TCT: The Device

 

In their article studying the difficulties faced by teachers when trying to integrate technology in their teaching, Cuban et al point to three explanations for the problem:

• historical legacy
  
• structure and time, and
  
• defects in the technologies
  

Educational technology today is premised on (and promises) broad change. However, Cuban et al remind us that our school systems have "embedded patterns… [and] established practices [that] are taken for granted, and seldom questioned by policy makers, practitioners, researchers, and taxpayers."

Much of the difficulty teachers face stems from the inertial forces in the history of the institution of education itself and the current scale ( size of schools, low teacher-student ratios) and the scheduling structure of schools (six periods rigidly divided by subject) which "[makes] it difficult for teachers trained in separate disciplines to adopt innovations and engage in school reforms that requir[e] them to cross subject boundaries and team with other teachers."

Even when teachers are able to overcome these hindrances and evolve their teaching to take advantage of technology, the institution fails to retain them as they understandably leave for positions that "provide them with more time, higher salaries, and more advanced and reliable technology."

Cuban et al describe the inadequacy of the technological infrastructure itself, the difficulties with failing and obsolete hardware and software, the slow or crashing networks, and the insufficiency of training and support to solve these problems as contributing to the erosion of "confidence in the technology's worth" and ultimately, and paradoxically, end up "sustaining current teaching practices."

Cuban et al acknowledge that a "slow revolution" may, through "the accumulation of ad hoc incremental changes" eventually effect some reform in the teaching environment. But they believe that such achievements will only be marginal and that "historical legacies of high schools in their school structures and technological flaws will trump the slow revolution in teaching practices."

The focus of this blog is to see if there can be a response to the third argument by Cuban et al -- defects in the device: Can the problem be addressed, at least partially, by improvements in the basic design process? If so, what would those improvements be? Is focusing on the "teacher as worker" a correct and productive approach? Is it possible to not fall prey to the bureaucratic and systemic tug to focus on scale and accountability at all cost and stay focused on supporting the beleaguered individual teacher?