriculum & Technology was now a website (http://www.lupinworks.com/lct/lct98/default.html).
We spent the rest of the day debriefing -- talking about what the
teachers had learned about learning, about literacy, about technology,
and about curriculum.
This teaching experience certainly made me much more aware of the tensions
teachers face today in this frantic rush to get on the information highway.
It made me think about how to help people learn enough to be of assistance
to students and about the biases built into software.
Helping Teachers Learn
I shouldn't be, but I am, surprised by the number of teachers who still
have little or no computer savvy. Of the thirty teachers in the course,
only a handful had experience with more than email and a wordprocessor.
Two were complete novices. The rest were at varying levels of proficiency
-- not unlike a typical public school classroom. The challenge, for
me, therefore, was to create a context in which everybody would be able
to contribute productively to the learning enterprise.
I am familiar with the initial "not-learning" 11
that takes place when folks begin a journey such as this. So the teachers'
discomfort at the start wasn't unexpected; I know resistance is an indication
of tension when confronting anything so totally new. Not only were these
teachers embarking on a new exploration, one which generated considerable
anxiety -- learning about information technology -- but they were also
unsettled by a whole new way of engaging as learners, too. One teachers
wrote "you said let's get the grade out of the way, but I kept
thinking to myself, ya right, and when will the shoe drop?" The
teachers had no reason to trust me; I knew the only way to diminish
their anxiety and distrust was to keep going.
Another teacher wrote "this must be unsettling for you because
it looks as if we don't need you now." That was precisely the place
I was trying to reach -- where my contribution becomes invisible. In
Tracy Kidder's book "The Soul of a New Machine"12
the production engineers have a hard time at the end of the project
describing the contribution made by Tom West, the project manager; but
in fact, as Kidder documents, it was West's role to make their work
possible by negotiating conditions that kept them from being hassled
and allowing them to get on with the job of inventing a new computer.
He set up the opportunity and he didn't stand in anyone's way. He
wasn't out there patting people on the back....He never put one restriction
on me. Tom allowed me to take a role where I could make things happen.13
I knew the collaborative investigations would create opportunities
for the teachers to teach themselves and one another how to use whatever
technology tools they required in order to achieve a reasonable product
they could share with "the world."
I was apprehensive, especially when I learned we would be designing
web pages. Initially I kept waiting for the classroom instruction
to begin so I would have all the notes and know which buttons I had
to press and when. What I realized, though, was that this approach
would have been useless; all of us were at different levels of learning.
The only time information would have been useful to me was when I
needed to know it; I wouldn't have been ready for it before that.
I had to ask questions and make mistakes before the "knowledge"
was meaningful. This really proved to be an eye-opener for me about
learning and teaching. [Maggie Wainright,14
final reflection]
Critics may point to the fact that everybody didn't become proficient
with every application. And it's true, they didn't. But it's an illusion
to think that fifteen sessions of "nifty tips" leaves people
any better off. What's important is that these teachers did learn about
the tools, in ways that make it more probable that they will explore
their use in their own teaching. At the very least they now understand
what is possible and although they may not be able to do everything
themselves they know what resources are available and where to go for
help.
What we did reinforced my belief that students should learn how to
use information technology tools, not in isolation, but as they need
them to do something useful. When a tool is introduced in an authentic
learning experience, students will be more likely to remember how
something is done and use what they've learned. [Susan Cowling, final
reflection]
The teachers learned other things that in the long run will prove useful
for creating a context that can take advantage of information technology
tools in a way that nifty tips instruction can't.
I now see why it is important to constantly touch base with the groups,
helping direct them to resources, providing information about what and
where they may find materials, asking questions to help students reflect
on what they're doing and to help them refocus: Where are we now? What
just happened? How do you feel about that? How can I help you? [Elsie
Shannon, final reflection]
The enormous challenge facing every school district and school, today,
is how to help teachers get up to speed. The task is monumental. There
is pressure for teachers to learn more and faster but people can only
make sense of so much at any one time. I believe it's crucial to create
a context in which teachers see connections to what they're trying to
do in their own classrooms, where they're not intimidated by the complexity
of what they have to learn, and where they don't feel they have to learn
it all at once, all by themselves.
Technology's Hidden Curriculum
Michael Apple 15
argued a decade ago that we have to pay attention to the hidden curriculum
of computers. He describes how the drive for much more standardization
of curriculum and testing is pushing teachers and students away from
relationship building that is at the heart of any kind of meaningful
sustained learning. Furthermore, he contends, the pressure to incorporate
technology into this process is making it even more difficult for teachers
to keep students and learning in the forefront of their decision-making.
Heather-jane Robertson 16
reiterates Apple's concerns and adds many more.
Many Canadians may not see the connection, but the link between education
restructuring and computer technologytantalize people in some sectors.
An item in the Ottawa Citizen reads: "Minister wants $4 billion
to give each student a computer." A report distributed to Canadian
investors claims that the education industry is about to replace health
care as the next hot sector....
Welcome to ed.com, where global money and globalizing technology
will determine the future of Canada's schools, where no exaggeration
is too extreme, no promise is too expensive, and no downside is too
steep. Thoughtful reflection on technology and school reform has become
unfashionable. Debate is now limited to what brand of technology should
be purchased and how fast it can be adopted (p. 5).
Robertson describes, in great detail, how the alliance between business
and government has set the agenda for education. She examines the costs
of wholesale adoption of information technology in schools. She documents
how funds have been diverted from the arts and humanities as well as
programs to support minority and special needs students to the purchase
of technology.
What neither Apple nor Robertson point out is how the biases built
into software, particularly educational applications, shape how teachers
and students interact and learn.
I discovered a lot about the constraints on me and the teachers as
we used the high-tech facility at the new junior high school. For example,
the interface was unlike anything I'd encountered before -- no words;
just a graphic of a room with several items: a desk with drawers, a
garbage can against a wall, a bulletin board, a bookshelf, and a door.
(Somebody believes junior high students can't, or don't read, or needn't!)
There was nothing to indicate that I could, or should, click anywhere.
Not even a question mark (the standard convention for help) in sight.
I sat there stymied; I had to ask for help. Turns out that to access
a wordprocessor, I needed to click on the bookshelf -- that finally
brought up another graphic of books in a bookcase. (It's ironic that
"books" is deemed a suitable icon for these newer information
technologies). Buried in the second row I recognized a familiar wordprocessor.
Why had this particular interface been adopted? For the security options,
I was told. It made managing the server from a remote location easier,
not because it had sound instructional ramifications.
There were other barriers, too. Teachers were limited to a single log-on
which frustrated me on more than one occasion. There were many times
when I was working on one machine but needed to log onto another in
order to help someone access a tool available only from the Windows
platform beneath and found myself locked out. Another frustration --
not being able to easily create a mailing list (one which I could then
share with the teachers) made email on the LAN practically useless.
While I could send sticky notes to students, and they could reply to
me, we couldn't establish a public conversation of any sort. We quickly
abandoned efforts to write collaboratively; it was simply too difficult
to set up. Then, the particular "full function" word processor
on the system did have all the bells and whistles, but it was configured
in such a way that I had a hard time finding the functions I wanted.
Anyone familiar with WordPerfect or Word found this wordprocessor very
unpredictable -- another unnecessary frustration.
The information technology tools, in other words, created barriers
for us; instead of making communication easier they often made it more
complicated. As I'm finding right now with the course I'm currently
teaching, the software's built-in biases create serious obstacles for
me as a teacher. Instead of facilitating a free flow of conversation,
the system at the junior high school, as well as the current instructional
package, impede open sharing and the building of a collaborative community
of learners in a significant way.
So What?
The new high-tech junior high school where we were meeting had new
computer equipment, a lot of instructional software, and some technical
support, but what about the majority of schools in this province, and
elsewhere, that don't? The teachers commented frequently about how they
couldn't do what we were doing in their own schools; they just didn't
have equipment or software or technical help. The provincial government
has gone on a building spree -- it has just awarded tenders for thirty-one
new schools. Because these news schools all have business "partners,"
they will have the latest computers and other electronic gizmos. This
infusion of information technology at such a pace looks like a step
forward but there are significant problems. Nobody has thought about
the cost of technical support to maintain the systems in operating order
or the costs of continuously upgrading equipment and software. There
will now be two tiers of schools -- the "have"s and the "have
not"s since there are no provisions to upgrade electronic facilities
in the "old" schools to match those in "new" buildings.
There are practically no funds for new books and periodicals -- all
eggs are being put into the technology basket. There has been a little
money set aside to help teachers in the new schools learn how to use
all this stuff but the contracts for teacher development have gone to
those business enterprises which deliver "nifty tips." Nobody,
it seems, is going to help teachers think about using these resources
for building interactive curriculum and teaching differently. Nobody
will encourage them to think about the biases inherent in the software
and the political ramifications of their instructional choices.
"Instruction is typically thought to have clear, prespecified
learning objectives, teacher-determined activities and instructional
strategies, and clear boundaries in space and time." 17
But what if learning really isn't like that? What if something altogether
different happens when people (both young children and adults) engage
in making sense of the world?
As I reflect on all the things I've learned this past two weeks,
I'm forced to ask myself "how was this possible?" There
was no formal instruction, no reams of notes to copy, and the "knowledge"
did not come solely from the teacher. In retrospect, though, I can
see how it was done. I was put in charge of my own learning. Simply
put, I learned from others and, much to my amazement, I found myself
helping others who knew less than I did. [Morgan Jossey, final reflection]
The constructivist movement in education is challenging instructional
systems designed to meet prespecified learning outcomes. As long ago
as John Dewey 18
we have had coherent and persuasive arguments and evidence in support
of curriculum as conversation.19
In truth, the debate about technology in education is really a red
herring. Technology isn't the issue. The way in which we choose to use
various technological tools is based on what we believe about learning
in the first place -- all the important questions really are about curriculum.
Today, I see Canadian teachers swamped by a tide of curriculum documents
from the provincial departments of education, all of which focus on
the selection and ordering of subject-matter and skills. The people
in charge of writing these policy documents are obsessed with identifying
hundreds of "key outcomes" -- strong evidence of their conviction
that teaching is solely the transmission and testing of knowledge.
We can't expect students to "develop communication, decision-making,
and problem-solving abilities" when their teachers are panicked
about "covering" a mountain of key outcomes. We can't hope
to use information technology tools to "facilitate students' formulation
of complex questions as they manipulate information to discover patterns
and relationships, and reach conclusions in the pursuit of knowledge"
when prescriptive outcomes are driving everything that happens in classrooms.
All the talk about developing communications, decision-making, etc.
is really rhetoric. We could do that without sophisticated information
technology. It's not accidental that information technology is being
incorporated into this clearly defined transmission world. These reason
for these new high-tech tools is really to make it much easier to control
teachers and curriculum.
Technology isn't necessarily a bad thing, though. These new sophisticated
tools do offer a potential for creating exciting learning opportunities
for students. However, the way we're going about it, it looks to me
like we are following a yellow brick road.
1. Baum, L. Frank 1973 The Wizard of Oz. London:
Wm. Collins Sons and Co. Ltd. p. 40. Return
1
2. Nova Scotia Department of Education and Culture
English Program Branch:
Vision for the Integration of Information Technologies within Nova
Scotia Public School Programs
Draft 4.3 July 1998: p. 9 Return
2
3. ibid p. 9. Return
3
4. Barnes, Douglas, 1976 From Communication to Curriculum.
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Return
4
5. The beliefs about learning upon which I base my
teaching have been called "interpretive" (Barnes, Douglas
1976 From Communication to Curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books);
"uncommonsense" (Mayher, John 1990 Uncommon Sense. Boynton/Cook
Publishers); "constructivist" (Guba, Egon & Yvonna Lincoln
1989 What is this constructivist paradigm anyway? In: Fourth Generation
Evaluation, Sage Publications, pp: 79-116). Return
5
6. Hunt, Russ 1995 Collaborative Investigation
Online: Eighteenth Century Literature Moves to the Computer
Lab. In: Berge, Zane & Mauri Collins (Eds) Computer-Mediated
Communication and the Online Classroom. Volume II: Higher
Education. Hampton Press: 93-110. http://www.stthomasu.ca/~hunt/cmc.htm
Return 6
7. A list of the readings can be found online:
http://www.lupinworks.com/lct/lct98/reading.htmll
Return 7
8. The collaborative investigations can be found
at: http://www.lupinworks.com/lct/lct98/projec.html
Return 8
9. Links to sites are included in the group investigations.
Return 9
10. I can hear instructional design folks asking
"why didn't she just teach the class how to use the web authoring
tools?" From my constructivist perspective it would have been
pointless to break the flow of the work to teach a lot of stuff people
neither needed nor wanted to know. Instruction is helpful when there's
a "need to know" and usually wasted effort when there isn't.
This seems particularly true with regard to learning how to handle
various information technology tools. Return
10
11. Kohl, Herbert 1994 I Won't Learn From You. In:
I Won't Learn From You. New York: The New Press, pp: 1-32. Return
11
12. Kidder, Tracy 1981 The Soul of a New Machine.
New York: Avon. Return 12
13. ibid p. 274. Return
13
14. All teachers' names are pseudonyms. Return
14
15. Apple, Michael 1988 Teaching and Technology:
The Hidden Effects of Computers on Teachers and Students. In: Landon
Beyer & Michael Apple (Eds) The Curriculum: Problems, Politics,
and Possibilities. Albany: State University of New York Press: 289-311.
Return 15
16. Robertson, Heather-jane 1998 No More Teachers,
No More Books. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart. Return
16
17. Wilson, Brent & Martin Ryder 1998 Distributed
Learning Communities: An Alternative to Designed Instructional Systems.
http://www.cudenver.edu/~bwilson/dlc.html
Return 17
18. Dewey, John (1938) 1963 Experience & Education.
New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Return
18
19. Newman, Judith M. 1997 Interwoven Conversations:
Learning and Teaching Through Critical Reflection. Toronto: Canadian
Scholars' Press; New York: Teachers' College Press. Applebee, Arthur
1996 Curriculum as Conversation: Transforming Traditions of Teaching
and Learning. University of Chicago Press. Return
19
NOTE: There is now a second summer institute website: Creating
Technology-Supported Literacy Classrooms.
|
