(submitted in response to the July 4, 2000 Plain
Dealer editorial “Computers
in education”)
July 4, 2000
Dear Editor,
Many of the facts and
conclusions presented in the July 4, 2000 editorial “Computers in education” are
at best dangerously misleading and at worst erroneous.
You reported that “many
teachers have little knowledge of how to use computers for personal lives, much
less how to use them for teaching” based on
“a recent federal survey [finding] just 33 percent of teachers felt ‘well-prepared’
or ‘very well-prepared’ to use technology in class” and concluded that “some
standards for the teaching of technology to teachers are overly daunting.”
A Market Data Retrieval September
1999 survey did indeed state that only 39% of teachers “felt well-prepared to
use technology for teaching.” This,
however, does not mean that most teachers are unfamiliar with computers. In fact, a June 1999 report from
Market Data Retrieval shows that 46% of all public schools reported that
the majority of teachers have reached the intermediate skill level of
technology use (up from 43% in 1998) and an additional 8% indicated that the
majority of their teachers were at the advanced skill level or were innovators.
Larry Cuban, in an August 4, 1999 commentary in
Education Week, described what he calls “The Technology Puzzle” in
education—70-80% of teachers occasionally or never use computers in the
classroom while 70% of these same teachers regularly use computers at home or
outside of the classroom.
While there are undoubtedly
some teachers who are unfamiliar with computers, the vast majority obviously knows
how to use computers. However, the key
is that many are not sure how they or their students can use computers
effectively in their classrooms.
Given this information, your
question “should technology be a mandatory part of every teacher candidate’s
preparation?” must be seen in a different light. Technology has always been a part of a teacher’s
preparation—whether it took the form of chalk, opaque projectors, ditto machines,
filmstrip projectors, or computers. Even
fifteen years ago, I had to demonstrate proficiency in using the aforementioned
tools as well as splicing 16mm film, using a laminator, cuing a cassette tape
recorder and VCR and booting an IBM PC and Apple IIe computer for my required Media
and Materials course.
What needs to emphasized in
this technology debate is that teachers, already burdened with greater
responsibilities due to larger class sizes and increased pressures to meet
state accountability standards, need more training on effectively integrating
technology within their schools’ curricula, not just training on how to use a
word processor or perform a web search.
There simply is not enough time in the school day for most teachers to
experiment with using technology as a pedagogical tool under conditions where
they often have little support and few rewards. Most simply continue using computers (on their own time) as a
tool for preparation, communication, and research. Far from being technophobes, teachers are pragmatists.
An educator once commented, “If
you see a business man with a laptop and a cell phone, you probably think to
yourself ‘He’s professional and on the ball.’
If you see a teacher with the same tools, you probably think ‘What a
waste of money.’” Your paper’s implicit
conclusion that investment in teacher training would be a waste serves only to
perpetuate in the public’s mind the malicious stereotype of teachers as unprofessional
luddites. This not only does little to
advance the cause of educational reform, but in the end hurts those who are in
the most desperate need of help and who deserve the best educational
environment possible: our students.
Milton Alan Turner