Schools, Learning and Computers

Any discussion about the use of computer systems in schools is built upon an understanding

of the link between schools, learning and computer technology. When the potential use of

computers in schools was first mooted, the predominant conception was that students would

be ‘taught’ by computers (discussed by Mevarech & Light, 1992). In a sense it was

considered that the computer would ‘take over’ the teacher’s job in much the same way as a

robot computer may take over a welder’s job. Collis (1989) refers to this as “a rather grim

image” where “a small child sits alone with a computer” (p. 11).

During the late 1970s and early 1980s, computers became more affordable to schools,

permitting a rapid decrease in student-to-computer ratios. While tutorial and D&P software

continued to be developed (Chambers & Sprecher, 1984), a range of other educational

software was developed that was not based on the premise of teacher replacement, for

example, simulation software, modelling and tool software. However, the major argument

used to support the introduction of greater amounts of computer hardware into schools

concerned the perceived need to increase the level of computer literacy of students (Carleer,

1984; Downes, Perry, & Sherwood, 1995).

Towards the end of the 1980s and into the 1990s, while the computer literacy rationale still

remained (Hannafin & Savenye, 1993; Hussein, 1996), the major rationale for having

computers in schools was more concerned with the need to use computers to improve

student learning (Welle-Strand, 1991). Broadly speaking, computer literacy is a component

of Technology Education, which is distinct, but not necessarily separate from, using

technologies such as computer systems to support learning and teaching processes. The

latter is generally referred to as educational technology; and is applied to a wide range of

technologies such as blackboards and chalk, pencils, books, and slide-rules to television,

facsimiles, and computers. This review will focus on the use of computer systems as

educational technologies.

Since the beginning of the 1990s, educators have been particularly concerned that very little

of the potential of computers to support learning in schools seems to have been realised,

despite a sufficient installed base of computers. Numerous studies (Becker, Ravitz, & Wong,

1999; DeCorte, 1990; Plomp & Pelgrum, 1992) have shown that few teachers facilitate

substantial student use of computers. Therefore, while it is assumed in this review that

computer support for learning is essential, some discussion of the rationale is required as a

background to later discussions concerning models for the use of computing systems to

support learning and teaching.

Computers solve problems

Technology is developed to solve problems associated with human need in more productive

ways. If there is no problem to solve, the technology is not developed and/or not adopted.

Applying this principle to educational technology would mean that educators should create

and adopt technologies that address educational problems, of which there are many.

Further, a technology will not be adopted by educators where there is no perceived need or

productivity gain. This is what Lankshear and Snyder (2000) refer to as the ‘workability’

principle. Therefore, when discussing applications of computer technology to education the

question must always be asked, “What educational problem(s) needs to be addressed?”.

This question needs to be asked at all levels of decision-making, from the teacher planning a

programme, to a school administrator purchasing hardware and software, to an educational

system officer developing policy and strategic plans.

At the teacher level the question becomes: am I satisfied with the educational opportunities I

am able to offer children in school classrooms? While teachers should never be completely

satisfied, and they will always strive to do better, the question really is whether what they

provide adequately develops the potential of the students and adequately prepares them for

a productive life in society. Many educators (e.g. National Centre for Vocational Education

Research, 2002) and educational commentators (e.g. Murdoch, 2001) believe that what is

Impact of ICT on Learning & Teaching Page 5 of 73 Dr C. Paul Newhouse

offered in school classrooms in developed countries such as Australia is hopelessly

inadequate to match the needs of our society and the needs of individual students. Schank

and Cleary (1995, p. ix) put this succinctly when they state, “Today's schools are organized

around yesterday's ideas, yesterday's needs, and yesterday's resources (and they weren't

even doing very well yesterday).” An increasing number of educators (e.g. Schlechty, 1997)

are sure that part of the solution is to provide better technology support for learning

environments. Schank and Cleary (1995) argue that we know enough about learning to

support it with computer systems, using software that allows children to experience activities,

at school, that have been impossible or difficult, and thus avoided in the past.

At the school and system levels the educational-problem question becomes whether the

resources available to the school are being most efficiently employed to provide the most

effective educational opportunities for students. It becomes much more a question of

productivity, a balance between inputs (resources) and outputs (learning outcomes).

Investing in computer technology means reducing investment in other resources (e.g., books,

teachers, buildings). Will using computers provide better learning outcomes than the

equivalent investment in those other resources? If so, what level of investment in computers

compared with other resources will provide the optimum output? Very few educators and

educational commentators would advocate no investment in computers, even if only using a

computer literacy rationale. A few advocate an investment that supports almost all education

being conducted electronically, particularly online, often referred to as e-learning (e.g. Bonk,

2001). Most are somewhere between these extremes.

At the political level the question comes down to whether an adequate investment is being

made in education when compared with other services that our community requires.

Providing computer technologies for schools has usually involved increases in investment in

education that must be justified to the community, and that is usually done by quoting

student:computer ratios. While research tends to have been somewhat inconclusive,

increasingly studies are showing investments in computer technologies result in significant

improvements in learning, however it is measured. For example, a study in West Virginia

(Mann, Shakeshaft, Becker, & Kottkamp, 1999) found an average effect size of over 0.4

standard deviations, which was claimed to be more cost-effective than a reduction in class

sizes. Education is central to the long-term well-being of our society and individuals,

teachers and students need all the support they can get; hence the need to consider the

potential of all available technologies.

This discussion will assume that educators should create and adopt technologies that

address educational problems and/or improve productivity. The rationale for the use of a

technology to support learning should arise from dissatisfaction with the educational

opportunities offered to learners and a striving to do better.

Avoid Techno-centric Thinking

Warnings have been made for decades about falling into the trap of what Papert (1987) calls

‘technocentric thinking’. Most educators would claim not to be technocentric; however, when

discussing the use of computers in schools there is always the danger that the focus will be

on the technology, particularly the hardware. When making decisions about the use of

computers in schools, particularly budgetary decisions, there is a tendency to start with a

consideration of the hardware, then the software and perhaps consider the users and

learning last and least. Rather, most educators (e.g. Fullan, 1995; Means & Olson, 1994;

Papert, 1987) would agree that all discussions and decisions should be prefaced with a

consideration of learning theory and the learning environment; for, indeed, educational

technologies are only a mediator in learning processes, and only one of many.

Rieber and Welliver (1989) define educational technology as a process involving, “a

systematic approach to identifying instructional problems and then designing, developing,

implementing, and evaluating instructional solutions” (p. 22). They argue that, “In order for

the full potential of educational technology to be realised, it must be viewed more as a

process rather than just the implementation of educational tools” (p. 22). Thus the

educational technology process begins with the identification of an educational problem, not

Impact of ICT on Learning & Teaching Page 6 of 73 Dr C. Paul Newhouse

with the existence of a technology. In other words, we need to start with the well-supported

beliefs we have about learning and make sure that any solutions are consistent with them.

There is no doubt that the most commonly held set of beliefs about learning, well supported

by research, are those bearing the label of constructivism. As the Committee on

Developments in the Science of Learning (2000, p. 10) put it, “the contemporary view of

learning is that people construct new knowledge and understandings based on what they

already know and believe”. Further, there is an assumption that learning occurs within a

physical and psycho-social environment usually labelled as the learning environment (Fraser,

1994). These were not the commonly held views of learning when current schooling

structures were developed over a century ago. If a rationale for computing is to be grounded

in an understanding of the nature of learning and teaching, this must begin with an

examination of learning environments and the key precepts of constructivism.