Christopher D. Sessums :: Blog :: The impact of computers in formal learning environments

This essay is an assigned article review for the course EME 6405: Educational Technology & Teaching.

---

What types of impact do computers have in formal learning environments (i.e. the classroom)?

In an article featured in Jewish Educational Leadership (2003), Peerless et al. examine the implications of computers in schools as well as incorporate a brief discussion of factors that promote the effective use of computer technology.

After briefly outlining the history of technology in education, the authors begin by dividing computer-related instructional activities into five categories: drill, software application, accessing information, computer-aided instruction, and communication (with obvious overlap depending on specific assignments, applications, and objectives).

The authors note that, in terms of the uses of computers in instruction, a “computer education curriculum should be driven by school goals in the area of technology.” (The authors also note that how schools go about implementing such an objective remains open to debate.)

Nonetheless, what struck me as a critical point of contention is how computer use is framed in the context of teaching and learning. Specifically, as presented, computer use is considered separate from the academic curriculum itself.

Within the context of analysis, the authors are looking at computers in schools in terms of a “computer education curriculum” driven by “school goals in the area of technology.” If computers are going to be used effectively in the teaching and learning environment, they need to be employed directly within the context of the situated learning environment, not as a separate vocational curriculum.

Adding fuel to this proverbial fire, the authors note a study prepared by Andrew Trotter (1998) that “identifies four primary goals espoused by educators in recent years” regarding the instructional use of computers:

1. To prepare students for the workplace

2. To improve student achievement

3. To increase motivation and improve school climate

4. To promote school reform by fostering learner-centered instruction”

I believe framing the argument as such does more harm than good. In terms of both research and practice, separating computer use from instructional or pedagogic design is misguided at best. Research alluded to within the article clearly shows that the impact of computers in the classroom is all over the map. It is not the computer that improves a student’s achievement. At minimum, it is how the lesson is constructed and the specific lesson objectives that impact learner achievement. Computer usage in school may indeed impact a learner’s preparedness for the workplace, but shouldn’t that depend on how the technology is used?

Luckily, I believe the authors recognize this point of view. They cite a study by Baker, Hale and Gifford (1997) which suggests that “well-crafted computer-mediated instruction achieves increased learner effectiveness (increased test scores), increased learner efficiency (lessons learned in less time), greater learner engagement (greater student satisfaction with their classes), and greater learner interest (more positive student attitudes toward the discipline)” (Baker, Hale, & Gifford,1997). However, as critics might suggest, the same could be said of well-constructed assignments and courses that do not use computers at all. “Appropriate use of computers” seems to be the recipe for positive student achievement. Yet so is the appropriate use of textbooks on achievement. So, perhaps the question of whether or not computers have a positive impact on student achievement is the wrong question to study.

I find myself somewhat uncomfortable with pronouncements cited by Dusick (1998) wherein “the success of the use of technology in our schools can be measured by the degree to which our students are prepared in these applications” (Dusick, 1998). I am more concerned about how well instructors are prepared to use computer technology. If instructors are unable to construct challenging, thought-provoking, and meaningful assignments that involve computers, then instructional technology is easily rendered useless.

The authors cite Larry Cuban and his scrupulous analysis of computers in the classroom. In particular, the authors note:

“Cuban concludes that “the obligation is for educators, practitioners, and educational policymakers to think about what it is they are after. Only with clear goals can educators be intelligent about how much they want to spend for what purpose, and under what conditions” (quoted in Trotter, 1998, p.3).”

Finally, the authors include a statement that I believe speaks to the heart of how computers will impact student achievement the most in the years to come. It involves a nearly complete re-vision of learning environments in general. The authors note an assertion by Gavriel Salomon (1998) where he concludes that

“good learning is a process of socially based, active co-construction of contextualized knowledge and webs of relations among its nodes.” (Salomon 1998, p. 229) He suggests that the computer can play a significant role in creating learning environments that integrate these perspectives. This environment should reflect a shift from teacher led instruction to an interactive community of active learners, from a structured curriculum to a more fluid one, and from transmission of knowledge to seeking and processing information. On the contrary, it is hard to conceive of a classroom that could create such an environment without the use of technology. The computer can enable the gathering and processing of information, communication among learners, the simulation of contextual situations, and the construction of knowledge. Salomon presents this model as an example of an educational vision mandating the use of technology in instruction.”

This definition of learning is echoed in the relatively new theory of teaching and learning espoused by George Siemens (2004) in his treatise on the concept of "connectivism." As such Salomon and Siemens are not only encouraging factors for the effective use of computers in schools, they are calling for a complete re-write of how schools and schooling should be constructed in an age where computers and computing becomes more and more ubiquitous.

Schooling is necessarily an interactive system. And interaction is intimately connected with the settings in which it occurs. Thus instructors and administrators need to be cognizant of this fact and how computers and computation best plays into the learning environment.

The authors conclude with five issues that they believe will insure that continued investment in computer technology will be worthwhile:

• Clear curricular goals;
• Accessibility;
• Personnel/Professional development;
• Selection/Creation of educational materials; and
• Scheduling.

I find myself in agreement with all of these points, except for “scheduling” which troubles me most. While I recognize that computer distribution in a majority of K-12 institutions runs the range from non-existent to one-to-one, scheduling becomes an issue that is more context- or institutional-specific and not general enough to be included in this list.

Computer technology has permitted us the opportunity to begin thinking differently about how learners learn and how teachers teach. It also has given us the opportunity to reflect on how schools or learning ecologies are organized to support meaningful student achievement. While the authors offer several strong suggestions and thoughts on how to move the argument forward, I believe we need to be careful on how the use of technology and computing is framed. As long as instructional technology exists independently, framed in a separate curriculum, then any hope for documenting a positive impact of technology remains negligible at best.

---

References:

Baker, W., Hale, T., and Gifford, B. (1997). “From Theory to Implementation: The Mediated Learning Approach to Computer Mediated Instruction, Learning and Assessment”. Educom Review, 32:5.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused: Computers in Classrooms. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology Since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dusick, D. (1998). The Learning Effectiveness of Educational Technology: What Does That Really Mean. Educational Technology Review.

Peerless, S., Feldman, E., & German, C. (2003). Digest of Literature on the Impact of the Computer in Instruction. Jewish Educational Leadership. Retrieved 12 January 2006 from http://www.lookstein.org/online_journal.php?id=61.

Salomon, G. and Almog, T. (1998, Winter). “Educational Psychology and Technology: A Matter of Reciprocal Relations”. Teachers College Record. 100(1), 222-241.

Salomon, G. (2000). “It’s Not Just the Tool, But the Educational Rationale that Counts”, Paper delivered at the ED-Media Meeting, Montreal.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved 10 January 2005 from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm.

Trotter, A. (1998). “A Question of Effectiveness”. Education Week