A Garden Path?
Information Technology and Education

Judith M. Newman, Ph.D.

Have you glanced at any curriculum documents lately--particularly those dealing with information technology? If you haven't, you should. There's interesting reading there with a lot of hype that teachers ought to be wary of.

Here, for example, is part of the "Vision" statement from the Manitoba IT policy document Technology As a Foundation Skill Area: A Journey Toward Information Technology Literacy

The use of information technology will help enable all students to solve problems, improve their personal performance, and gain the critical and abstract thinking skills necessary to become lifelong learners and contributing members of their communities.

To achieve this vision, all Manitoba students will

• use information technology to structure inquiries, solve problems, and gather, organize, validate, and communicate information on a local and global scale
• manage information technology by making creative, productive, and efficient technology choices for the tasks at hand
• understand information technology and reflect upon the ethics and impact of its use, synthesizing new insights and making reasoned decisions as information technology evolves (p. 7).

You get the feeling from this policy paper that information technology will cure all of education's ills. Manitoba's document isn't alone here. A comparable Nova Scotia document promises the same wonderful outcomes. IT, it says,

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.

The NS document promises even more: "[information technology] allows [students] to develop and maintain a competitive advantage in the Global Information Economy." Heady stuff, indeed.

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" model of learning.

Take, for example, a courseware package I was supposed to use to "deliver" a web-based graduate course. The deeply embedded transmission bias inherent in several components of that software created a host of frustrations for me. My teaching flows from an "interpretive" or "constructivist" paradigm. 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 "serious" 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 tried discussing my problems with the software developers but they thought I was nit-picking -- "a listserve," I was told "that's old technology;" they weren'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 wanted 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 geographical area, as in many other locales, 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. And we certainly can't expect teachers to see the theoretical biases built into software if they've never had an opportunity themselves to use IT resources for community building.

Curriculum & Technology: An Alternate Vision

Built in software 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 a year ago when I developed and taught a two week graduate course Literacy, Curriculum & Technology attended by thirty teachers.

The focus of the course was 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 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. 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 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. The technicians were attempting to restore the system but hadn't quite managed to reconnect to 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. However, we really needed a computer lab and some space where small groups could meet and talk. After a few phone calls I was able to make arrangements with the local community college to use one of their computer labs for two days. So we moved to the community college.

For two days, we surfed the internet, actually locating many useful sites. 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.

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. 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 educators 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" 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" 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.ÖHe never put one restriction on me. Tom allowed me to take a role where I could make things happen.

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, 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, where they have time to experiment and mess around, where they don't feel they have to learn it all at once, all by themselves.

Technology's Hidden Curriculum

Michael Apple 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 reiterates Apple's concerns and adds many more.

Many Canadians may not see the connection, but the link between education restructuring and computer technology tantalize 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 obviously 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 the teachers, 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. The software's built-in biases created serious obstacles for me as a teacher. Instead of facilitating a free flow of conversation, the system impeded 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 the course was being held had new computer equipment, a lot of instructional software, and some technical support, but what about the majority of schools in Nova Scotia, 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 NS government has gone on a building spree -- it is in the process of building thirty-one new "high tech" 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 very little money set aside to help teachers in the new schools learn how to use all this stuff and what teacher development that is going on is being done by those business enterprises which deliver "nifty tips." Nobody, it seems, is going to help teachers think about using these new IT 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."

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 we have had coherent and persuasive arguments and evidence in support of curriculum as conversation.

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. The reason for incorporating 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 information tools do offer a potential for creating exciting learning opportunities for students. Unfortunately, the way we're going about it looks awfully like being led down a garden path.

http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/metks4/docs/policy/tfs

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

ibid p. 9.

Barnes, Douglas, 1976 From Communication to Curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

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).

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

A list of the readings can be found online: http://www.lupinworks.com/lct/lct98/reading.html

The collaborative investigations can be found at: http://www.lupinworks.com/lct/lct98/projec.html

Links to sites are included in the group investigations.

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.

Kohl, Herbert 1994 I Won't Learn From You. In: I Won't Learn From You. New York: The New Press, pp: 1-32.

Kidder, Tracy 1981 The Soul of a New Machine. New York: Avon.

ibid p. 274.

All teachers' names are pseudonyms.

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.

Robertson, Heather-jane 1998 No More Teachers, No More Books. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.

Wilson, Brent & Martin Ryder 1998 Distributed Learning Communities: An Alternative to Designed Instructional Systems.http://www.cudenver.edu/~bwilson/dlc.html

Dewey, John (1938) 1963 Experience & Education. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

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.