0.2 Newell, p. (march 2010). technology disconnected: teacher  (Page 8/10)

The recognition of the need for training was noted not only by the teachers but also by researchers who understood that linking technology to student achievement would require significant planning and research. The belief that technology would, by itself, improve schools was dispelled by education professors (Cooper, 2000): “There is nothing that says technology will improve student achievement, but we believe that it does because it meets so many different learning styles.” Even leaders of the technology companies that championed NetDay recognized that research needed to be done to improve the pedagogical use of technology (Corcoran, 2000): “I agree 100 percent that technology has not been very effective in the classroom” said Kim Jones, SUN Microsystems Vice President for global education and research, “I would tend to agree with then that probably studies should be done.” Even educational historians such as Larry Cuban, the former present of the American Education Research Association, admitted that “there has been virtual silence among policymakers about the uses and consequences of technology in schools” (Corcoran, 2000). Clearly with education professors, industry leaders, and educational historians in agreement, the need to incorporate computer technology into the classroom would need both study and coordinated planning.

Although many agreed that in order to use computers in the classroom, teachers need some training on how to teach with computers, proposed methods toward this end differed greatly. While some groups believed that the integration of technology in any restructured approach to education involved consistent modeling of effective uses of technology in the classroom in teacher training programs (Knapp&Glenn, 1996), others believed the best approach would be to improve teachers computer skills and comfort with technology by providing each instructor with a computer for their personal use. Both of these approaches understood that reforms needed to start in the schools, with the teachers (Means, Olson,&Singh, 1995). However, these approaches did little more than make computers another tool used by a teacher rather than restructuring teaching around this new tool. Some initial studies on how computers were used in the classroom indicated that computers were used as an adjunct, rather than a central feature, of the curriculum. This view was reinforced by a study of the Milken Exchange on Educational Technology and the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) which reported that most teacher-training programs treated computer technology as an adjunct to the curriculum, and not as a central feature (Bolt&Crawford, 2000). The study further indicated that “teacher-training programs are not showing student educators how to effectively incorporate computer technology into their teaching methodology.”

One important reason for the absence of computers was that resources for significant numbers of computers still were not available for teachers. Even in 2004 after monumental growth in the number of computers available in each school, the average number of computers available per student in schools in the State of California was over five students per computer. With resources (even after nine years of E-Rate monies available) unavailable, the ‘revolution’ in teaching with technology would take a significant amount of time to be realized. Researchers in the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow project, one of the most comprehensive attempts to transform schools with technology, indicated that teachers need more support, not less, when dealing with massive infusions of technology into classrooms (Bolt&Crawford, 2000). Following this reasoning, in order to truly integrate technology into classes, more money for technology support and a plan for its use would be needed.