|
Feb 04
2012
|
|
|
Over the years I have read many articles written by Larry Cuban. I have often disagreed with his point of view regarding computers in education. In essence, I was in favor of use of computers and he was suspicious of or against use of computers. However, I fully agree with the following article:
Cuban, Larry (11/29/2011). Challenging Reformers’ Conventional Wisdom about Structures and Classroom Practice. Retrieved 2/4/2012 from http://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/challenging-reformers-conventional-wisdom-about-structures-and-classroom-practice/.
Quoting from the article:
Policymakers love creating new and different structures because they believe such arrangements will alter how teachers teach and then lead to more and better student learning. But that chain of assumptions has a few kinks in it.
Researchers have discovered (and rediscovered), however, that once new structures are put into place—school site councils, small high schools, 1:1 computing, professional “learning communities”–teaching practices do not move directly or even necessarily from point A to point B. Moreover, without teaching practices moving the needle of change then the impact on student learning is negligible.
The article then goes on to discuss some examples and some research on the failure of various school reform efforts to be adequately implemented in a manner that could lead to improvement. The reason for this is:
Because other factors come into play to influence what and how teachers teach beyond new structures: Individual teacher beliefs matter. School and district cultures of collaboration matter. How schools are organized matter. School and district leadership matter. These factors combine to create what reformers euphemistically call “barriers” to change, obstacles that reformers must disassemble for routine classroom lessons to become ambitious teaching ventures that produce desired student outcomes.
This might be summarized by the statement that “teachers teach in the way that they were taught” and the observation that the design and nature of our educational system makes it highly resistant to change. I have seen this in my many years of being an advocate for use of computers in education.
A Powerful Change Agent
Interestingly, we are now seeing a significant educational change based on distance learning and computer-assisted learning. In both cases, the task of delivering instruction is being removed from the hands of the teacher. Research on distance learning suggests that for many students, it can be approximately as effective as traditional classroom instruction. Research on computer-assisted learning suggests that for many students it is more effective than traditional classroom instruction.
Currently I am a strong advocate for:
- Hybrid learning, involving a balanced combination of distance learning and/or computer-assisted learning with classroom instruction.
- Thoroughly integrating the computer as an aid to representing and solving problems into the curriculum. In terms of problem solving, two brains (human and computer) are often better than one. (See http://iae-pedia.org/Two_Brains_Are_Better_Than_One.) We should be teaching students to make effective use of Information and Communication Technology as a routine component of each discipline that they study. Moreover, a significant portion of student assessment should be based on their performance in an ICT-assisted problem solving.
I define problem solving in a broad sense, and consider problem solving to be a part of every discipline of study. Problem solving includes:
• Question situations: recognizing, posing, clarifying, and answering questions.
• Problem situations: recognizing, posing, clarifying, and solving problems.
• Task situations: recognizing, posing, clarifying, and accomplishing tasks.
• Decision situations: recognizing, posing, clarifying, and making good decisions.
• Using human brain and aids: Using higher-order critical, creative, wise, and foresightful thinking to do all of the above. We humans have developed many aids to help us in these endeavors. ICT is one of these aids.

Remember, however, that there are three major components to the educational process: curriculum content, instructional processes (pedagogy), and assessment. Cuban's thesis in the article reference in the IAE Blog—as well as in many other of his writings—is that our school improvement efforts generally are unsuccessful because they do not succeed in changing the way teachers teach.
I find it interesting to draw an analogy between the individual skilled craftsperson working with "by hand" tools, and the individual teacher. The Industrial Revolution provided tools and automation that greatly changed the role of the individual worker. It is clear to me that highly interactive intelligent computer-assisted learning (HIICAL) will do the same thing in large parts of our education system.
HIICAL provides a teaching/learning environment and methodology that is much easier to improve than is the collection of millions of individual "craftsperson teachers" in our educational system.