A number of bloggers attempting to promote the educational potential of specific web applications have recently become frustrated by the lack of response to their message and have voiced their frustration in their blogs. Gary Stager offers links to these “rants” and offers a historical account of another failed good idea (LOGO). (BTW – I was also fascinated with LOGO for some time, helped some teachers learn to use it, wrote about it in earlier books, and then realized that the classroom use had achieved mixed results (my summary)). At the end of his post, Stager, after explaining his own commitment to the value of LOGO, outlines the limitations he presently sees with Web 2.0 applications.
I think Stager’s list of limitations (of reform based on Web 2.0 not necessarily of the tools themselves) and the comments his post generated is interesting reading.
The present situation reminds of the more general literature concerning educational technology and educational reform. In other writing, I identified several positions (supposedly with data) on the connection between exposure to technology and reform that appear to align themselves along a continuum. The general question is whether teacher beliefs and practices can be changed. A simple summary of these positions follows.
1. Becker, H. & Ravitz, J. (1999) (see summary). The influence of computer and Internet use on teachers’ pedagogical practices and perceptions. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(4), 356–384.
– This is the most optimistic of the studies and claims a link between using technology and changes in teaching practice. The opportunities provided by the technology cause teachers to change how they teach.
2. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
– These are the most pessimistic of the studies and probably the most well known. The author(s) claim factors endemic to educational practice (e.g., departmentalization by discipline, 50 minute periods) make it unlikely student experiences will change. If change does occur, it will likely be that technology will be used to replicate existing teaching practices.
3. Windschitl, M. & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205.
– This is an intermediate position. The presence of adequate technological resources leads to change, but only among teachers with specific belief systems about teaching and learning. Technology provides certain teachers the opportunity to act on personally held beliefs.
If one were to wait another year or so, one could possible substitute Web 2.0 apps (say blogs, wikis & podcasts) for “technology”, repeat the studies described above, and probably achieve about the same range of results.
I find Cuban’s position frustrating, but he has pretty much made a career out of explaining why technological change comes so hard in educational institutions. Betting on “nothing much will change” is probably the smart money choice. I am guessing we all somehow see a solution in what we are doing. I keep think helping future techers experience the potential of technology in contributing to their own learning will change the way they eventually will think about how they should attempt to engage their own students.
