by Roseana Auten
Nowhere
do you find
more enthusiasm for the god of Technology than among educators,” writes Neil
Postman, one of the country’s sharpest critics of Americans’ love of
“cheerleading” computer-based technology, in his new book, The End of
Education. “There is hardly a school superintendent anywhere, or a college
dean, who cannot give us a ready-made sermon on how we now live in an
`information age.'”
Stakeholders in the Austin Independent School District (AISD) — parents,
students, and educators alike — have frequently been on the receiving end of
such sermons themselves. That schools need computer hardware and software is a
given; now, Internet access, video conferencing, and distance-learning via computer link-ups are competing for precedence in the vision for
America’s schools. AISD Superintendent Jim Fox, as well as other
administrators, is an on-the-record believer in the edifying effects of
technology in the classroom; technology can even deliver long-delayed
educational equity, as citizens’ bond advisory chair Mel Waxler has publicly
indicated several times. As voters brace themselves to consider an expenditure
of $65.5 million in bond funds for a technology package, part of an upcoming
bond issue that may total $370 million, they’re likely to hear even more
proselytizing on the subject.
Few people would dispute the usefulness of computers to children, nor would
they argue that there exists a vocation or profession that does not somehow
make use of technology. But in an attempt to gain more perspective on the
ramifications of schools’ use of it, the Chronicle sought out Gary
Chapman, coordinator of the 21st Century Project at the LBJ School of Public
Affairs. The project is a research and education program that seeks ways to
involve lay people in public policy on science and technology, with a special
focus on information technology. Chapman is lending his expertise to area high
schools in a push to get students on the Internet, possibly with the help of
public funds.
Some early critics have expressed skepticism that technology can be the “great
equalizer” between middle- and low-income children in AISD, and to some degree,
Chapman agrees with that. “I have a certain amount of concern about putting too
much faith in the technology to get rid of educational inequities,” he says.
Nonetheless, he considers huge disparities in AISD schools’ Internet access —
or even students’ knowledge of what the Internet is — a problem that must be
addressed.
Still, the critics charge, technology of the past, such as photocopiers,
films, and overhead projectors, was supposed to address the gap between the
“haves” and “have-nots,” and little evidence exists of its saving grace. What’s
different this time? For one thing, says Chapman, computers and Internet access
enhance skill building — and not just skill in learning how to use the
hardware itself — in a way that the old technology did not.
“So instead of looking at a filmstrip and seeing some relatively narrow
perspective on a particular subject, by using the Internet you get some kind of
generalized learning model of what we call information literacy,” he says. “How
do you find things that you need to know, where are they, how are they
organized, what is the technology used to get to them? Which is what employers
are looking for. That’s why those technologies are more important than the ones
that made such extravagant claims in the past.”
Chapman readily admits that measuring this kind of learning with a
standardized test will be difficult, which won’t satisfy accountability-hungry
school officials. Even parents might be uneasy about giving kids that much
control over what and how they learn, says Chapman, and may be rightly
concerned about whether their kids are just learning how to “surf the Net.”
That’s why, he says, the teacher in the classroom will be no less important,
but must adapt under this arrangement, from lecturer to a kind of guide.
But haven’t we dealt with fads like this before, such as the “open classroom”
of the 1970s, which was also supposed to create a generation of self-directed
learners, merely supervised by the teacher? “That partly remains to be seen,”
Chapman says. “We don’t have enough experience with good teaching models using
the Internet as a tool. But — it is clear that the traditional methods of
teaching are boring kids to death, in stark contrast to their capabilities for
learning.”
While some find the vastness and openness of information on the Internet
merely daunting, others find it frightening, especially with “cyberporn,”
neo-Nazi discussion groups, and other unsavory businesses just as easily
accessible as Web sites for rock fans and lemur aficionados. Chapman believes
that this fear of the unpredictability of the information, and the attendant
controversy it stirs, will lead many communities to use technology instead to
conduct video teleconferencing and distance learning, and leave out the
Internet as an instructional tool.
“I find it disappointing and discouraging that this is something people are
considering,” Chapman says. “And I think that’s going to be the technological
model for conservatives who are interested in preserving the authoritarian
structure of the classroom. They’re not really interested in changing the
nature of the relationship between the teacher and the student, or the nature
of the relationship of the student to information resources.”
AISD’s plan for technology infrastructure leaves room for both classroom
Internet access and distance-learning, and no clear debate over on-line vs.
video learning has yet emerged. In general, however, school officials are
cheered by the increase in student achievement they’ve seen in the schools that
do use a lot of computer-based instruction, and by the boost in teachers’
attitudes when they, too, have access to the technology.
And ultimately, Chapman finds the outlook for technology in the classroom not
to be god-like, but at least positive, as long as it is carried out
thoughtfully. “Creativity, ingenuity, democracy, and equity can be reflected in
the technology we deploy,” he says. “But whether or not those kinds of values
will be transferred to the school environment is an open question.” n
This article appears in January 19 • 1996 and January 19 • 1996 (Cover).