 |
Edited by Dr. David J. Ayersman, Mary Washington College, and Dr. W.
Michael Reed, New York University
|
| formerly Journal of Research on Computing in
Education |
Volume 33 Number 5 Summer
2001
An
Embarrassment of Technology
Why Is
Learning Still Difficult? Part I
Kefyalew Mandefrot
PTO-Interact (People, Technology, and Organization)
Abstract
This article is intended to present differing views on the
meanings of learning as they relate to the use of computers in modern
education. It reviews the relevant literature, identifies problem areas,
and concludes with recommendations on combining technology and learning
as school districts move forward in the information age. Because initial
encounters with technology are difficult for both students and educators
alike, this paper advocates improving the learning environment with
regard to technology by bringing technology support systems into play,
enhancing adult learning as a means of enabling learners, and placing
greater emphasis on social informatics.
The modern education system is awash in technology. Millions of
dollars are spent each year on computers, computer networks, and a wide
range of peripheral technologies designed to turn classrooms into more
productive environments. Although this expenditure on technology is not
universal, and the gulf between the haves and the have-nots continues to
widen, many districts find themselves with a literal overload of
technology. And yet, much of this largesse, this abundance, this
embarrassment of technology, is wasted due to poor planning and
implementation. Why is this happening, and why do educators and students
still find learning difficult despite access to enormously capable
technologies once thought to be a panacea to education in the 21st
century?
Claims and Counterclaims
in Technology Applications
Proponents of information technology (IT) claim that its benefits
include achieving democracy; reducing power; ending reductionism; open
and instant access to learning, teachers, and students; and the
elimination of hierarchy, elitism, and distance. Specifically,
communication and information technologies are said to transform
education (Gilder, 1990), deliver a universal format (Gilder), transform
learning (Perelman, 1992), and transform organizational culture
(Barrett, 1992).
According to this body of research, communication and information
technologies will enable people to have knowledge without learning and
productivity without some investment in learning infrastructure without
considering the human moment (“an authentic psychological
encounter that can only happen when two people share the same physical
space,” Hallowell, 1999, p. 59) in technology applications.
Perelman (1992), in particular, extols the virtues of hyperlearning
technology that will enable virtually anyone to learn anything,
anywhere, anytime, and proposes this new technology as a total
replacement for conventional learning and schools. Perelman contends
that hyperlearning and connections with different computers eliminate
hierarchy.
Like Perelman, MacDonald (as cited in Thompson, 1998) asserts that
online courses will eliminate elitism and liberate learners from the
yoke of a lecture room stating, “the Internet has the potential to
eliminate the elitism. … Internet-based courses break down many of
the barriers that previously prevented people from obtaining a
university or college education. … With online teaching methods,
students feel that they have the professor’s personal
attention” (p. 5).
Most proponents of technology applications in education equate better
learning with the acquisition of more technology. They rarely, however,
confront the subsequent questions of resource allocation for learning,
its support, and the learning infrastructure needed to learn without
distance and hierarchy. Both Perelman (1992) and MacDonald (as cited in
Thompson, 1998) recognize that the key to solving learning problems
through technology rests on this question of distance and hierarchy.
Learning without distance requires modern, well-maintained, networking
systems and equipment. In addition to the initial capital outlays,
schools must be prepared to shoulder the follow-up costs of training,
maintenance, and periodic system upgrades.
Bem (1999) states the benefits of computer-based training as
“CBT is an ideal teaching tool Š learner driven, flexible,
and highly effective … participants can also learn … at
their desks … on the road, at night … available when
employees want it. … CBT courses are also engaging, colorful
graphics, sound, animation and interaction create a lively
environment” (p. 16).
These different claims about the benefits of computer-based training
call for more serious examination, specifically from a social
informatics approach. Social informatics is a multidisciplinary
research field that examines the design, uses, and implications of
information and communication technologies in ways that take into
account their interactions with institutional and cultural contexts
(Kling, Rosenbaum, & Hert, 1998). It approaches computing (using and
learning computers) as interrelated and interacting systems that involve
people, technology, and organizations. It attends to the problems of
computer grinders and minders (those who perform routine tasks,
mostly clerks) as well as those belonging to the experts. Social
informatics provides feedback on the successes and failures of
technology use in modern education and is able to differentiate between
the progress in the human-computer interface (HCI) and how users
actually achieve tasks using improved graphical interface (Nahl, 1998).
This differentiation helps us reconcile advances in computer interface
by understanding how they are used and function.
Franklin (1990) also informs us of the value of social informatics,
noting that “if one doesn’t watch the introduction of new
technologies and particularly watch the infrastructures that emerge,
promises of liberation through technology can become a ticket to
enslavement” (p. 100). Franklin also observes that “what
needs to be emphasized is that technologies are developed and used
within a particular social, economic, and political context. They arise
out of a social structure, they are grafted onto it, and they may
reinforce it or destroy it, often in ways that are neither foreseen nor
foreseeable” (p. 57). According to Illich (1973), “science
can clarify the dimensions of man’s realm in the universe. Only a
political community can dialectically choose the dimensions of the roof
under which its members will live” (p. 95). Both Franklin (1990)
and Illich, therefore, consider social and political issues as more
critical than technology to the increase or decrease of elitism and
suggest the need for more focus on people and their organizations.
In education, learners and users are facing the problem of economic
and cognitive access to the Internet. Some users are becoming more
sophisticated, but the majority are still struggling with basic
computing problems. The effectiveness of the Internet as a tool for
learning is diminished by visible data overloads that, according to Park
(as cited in Byod, 1998), decrease the ability to see the
interconnectedness of things. This problem was recognized early on, but
the requisite skills for understanding and filtering remain relatively
underdeveloped or not well maintained. More than a decade ago, Leiss
(1990) pointed out that, “abundance of data flow requires
elaborate filtering” (pp. 137–139). Given the nature of
these problems and the general lack of quick-fix solutions, it is
premature to recommend online learning as a universal and efficient
learning method for all learning and teaching.
Advocates of computer-based training assume that cognitive and
economic access and the ability to navigate are easy and well developed.
Such assumptions tend to discount or ignore problems inherent in using
PCs and overstate the potential of information technology. They give no
clue to the human moment (Hallowell, 1999) and to emerging learning and
computing problems. Legget and Persichitte (1998) further discuss 50
years of technology implementation obstacles as blood, sweat, and TEARS,
where TEARS is an acronym for lack of time, expertise,
access, resource, and support. Dennis (1998) warns
people not to “chase new technologies” (p. 112) without
examining their claims—claims that tend to deny the complexity of
learning, the necessity of supporting users, and the urgency of creating
a conducive learning environment. Whether more access, more online
training, more online facilities, more information, more virtual
learning, and asking the experts is appropriate to all learners or users
is still unclear. There is a serious focus on interactivity,
hyperlinking, connectivity, access, speed, storage, and unlimited
benefit from technology without focus on human beings, their education,
and skills. The problem in such presentation is the serious omission of
users, support, and learning. To date, there is no satisfactory answer
for the question: Is the interface (interactivity) in the recently
developed computing world mutual, reciprocal, and understandable?
Since the dawn of the computer age more than 50 years ago, technology
has been expected to magically improve our lives without a great deal of
human intervention. Part of the reason that we have been lulled into
this false sense of techno-security is that society has glorified
technology, ignored the importance of social relations in the use of
technology, and, finally, underestimated the difficulty inherent in
understanding technology and using it properly.
Reality, we find, is quite different from the common perception of
technology as automata working toward some state of universal good. To
discern the truth, it is important to ask how many and what kinds of
people are capable of using the technology that is available. Today,
there are an estimated 70 to 80 million office workers using computers
in the United States and another 10 million in Canada. The fact that we
do not know how many of these people can actually transfer a document
file between computers or use e-mail or advanced features such as word
processing is due to our spending too much time observing MBA students
engaged in computing research, for example, instead of observing
ordinary clerks.
Nahl (1998) reports that only 5% of the U.S. population is online.
When asked, nonusers attribute their nonparticipation to a lack of
knowledge and lack of realistic user-training programs. In their study
of electronic mail use at the World Bank, Bikson and Law (1993) also
found a general lack of knowledge among users and a lack of realistic
user-training support programs. What proponents of technology
applications in education and business need to realize is that learning
and using computing facilities requires a balance between what Zeleny
(1989) identifies as “technology support net” (p. 47).
(training and support) and software and hardware. The use of technology,
therefore, needs to account for the skill levels of those using it as
well as the limitations of the technology itself. There is no one best
system, and resource allocation for education is limited, but
recognizing these realities and considering the human element involved
in technology use has economical benefits that must not be overlooked.
In fact, it is the very promise of economic benefits that makes social
informatics such an important part of information technology.
To consider online learning as effortless and empowering without
serious attention to cognitive and economic access and to consider
online learning as the paradigm of a healthy learning experience is
reduction at its worst, and it is likely to solve problems without
personal awareness of the barriers that exist in learning and using
technology (Ferrell, 1987). Before claiming that online learning will
reduce reductionism, it is important to reflect on how the approach to
online learning itself is reducing learning problems to distance, cost,
and hierarchy. Online learning can stretch the process of teaching and
the boundaries of the classroom and at the same time, eliminate the
inequities in gender and class we experience in other forms of media and
learning aids.
Feenberg (1991) argues that there is no eminent criterion of
progress, excellence, and efficiency and suggests that social
institutions must adapt to technological development. Moreover, Feenberg
makes the assertion that “the process of adaptation is reciprocal,
and technology changes in response to the conditions in which it finds
itself as much as it influences them” (p. 130). Based on the
Feenberg research, there would seem to be no single optimum way to
achieve progress, excellence, and productivity. To understand the paths
to these different optimums, one is strongly encouraged to embrace
social informatics as a discipline if for no other reason than the
difficulty of locating literature with the right blend of technical
knowledge and historical perspective outside the milieu of social
informatics.
The practices of learning and teaching involves a high degree of
structure, complicated routines, and problems that are not easily
subjected to the technical and cost-benefit analyses commonly used in
discrete entity models of computing (Kling & Scacchi, 1982).
Although teachers and trainers are limited by environmental, social, and
cultural constraints that exist within the education community and
getting superiors to accept new models and ideas can be difficult,
change can, in fact, occur as schools are reoriented to achieve new
goals.
Training (class)rooms are well-organized cultures with social
organization, curricula, and defined expectations. A computer enters
this social context with no due consideration for probing and posing
questions. Most are inserted into existing classroom structures without
changes in classroom organization. Layering the new technology on the
old (probing and questioning), the implicit on the explicit, and the
self-evident on the problematic creates ambiguity and pressure in
learning and teaching (Star, 1995). Learning without time for asking
questions discounts the premise that learning is a meaning-making or
meaning-finding process. Probing and posing questions is a necessary
part of learning and developing meaning from that which is learned.
Meaning itself is about context, and it emerges from the process of
understanding, a process that defies technical analysis. Research
indicates that the creation of a functional learning environment
(classroom), teachers’ computer knowledge and experience, and the
social organization of the classroom are responsible for improved
learning (Mehan, 1989), not the computer alone.
Disagreement
and Conflict in Computing Environment
Ongoing disagreement and misunderstanding exists between experts in
computing environments. This state of affairs encourages experts to
raise a technical question and develop a cultural solution or vice
versa. Some theorists present sharp criticism of technology while still
focusing on the liberating potential of technology. Such
self-contradiction was identified by Feenberg (1991) as
“technology has become the great vehicle of reification” and
that “science and technology is the great vehicle of
liberation” (p. 76). Reification and liberation cannot have the
same vehicle. Computers as a mirror of work processes and as “a
house of mirrors” (Star, 1995, p. 6-7) are not the same. To
confuse the two encourages conflict, myths, and misunderstanding, rather
than learning.
Given the level of disagreement, conflict in computer use
environments is common. It is therefore naive to expect autonomy,
self-expression, and participation when problems are rejected, and when
existing learning opportunities or impediments are not well discussed,
identified, and recognized. What is upgrade, fast, and recent for the
expert is not the same for other users. What is intuitive and visible
for the experts is not intuitive or visible to users. People still have
problems with computer interfaces, what does “fast and easy”
mean to a learner who is not yet clear about his or her problem or who
is misunderstood for his or her anxiety?
Considering information technology to be a unique technology that is
meaningful without a human being validates what some writers call
computer prophecy, technological drama, and myth
(see Yeaman, 1993, for details). For example, without some authority and
accuracy, using materials from the Internet is not easy. Expecting sound
learning simply from posted online learning or from the Internet without
some organized help is similar to thinking elitism is eliminated simply
by having computers or Web pages.
Educators, researchers, and managers need to help people learn and
use computers before they classify users/learners as computer-phobic or
relate the joy or pain in learning computers to gender and mathematics.
It is better for researchers to examine the meaning and effects of the
words abort, execute, and the acronym CRY in Visual Basic
before they state that girls are more x or y than boys in
learning and using computers.
The immediate manifestation of poor understanding with regard to
learning and its context is the development of negative attitudes among
computer users. Although technology enthusiasts tend to dismiss these
negative attitudes as incidental problems or figments of human weakness,
they are the result of a lack of trust or lack of some arrangement or
contract between a user and an expert or between a trainer and a
trainee.
Apple (1987) indicates the extent to which the focus on the
individual as a stand-alone problem is becoming technology as
a stand-alone solution. Kling and Scacchi (1980) identify major
problems inherent in approaching technology as a stand-alone solution to
all human problems. One cannot reduce problems in information technology
to simple incidental or technical problems. Reduction is a distortion
because it ignores the interaction and the reality of the problems as
well as sound explanations. Doing this creates disagreement, conflict,
and myth, shattering hopes, dreams, and the will to learn rather than
helping people learn.
Instead of focusing on technology bases, it is better to develop
deliberate action to improve learning and to consider what Hallowell
(1999) identifies as the human moment missing in information technology.
Imbalance between the human moment and various learning systems and
their effects are not well recognized. Seen from this perspective, the
above different claims reflect the lack of understanding in technology
applications for the human equation and the role of the human moment in
online learning. Online learning without some support may shatter dreams
for the majority and enhance learning for the few.
Beyond Claims and
Counterclaims
Jones and Paolucci (1998) recently reviewed more than 800 journal
articles to examine evidence that supports claims that technology can
improve students’ achievement. They concluded that the body of
evidence is not large enough to support the supposition, and they
suggest a need for more serious research.
Quick introduction and implementation of computer systems, which is
common in schools and business offices, indicates the extent to which
approaches to technology introduction neglect the necessary steps and
progression in the learning process of different stakeholders. The
common approach minimizes the learning process involved during
implementation. A study conducted by Zammit (1992) reports that
“in the history of computers in schools it has been easier to
approve expenditure to purchase equipment than to pay for time to enable
teachers to develop their knowledge and expertise” (p. 65).
Emihovich (1992) also notes that “computers are purchased with
little thought as to how they will be used, and budgets do not include
monies for software and in-service training” (p. 505).
D’Amico (1990) explains that “computer implementation came
too quickly to the district, asked to make a decision to participate in
May, installed in July, train staff in August, and begin to use in
September” (p. 105). In this situation, it is reasonable to ask if
it is possible or rational to expect teachers to integrate computers
into the curriculum.
The technical challenge of learning to use computers for the first
time is the major hidden problem. Hammond (1990) reported the effects of
exposing teachers and computer users to technology with little prior
training. Coping with the hardware and software questions left them
drained and frustrated. For teachers, information technology became a
labor inducing tool rather than a time-saving device. Here
Hammond’s research indicates the extent to which computers remain
a perplexing burden. The result of focusing on software, hardware, and
technical solutions has given us a huge amount of resources and models
to use—an embarrassing wealth of technological, but no bare
minimum standard to develop or improve technology training. This lack of
standards needs further investigation.
Technology and its use, its purpose, and its meaning are not well
integrated to achieve a common and specific purpose. Computer technology
in particular is considered productive, simple, universal, and free from
the social problems that exist in schools, offices, and factories.
However, there are no satisfactory answers for questions such as
“How does information technology make learning easier” and
“Does it provide improved learning and teaching?” The
problems involved in learning, teaching, technology, and management are
intricate, complex, and have no universal solution. They are not
stand-alone variables. Some overlap. Others are intricately related to
social, technical, and professional practice.
The value of considering the human equation/the human moment in
technology is not in comparing the efficiency of machine and human being
in learning or solving problems but rather in giving recognition to the
learning processes and dignity to learners. Human beings, through their
learning processes, recognize when they are doing something wrong and
can avoid mistakes in the future. Human beings are resilient; they put
facts in context, they identify lists from a database, and they cope
with uncertainties by using pattern detection. To develop these
abilities, a new technological tradition that places learning needs,
skills, and potentials at the forefront is highly recommended. Human
qualities are put to their best use when people are given time to learn,
supported in learning, and given the ability to share information. We
have to recognize that electronic facilities and electronic classrooms
can bring the latest list of files and databases but move human contact
and exchange to the background.
A new technological tradition needs to recognize the boundless
plasticity of human nature. The goal must be to enhance human skill
rather than diminish it. For this purpose, we need to know for whom and
under what condition new information technology will enhance computer
skills. To answer this question, one needs to go beyond interface,
interactivity, and Internet. It is possible to modify, improve, adjust,
and create an effective learning environment. The issue is how to make
the first day with computers a learning opportunity.
The use of relevant, timely methods found in social informatics and
adult learning will allow us to better use existing training resources
to maximize and recognize the flourishing informal learning methods so
that users, learners, trainers, and teachers individually will mix
formal and informal learning opportunities. To encourage this approach,
the following section discusses concepts such as learning environment,
the need for a human-centered computer system, and the possible
contribution of adult learning to computer education.
Suggestion:
Adult Learning Principles and Methods
The common beliefs, basic assumptions, and value commitment most
adult educators have about learning are commonly stated as the adult
learning principles and methods. These basic assumptions are:
- Adults learn best when they feel motivated to learn and when they
have a sense of responsibility for what, why, and how they learn.
- Adult learners are problem centered and tend to think of themselves
as users of instead of recipients of knowledge.
- Adults are ready to learn something that will help them solve
problems arising from their work and social roles.
- Adults have accumulated experiences that serve as a resource in the
learning process.
Some educators present the principles of adult learning as: presage
(prior knowledge, motivation, ability, curriculum, method, climate,
assessment), process, and products. Others present the principles and
methods of adult learning as support, inform, and affirm. In terms of
end-user training, the focus is on effective adult learning practices
that cut across various educational and training settings. Garavan and
McCracken (1993), citing Rakes, show effective adult learning in
end-user training to involve the following activities:
- showing how new computer skills and knowledge relate to what adults
already know,
- making sure that the material is meaningful,
- showing concern for users,
- helping learners be active participants,
- encouraging them to ask questions, and
- knowing whether users are motivated to learn.
The starting point in the adult learning process is stated by Mark
(1989) as “highlight the positive: build unconditional self-esteem
and motivation via positive reinforcement” (p. 48). What emerges
from serious consideration of adult learning principles and methods is a
guide that will help a facilitator take learners through a transition
stage at a comfortable pace, use personal stories that may help learners
break fear about computers, keep activities simple, explain jargon, and,
most important, be patient. These are basically about creating a
learning environment and facilitating adult learning.
Adult education literature indicates that, before a person can learn,
there must be a climate conducive to this learning. This focus on a
climate is related to educators’ main question, “What is the
process that unfolds as people learn?” In the case of computer
training, this means observing what is happening during the first
encounter with computers and then following the learner; it is observing
people who do not know computing but use computers in their daily
work.
An important element during the first encounter with computer
technology is fear and distrust. Fear of personal inadequacy, suspicion,
conformity, and resistance to the initiation of learning is common
(Carroll, 1987). This is why creating a learning environment and
building trust are important first considerations in adult learning and
teaching. Trust is produced in a climate that includes openness,
willingness to share, and respect for human dignity and ability. In such
an environment, learners feel they can communicate and be listened to
actively and not laughed at or treated as odd or different. It is a
climate that supports and encourages the learner to know or feel that
he/she is among people who care and in an environment that enables their
success in learning.
The essence of adult learning is:
- helping the learner understand how to use learning resources,
- creating a conducive learning environment characterized by comfort,
mutual trust, and acceptance of difference, and
- encouraging active participation through valuing learners’
past experience.
The process of adult learning is a collaborative activity. To achieve
this goal, most adult educators consider the issue of creating a
learning environment as an important first step to initiate
learning.
Learning
Environment
Environment is the total ecology: the physical and material aspects
of space plus the social dimensions and dynamics that enhance or impede
learning. The ecology of the study areas is the sum total of physical
comfort, climate setting, and classroom arrangements (Heimlich &
Norland, 1994). It is a place where learners may work together and
support each other as they use a variety of tools and resources in their
pursuit of learning. For Draves (1995), the learning environment
embraces the learning room, teaching tools, and learning media.
Galbraith (1991) addresses the issue of a learning environment in
terms of creating a nurturing psychological climate. According to
Galbraith, sound adult learning process is achieved in a climate that
“suggests mutual respect, collaborativeness, mutual trust,
supportiveness, openness to challenge, risk-taking, pleasure and
friendliness” (p. 20). He considers the issue of a learning
environment to be what happens or what contributes at the first session
to establish a supportive, challenging, friendly, informal, and open
atmosphere.
Knowles (1980) in particular, uses the term educative
environment as identical to learning environment/setting the
climate. Knowles discusses the characteristics of an educative
environment conducive to learning. Setting the climate for learning
includes the way learners are greeted, oriented, introduced, and treated
by the instructor. Setting the climate involves asking learners what
they are, who they are, what special resources they have, and what
questions, problems, and concerns they have.
In learning and teaching, the environment is critical. The initial
encounter with computers (the initial phase of learning to use
computers) is a period of crisis, during which feelings of self-efficacy
play a crucial role in determining who will drop out and who will not
stay with it (Nahl, 1998). Hoff (1979) calls the problem in learning
environments education shock, a state in which a substantial
portion of the learning environment is new to those experiencing the
situation and a condition in which the learning situation is
distressing. Part of education shock is “a clash of
expectations,” (Hoff, p. 130) which is the result of having a
curious and mythical view of classroom environments, computers,
learning, and learners.
Vella (1994) describes this myth thus: “the world of computers
is still a fearful unknown to these venturesome” (p. 193). She
says of her experience with computer training: “the mass of
information frightened me off and I became another statistic: another...
learner who began a course and then dropped” (Vella, p. 14). Vella
indicates that the learning environment was not a place where her
learning was fostered and supported. Freeman (1975) considers an
environment where learning is not fostered and supported for women
learners as a null environment, an environment where there is no
connection for women. The experience of Vella and the work of Freeman
validates the findings of Beer and Darkenwald (1989), who concluded that
a “climate that is not appropriate for adults will not facilitate
learning or lead to satisfaction with the learning” (p. 33).
Unstructured-use environments in computer classrooms result mostly in
boys dominating the access and use of computers, which can potentially
generate anxiety among female students or force them to quit
learning.
What makes climate setting an important first step in learning is
that it brings a sense of security and trust to the learner and the
facilitator. Trust and security help reduce conflicts, apprehension, and
misunderstandings common during the first encounter with computers. The
nature of the classroom social climate affects not only learning
outcomes but also the persistence of adults in educative activities.
Read
more...
Copyright © 2001, ISTE (International Society for Technology
in Education). All rights reserved.
| computer effect on student productivity, negative and positive aspects |
|
