August 2005 — Exclusive

Print this article

Click here to receive your FREE subscription to T.H.E. Journal

A Second Look at the Nature of Technology in the Classroom

Research gathered from visiting schools nationwide reveals that while investing in computer-based instruction and assessment programs can improve student learning, an engaged teacher is still far more invaluable in driving student success.

Four years ago, I set out to visit schools across the United States with a question: Why, after investing billions in computer technology for schools are the measurable results so meager?

Throughout that next year, I visited schools in seven states, where I sat in classrooms for weeks observing teachers and students. I shared computer headphones with second-graders, staffed a high school help desk, shadowed a technology coordinator as he raced from building to building, and was drafted as a classroom aide by a harried first-grade teacher. I listened to teachers in lunchrooms and lounges, and watched quietly in elementary, middle, and high schools, taking notes on all I saw and heard.

This was not a highly scientific sampling. In fact, little about the study was highly scientific; instead, it was highly personal. I was intensely curious and wanted an answer to my question. For more than four decades, I had developed print and digital products for the classroom, and believed in the transformative power of computer technology. Computers have reshaped my personal and professional life, so I could not understand why they were not having a similar transforming effect on schools?

The search for the answer took me into urban, rural, and suburban schools. A number were poor, a couple were rich, and many were in between. I did not look for blue-ribbon schools; instead, I sought out the real world, and believe I found it.

I describe my experience in The Technology Fix: The Promise and Reality of Computers in Our Schools, which was published by ASCD in 2004. Though published, the book's story remains unfinished; it always will be. As long as technology continues to change, and schools' use of it evolves, the narrative needs to be continually updated and refreshed.

By my study's end, I had found a simple answer to my simple (some would say simplistic) question. I concluded that computers had no affect on measurable performance because students didn't spend enough time on them doing things that can affect measurable results. But there are some secondary conclusions, which I address in the book, that are more important than my narrow, primary answer. Here are several of these conclusions:

  • For many students, computers are not cost-efficient tools for delivering conventional computer-based training (CBT).
  • Computers can be more valuable as data processors and assessment tools than as delivery platforms for CBT.
  • The equation of Kid + Computer = Learning does not work. Instead, the equation must be Kid + Computer + An Engaged Teacher = Learning. In other words, the teacher, not the computer, is key.

The study offers other conclusions-and several recommendations. They are not revolutionary, but they flow from dynamics already in play (above or below the surface) when I did my study.