|
Nobody believes it's the quick-fix for America's K-12 ills
Linda Roberts on the role of technology in the classroom By Heather Clopton SCR*TEC The administration's technology initiative is an initiative to improve education. It is an initiative that we believe will make it possible for more students to come closer to our goals of higher academic standards and the preparation of our students with skills and knowledge that we believe . . . are the essential foundations for life-long learning. Nobody believes that technology is the quick-fix for what ails education. --Linda Roberts |
 inda Roberts, Director of the U.S. Department of Education's Office of
Educational Technology, has been working in technology policy and research for the
last 15 years. Here, she dispels the notion that there is a delusion about technology's
capacity to improve K-12 education. Instead, says Roberts, the current
administration has a realistic vision of how the use of technology can enhance
teaching and learning to improve student achievement as well as provide access to
valuable, educational resources. |
 |
How did you get interested in technology in education? I would describe my love affair with technology as dating back to 1968, when I was a classroom teacher in Oakridge, Tennessee, and I had the chance to come to New York City to help design a new television program that would be both entertaining and educational, and, as history shows, that was Sesame Street. I helped work on the cognitive underpinnings, the curriculum underpinnings, for Sesame Street and then The Electric Company, and that was my first foray into technology. When I came to the Department of Education in 1981 as a policy fellow, my first assignment was to explore how schools were beginning to use computers in the classroom and to identify whether there were any reasons for using computers in schools--I mean this was a really new phenomena. I have been involved in research and evaluation of educational technology ever since. I spent almost 12 years subsequently, after leaving the Department of Education, after doing the very first ever case studies of schools using computers--and in those days, of course, you know they were teaching kids how to program in BASIC and LOGO was just coming on the scene--I went from the Department of Education to the Office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress, where I spent more than a decade working in this important area and being at the front end of the research data, the evaluation data, and the technology policy that was evolving in this country. And that was the perspective that I brought to the Department of Education when I joined the Clinton administration and Secretary Riley as the first-ever technology advisor. |
|
You must have seen positive results in those case studies, of the impact of
technology, or you wouldn't be in this position today. Not only in those early case studies, but, as I explained to Todd Oppenheimer and as I talked to other reporters around the country and people who are always asking, "Why is technology important?" there are now more than two decades of work that I think cannot be ignored, pointing to not only the positive impacts of technology in areas like basic reading skills and improved writing and helping kids do advanced work in mathematics and science, but also to the areas where we do need to do more work, where there is, of course, improvement to be made. And, as our knowledge of how kids learn and our technological capabilities grow, we should expect to continue to have to invest in research, in development, in evaluation, and then to be prepared to apply those findings in real application and real practice. |
| The
Technology Literacy Challenge In explicit acknowledgment of the challenges facing the education community, on February 15, 1996, President Clinton and Vice President Gore announced the Technology Literacy Challenge, envisioning a 21st century where all students are technologically literate. The challenge was placed before the nation as a whole, with responsibility for its accomplishment shared by local communities, states, the private sector, educators, parents, the federal government, and others. The challenge, however, is more than a vision. At its heart are four concrete goals that help to define the task at hand: 1. All teachers in the nation will have the training and support they need to help students learn using computers and the information superhighway. 2. All teachers and students will have modern multimedia computers in their classrooms. 3. Every classroom will be connected to the information superhighway. 4. Effective software and on-line learning resources will be an integral part of every school's curriculum. Excerpted from: Getting America's Students Ready for the 21st Century--Meeting the Technology Literacy Challenge: A Report to the Nation on Technology and Education from the United States Department of Education http://www.ed.gov/Technology/Plan/ |
When people talk about the impact of technology, they often talk about student
achievement in terms of standardized test scores going up. Can you talk about other
ways that this impact can be shown or measured? Sure, but I don't want to minimize the importance of academic results. I think that is at the very heart and soul of why this administration cares so much about technology and sees technology, sees interactive learning resources, as critical components that ought to be available in every classroom. We are concerned about student achievement, and there are many ways to measure achievement and performance, and, yes, the education community believes that our standardized achievement tests are only partial measures of what students know. But even in that limited arena, there is research under controlled conditions that shows that students with access to good technology applications and good teaching learn more and learn faster than students who don't. But in addition to those tests, we've got the measures of actual performance. We've got student portfolios. You know the best way to understand what impact students who have access to online resources on the Net and multimedia publishing tools can bring is to look at their actual work. I have been in countless classrooms where teachers and students both demonstrate their acquired knowledge through their portfolios, and you just have to look at the work to understand the interaction of challenging content and high-powered tools and how they make a difference in the individual life of each of those students. |
|
You're saying that there are positive, measurable results we can look at to see that
technology is improving student achievement. Is this why the Clinton
administration is pushing for technology? Some critics are saying that this initiative
is a whitewash of more serious ills in K-12 education, and that putting computers in
every classroom offers an easy and inadequate answer. Can we talk about that? The administration's technology initiative is an initiative to improve education. It is an initiative that we believe will make it possible for more students to come closer to our goals of higher academic standards and the preparation of our students with skills and knowledge that we believe and the businesses and parents believe are the essential foundations for life-long learning. Nobody believes that technology is the quick-fix for what ails education. But what we do believe is that putting computers in our classrooms, linking our classrooms to electronic resources, other classrooms, and experts around the globe can be a very important component of improving the quality of education for our students. If you look at the four pillars of the technology initiative, they are not simply about infrastructure or computing (see sidebar on the Technology Literacy Challenge). They are about teachers and helping teachers use this technology and integrate it in the most effective way into their classrooms, and it is about building the base of applications across the curriculum so that we have a strong set of high-quality, challenging, high-motivating, effective learning resources that go hand-in-hand with the computers and the networks. |
| The
Secretary's Seven Initiatives Secretary Riley and senior department officials developed seven priorities for the Department of Education, based on the Call to Action issued by President Clinton in his State of the Union Address (February 4, 1997). These seven priorities are for all students in the United States: 1. To read independently by the end of the 3rd grade. 2. To master challenging mathematics, including the foundations of algebra and geometry, by the end of the 8th grade. 3. By age 18, to be prepared for and able to afford at least two years of college and to pursue lifelong learning. 4. To have a talented, dedicated, and well-prepared teacher in their classroom. 5. To have their classroom connected to the Internet by the year 2000 and to be technologically literate. 6. To learn in strong, safe, and drug-free schools. 7. To learn according to challenging and clear standards of achievement and accountability. Excerpted from the Secretary's Initiatives, http://www.ed.gov/inits.html |
So getting the technology into the schools in itself won't improve education, but by
using this and by having access to people outside the classroom and to all of these
other resources, teachers can use . . . Right, the effective use of technology goes hand-in-hand with a high-powered, demanding curriculum, with highly-trained, dedicated, talented teachers, and even, if you will, broad-based support from the community to support education overall. Technology is an important tool, but it is not the end. It is a tool, it is a set of means to achieve the end, which is ultimately significant improvements in student performance and student achievement. Would you agree that the Technology Initiative is the highest-profiled activity of the administration with regard to education? No, I really feel that if you look at the President's educational agenda, that agenda has multiple goals. One is technology, another is high standards, as I mentioned to you, including the specific standard of every child being able to read independently by the end of third grade and every student having algebra competence by the end of eighth grade, and of course every student being able to get online and use those resources effectively. It also includes a goal of having at least two years of postsecondary education available for every learner in America. So there are several, seven in fact, highly-visible initiatives, and technology is one of the seven (see sidebar on the Secretary's Seven Initiatives). |
|
Do you think the technology initiative just gets more press than the others? Right now, yes. I have a theory about that. I believe that this is the first time in this 15-year journey with technology that I've had, that we have seen a serious commitment to technology. A commitment of funding that is coming from the federal level, the state level, and the local level. When you combine the commitments of the Technology Literacy Challenge, the more than half billion dollars we have in this year's budget, and the proposed educational discounts for telecommunications through the Universal Service Fund, which will amount to over two billion dollars a year, and you start to add up the investments coming from state legislatures and local school boards, what you finally see is a very serious commitment to technology. And what that has done is convince people that now we're really serious, that we're beyond the cookies and the bake sales. And therefore what this has done is, I believe, drawn the skeptics and the critics out of the woodwork, and they're out there in full force because this is a new target to shoot at. |
|
Let's go back to the money. There is a large financial commitment, including the
recently-passed E-Rate, and technology is touted as the great leveler, providing
resources to impoverished schools that would otherwise be unavailable. While the
E-Rate will help schools get connected, it won't help schools that do not already
have computers. There is a concern that rather than helping provide access to all,
this will instead help those schools that are already ahead with technology get
further ahead and that those schools most in need are least prepared to apply for the
discounts or the Challenge Grants. How do you respond to these concerns? The E-Rate discounts are going to help. We are convinced that they are going to be extremely beneficial for every school, but they will have the most benefit for the schools with the greatest levels of poverty and those schools in the most rural areas, because that's where the discounts are the greatest. Remember that the discounts are graduated from 20 to 90 percent. And, if, as a school district, you are applying for the e-rate subsidies, it makes sense to get the greatest percentage discount. It makes sense to put your greatest investment in the other pieces of the infrastructure, whether we're talking about computers or we're talking about technical assistance. Those discounts then offset the costs that the school district would incur otherwise. So I think the incentives are there to reach out to the most needy of the schools, but I will also tell you that in our technical assistance efforts--and we believe that the efforts of the R*TECs and other entities will be a part of this--we fully intend to provide as much help as we can to the districts that will need the most help, and in talking to the state education agencies, we've heard the same thing from them. With regard to the Challenge Grants, I think you asked a very important question. The guidelines in both the Technology Literacy Challenge Funds and the Challenge Grants, again, are targeted to reaching out to the most needy districts in the following ways. The Technology Fund that goes by formula to the states has a requirement for the states to allocate resources in such a way that the most needy districts, the districts most in need of technology, the districts with the greatest levels of poverty, have priority for those funds. That's the first thing. The second thing is that when we award in the highly, highly competitive Challenge Grant competitions, one of the requirements is that the consortium members demonstrate that there is an intention and an inclusion of schools and districts who may not have the technology of the principal partner in the district, but who, by joining this consortium, would be brought into the next generation of technology. So to be a winner in the Challenge Grant competition you have to partner with more needy school districts. |
|
Okay, so say you are a teacher in one of these impoverished districts and you are
trying to convince those in charge of funding that technology is necessary. What
would your argument be? I think that the argument to be made is that the evidence shows that the technology has enormous benefits for all of our kids. But the preliminary evidence is that it seems to have more special benefits for the kids who are behind academically, for the students who are under-challenged and under-motivated, and for the students who have special needs, special learning needs, whose learning opportunities need to be more broadly-based. We have to go beyond just simple print and lecture. That's not good for any kid, but it's especially deadly for the students who are difficult to teach. And from the school districts like Union City, Chula Vista, and Blackstock, the districts that we site in the national technology plan--we intentionally looked at districts with high concentrations of poverty and disadvantaged students and the results were striking--we know that interactive technologies provide a level of motivational learning resources that are not like the film strips or the radio. We are not talking about the same technology anymore, so the motivational, empowering, engaging capabilities of these technologies are particularly important for students who are under-challenged and under-motivated. Moreover, the highly-effective drill and practice and tutorial software that is out there, particularly in the areas of reading, the basic reading skills and the basic arithmetic skills, shows very promising results for students who need more time practicing. When I was a teacher, I used to have to think of endless iterations of the same problem. The technology can really help us extend the practice time for these students and extend it in highly-motivating ways. And finally, for our kids who are in areas impoverished by location, whether we're talking about inner cities or whether we're talking about rural areas, today's telecommunications technologies give these students the passport, the same access to high-quality learning tools that are not normally available in their communities. Whether we're talking about scientists online or we're talking about museum materials and resources or we're talking about original source materials, it is the connection to a very rich array of resources that is of particular value and concern to the school districts that have been in the past disadvantaged because they are not in the affluent communities. So, again, that's the third reason why technology is more important. |
|
The allegation was made recently by Todd Oppenheimer, and it sounded like it was
widespread, that arts programs and shop programs and various other programs are
being cut to put technology in instead. Do you see that happening? Unfortunately, Mr. Oppenheimer never provided any statistical data in his diatribe. It was a very thinly-documented piece, and if he had shown us some statistics, I think we would have lent some credibility to his argument. There has been a trend in place for the last 15 or so years that overall shows a decline in some schools in music and art and shop programs, I will not deny that, but it has nothing to do with technology. When school budgets get cut, those are the programs that are typically under siege. What has been very exciting, however, is that where there hasn't been a music teacher, some very clever teachers have been able to use interactive software to engage their kids in music. There's some pretty incredible software that supports the arts and there's been a very interesting consortium of arts educators that has now pointed to some of the most exciting applications of the arts through the use of interactive technology. So, I think he's got it wrong. And in the case of shop programs, that is the one area where I have been in some schools where I have literally been standing on the floor of what used to be the auto mechanics laboratory. Most of your car is now made up of computer-based components. I'm thinking particularly of one of these labs in Des Moines, Iowa. In the spot that used to be the auto mechanics lab, the school had replaced it with a CAD cam, computer simulation, interdisciplinary, vocational arts technology program and I think they did the right thing. |
|
Oppenheimer also argues against technology because, not only does he say it cuts
these programs, he says that students don't need these skills because they will
be taught the technology they need to perform their jobs once they are hired. And
my worry is that kids who don't have those skills won't get the jobs if they're
competing with kids who do have those skills. So once again, the advantage will go
to students in more affluent schools, schools with technology. Do you think people
will get trained once they get the job, or do we need to be worrying about this now? I think that we are not talking about an either or choice here. Remember what I said in the beginning. We need students who have much higher levels of capability, whether we're talking about reading or writing, communication, thinking skills, knowledge of scientific phenomena, mathematical concepts. Nobody is talking about technology skills replacing the basic fundamental academic skills that are more important today than ever before. So, it's wrong. Anybody who thinks that if you just give kids a computer, you don't have to be worried about the other skills--of course that's the wrong-headed way to go. I think what business and industry is saying to us is that they would like to make sure that our students are at levels of high performance. All of the evidence in terms of their hiring practices suggests that they are looking for high performance coupled with technological knowledge. Skills, literacy, gives students a step ahead in terms of the competition, and this is in fact the most desirable outcome. And that is exactly the direction that schools and states are taking. In fact if we look at the job market today, the information technology industry just released a major study that said there are a 190,000 jobs that are not being filled. These are technology-related skilled jobs that do not require four years of college. But they do require technology skill and technology capability, so that when you come on the job you can be trained to do more advanced things. So, I think we are right and Oppenheimer is wrong about this. |
|
What about what he says about creativity? He seemed to be talking to parents and
telling them, "Don't push your kids into technology, it forces them to think in
certain ways that are limited." Do you find this to be true? There have been some very interesting studies of how the use of word processing either supports or doesn't support student writing. And the evidence is pretty clear, that simply being able to use a word processor is not going to turn you into a good writer. And, yes, if all teachers are looking at is whether the papers look nice, they're doing their kids a disservice and they're certainly not teaching good writing. What we know about writing--and the same thing's true about art and music, creativity--is that you have to build the fundamentals. I was just in an advanced art class in Las Vegas, Nevada, and according to this art teacher, whose kids produced the most amazing creative stuff I think I've ever seen, you start from the substance, start from the message. You focus on the design and you use the technology to bring the design to fruition, but the technology shouldn't drive the design. Her students certainly understood it. And again, you know what this leads me back to thinking about? If we're seeing in some classrooms--and I haven't seen it--but if there is evidence of kids not writing as creatively or drawing as imaginatively, I think I would go back to the teaching, and I would ask the question what's wrong with the instruction rather than what's wrong with the technology. |
|
It sounds like you visit a number of schools, is that true? Hundreds. Do you just pick a school and go visit? How does that work? Well typically, when I'm going somewhere to be at a conference to give a speech, to participate in a state technology task force meeting, what we usually do is request that whoever is making the invitation help identify a school that's nearby where I could go visit with teachers and students and administrators and parents and talk about what they're doing with technology. And I've seen a mix. I mean I haven't seen only the best, but I've seen some pretty darn exciting things in my travels. |
|
From that contact, what is your impression about technology in schools and the
need for it or the urgency of that need? I think there is a belief on the part of most teachers and most administrators and virtually all parents and all students that these tools ought to be in their schools. And what teachers tell me--and I think this is very, very important--is that they don't just want the technology. They want the time, they want the support, and they want the professional development that will enable them to make good choices and make really good use of and exploit these technologies to their fullest with their students. And what the students tell us--I was just talking to a group of kids who have the technology. They have computers everywhere, and they said, "We're so lucky in these schools to have all these resources." They said to me, "Well, we're worried about the kids in other schools who never get to see a computer more than once a week if they're lucky." And these wise kids, and they're not gifted and they're not rich, but these kids said, "We really have it better than those other kids." |
|
I have one last question, and it's about schools that want to get the technology.
Business and communities have to be involved for this to work. What advice do
you have for schools in that situation, that are about to start or want to make that
connection with their community? If I look at the schools who really seem to have put the pieces together, it's really very exciting to see how these are schools and districts who have become very clear about what their educational goals are and what their expectations are, and they have somehow been able to communicate this really well to parents and to the community and business leaders. Technology becomes a part of accomplishing those goals. I'm sure I have a sense it adds to the excitement and it opens up new possibilities to do things you never thought you could do before. I was just with a group of students who are part of something called Adventures in Supercomputing. There are 70 schools around the country that are part of this project funded by the Department of Energy. There these kids are using these three-dimensional computing tools to track, believe it or not, the migration of raccoons in their community. They're linked to other schools that are doing similar projects of tracking different phenomena. These are kids who are not gifted and who don't have the best of everything, but they really got involved in understanding the three-dimensionality of the project, and they found themselves being the leaders of the discussion online with three other classes where they knew more than anybody else did. I cannot begin to tell you what this meant to these kids. I don't think they ever in their teachers' dreams or their dreams pictured themselves as part of a project that is national in scope. But that's what technology does. Technology, telecommunications particularly, gives us a whole new set of communities of learning that we could be part of, and I think that we're really just at the beginning of understanding how to take advantage of these opportunities. |
|
Visit the Department of Education's Technology Initiatives
homepage. Read more about Linda Roberts. |
|
