My job talk was based on the notion of using various technology tools
as a Trojan Horse. For example, Webliographer, arguably the first
social bookmarking program, was a way to use web bookmarks, a
then-familiar concept, and "sneak in" a way for people to collaborate
and share. Or the online testing system I developed could be snuck in
as a way to deliver multiple-choice tests, but could become a means
for providing formative assessments that give students opportunities
to learn.
Tech folks frequently buy in to this Trojan Horse metaphor. Often,
we (they?) think that by sneaking computers into classrooms under
various auspices (e.g., it's the 21st century, the Internet is
Really Important) with the real hope that what will happen is that
teachers will embrace notions of constructivism, will become more
student-centered and will change our educational system. There's
an AERA SIG called Technology
as an agent of change in teaching and learning. I'm even a
member. I'm all for these changes and, indeed, became a teacher
because I hated school and thought that it really needed to change.
I think I hoped and thought that computers could be a part of it
(but I may have just thought that it would be a good idea for
someone who knew about computers to be teaching about them).
It strikes me today that though I'm all for these changes, I don't
think that the promise of those changes is the point. I continue to
be struck that we in education seem to feel obligated to come up
with some Really Good Reason to use computers in schools.
So much so that, for example, teachers in schools where every kid
has a laptop, lament that they're "only" word processing and using
the web. They think that they need to have kids creating movies or
doing something that's "not possible" without computers. Otherwise,
they're somehow "wasting" the computers.
I find this absurd.
Virtually everywhere else, whether it's an ad agency, a police
station, a fast food restaurant, or an unemployed writer's basement
apartment, people use computers. And what do they do with the most
of the time? They use word processors, the web, and communicate with
people via email, blogs, and even Facebook. You don't hear lawyers
say, "You know, we're using these computers only to research cases
and write briefs. It's such a waste. If we're going to spend all
this money on computers, we should be creating videos and
interactive web sites." But so it is in education.
My message is pretty much, "Hey, here's a way to get the 2:1 to 4:1
student computer ratio into classrooms. It costs almost no money.
Teachers and students know how to use them. Teachers didn't really
know what to do with computers 10 years ago, but they do now---the
whole "internet" thing has sorta caught on. Rather than waiting a
couple more years for netbooks to get cheap enough, we can do this
now. Here's how it's worked in several schools in which I didn't
have time to (1) do an intervention, (2) provide technical support,
(3) train teachers to use them."
This message is not very compelling for several reasons. I hear
things like:
- That sounds too good to be true, so it must be.
- I used Unix in the 90s. It sucked.
- I use Mac/Windows. There's no way I'd going to change to
something I haven't heard of.
- Just putting computers in schools won't change things.
Perhaps I can figure out an argument that these things don't apply
to.
