Public School Teachers Using Machines In the Next Decade/ Article Review

In his 1994 article “Public School Teachers Using Machines in the Next Decade” Larry Cuban sites three impulses for the need to bring more computer technology in schools. First, the drive to incorporate computer technology in schools is motivated out of fear that students will not be able to compete in the job market and adjust to a changing marketplace. The second impulse is a move toward self-directed learning. Computers are used as a tool to help construct individual understanding. The third impulse is toward productivity. Schools will incorporate computer technology because it more time efficient and cost affective. Each of three impulses are interlocking (151).
Cuban continues his analysis by providing three possible scenarios for the future of technology in schools. The first is the “Technophile Scenario: Electronic Schools of the Future Now.” Although Cuban cites this as the least likely of the three scenarios to occur, in this model curriculum is student centered. Students use the computer as a tool to learn, teachers act more like coaches assisting students in the learning process (152-153). The second is the “Preservationist Scenario: Maintaining while Improving Schools.” In this model the computer is used in schools to improve productivity. However, they will not substantially alter existing ways of organizing schools (153-154).
Finally, Cuban offers the “Cautious Optimist Scenario: Slow Growth of Hybrid Schools and Classrooms.” Here, computer technology in classrooms will yield a slow steady movement toward fundamental changes in teaching and schooling (154-155).
In conclusion Cuban offers his predictions for the future based on the three scenarios. Cuban predicts that there will be a combination of the preservationist and cautious optimist theories. He believes that the preservationist theory will ring true for high school teachers more then elementary schools because high school curriculum is more subjects based. Because they are more subject based Cuban hypothesizes that more traditional methods of instruction will continue to be used. Cuban also cites that high schools are more susceptible to external pressures and have less time with individual students to promote computer use, thereby supporting the preservationist theory (157).
Cuban offers the prediction that elementary schools will lean towards the cautious optimist theory. Cuban hypothesizes that in elementary school the potential for change in computer use is greater because teachers have more contact time with each student and more time to set aside in the day to commit to computer technology.
With the benefit of writing this review a decade later I can say that some of Cubans predictions are correct. However, because of the No Child Left Behind Act, it is clear that elementary school and high schools face equal amounts of pressure. Cuban was correct in predicting the business model would seep in public education. We have seen a great increase in the use of computer in school since this article was written. However, I think the cautious optimist theory can be applied to high school as well as elementary school.

Teachers View of Computers as a Catalyst for Change in their Teaching Practice/Article Review

Teachers View of Computers as Catalysts for Change in their Teaching Practice/Article Review

In their 1999 article published in the “Journal of Research on Computing Education”. Dexter and Anderson tested a sample of forty-seven K-12 teachers to discover how much the computer played a part as a catalyst for change in their classrooms. The vast majority of teachers responded that the computer did play a part and was not the main reason cited for change in the classroom. “The computer facilitates, but does not drive change” (Teacher 31.1). Most teachers cited personal reflection as the main catalyst for change.
According to the article teachers used computers in the classroom for a variety of reasons. Teacher 16.1 uses the computer as a tool for himself because it is more effective and timely. Teacher 21.3 sees the computer simply as an add-on. One respondent used the computer very minimally as sees it as “overrated” (Teacher 35.5).
The study showed that teachers with formal training in computer technology are more likely to use computers as a catalyst for change in their classrooms. Teacher 23.3 learned to use the computer in college. In his science classes he uses the computer to keep an interactive log with his students.
Some respondents cited as a major catalyst for change specific schools whose overarching curriculum is project based. In one New York school, Teacher 33.3 uses computer graphing programs and spreadsheets in his math class regularly. In the same school Teacher 32.1 uses the computer to engage students in multimedia projects.
The Dexter and Anderson’s article concludes by making suggestions for teachers. Since most of the teachers did not see the computer as an automatic catalyst for change they concluded that a revision of the image of computers in education is necessary. They also stated that using the computer has to be a decision that teachers make themselves. Finally, Dexter and Anderson cited the need for more professional teacher development courses in computer technology.

Ensuring Equality of Eucational Opportunity in the Digital Age/Article Review

Morse's article on ensuring equality in the digital age offers some much needed insight into the inequalities in schools on the topic of computer technology. Morse shares some key terms with the reader such as "digital divide." The term digital divide is used to illustrate the inequalities between social groups with respect to computers and accessing the Internet. Morse cites some statistical examples of the divide with regard to race, class and disability. He points out some tangible and less tangible inequalities in the school system and offers possible solutions to the problem of inequality in computer technology in schools.
In my own experience in schools, recognizing Morse's assessments that not all schools have made computer technology regularly available to students is apparent. I have worked in many classrooms of varying ages and in only two classrooms have computers been available to any students. Morse discusses the difference between integrated and additive technology. In one of the classrooms the students used four computers regularly and were mostly proficient, illustrating the integrated method. The other class was a preschool class who had a computer donated to them. The computer had outdated software and was used only as a reward. The teachers were not proficient in the use of the computer and made no effort to teach the students. In the class only two students used it with any regularity. However, the school I will be placed in during fall term - Armadillo Technical Institute in Phoenix, OR - has a one to one computer student ratio. In my visits to the school I saw computer technology being incorporated into nearly every lesson. Although many of the students at the school are very compute savvy some are not. True to Morse's assessment, I found that students struggling with the computer assignments were learning disabled students with disabilities. Thankfully, in this era of education with NCLB attention is being given to students with disabilities. It is the teachers responsibility to assure that these students receive the help and support they need to achieve equity in the classroom.
I agree that teacher educators should make every effort to teach perspective teachers to work with computers. Although this may be time consuming and expensive it is vital to the changing technological instructional world. Morse states as one of the solutions to closing the digital divide as offering computer summer camps. It would be a great educational benefit if the university or area schools with the right capabilities could offer affordable seminars on basic computer instruction to Rogue Valley teachers and perspective teachers.
Obviously we have a long way to go on closing the digital gap as a society but the article states that teachers should do the best they can with the resources they have, that is what I intend to do.