ED 317 186

TITLE

IFSTITUTIONPUB DATENOTEPUB TYPE

IR 014 268

Educational Technology. NEA Special CommitteeReport.National Education Association, Washington, D.C.ee25p.; Color illustrations may not reproduce well.Viewpoints (120)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Advisory Committees; Computer Networks; *Computer

Uses in Education; Distance Education; *EducationalTechnology; Elementary Secondary Education; *FacultyDevelopment; Higher Education; *Planning; *PolicyFormation; Professional Associations; TeacherEducation; Teacher Role; *Technology Transfer

IDENTIFIERS *National Education Association

ABSTRACTThe Special Committee on Educational Technology of

the National Education Association (NEA) was given the task ofreviewing the status of educational technology in the public schoolsand making recommendations for appropriate NEA policy andprogrammatic activities. Topics discussed in this report includetechnology and change in both the environment and the teacher's role;technology and long distance learning; collaboration and collegialityvia bulletin board services and interlinked nationwide networks; andplanning for technology. The policy positions presented include: (1)all teachers should have regular access to a computer and appropriatesoftware, including classroom management software; (2) schooldistricts and teacher associations should investigate options forteachers to have access to computers in their homes for training,instructional development, and research purposes; (3) teachers shouldbe provided with both initial and regular inservice training in theuse of technological applications for learning and management; (4)the NEA should begtn planning to create interlinked, interactivenetworks for teachers; (5) the planning focus should be on students'needs rather than on the technology; (6) the involvement of NEA inthe planning, implementation, and evaluation of long distancelearning proposals and programs should be encouraged; and (7)planners need to understand the changing responsibilities of theinstructional staff and provide time and flexibility for professionaldevelopment, research, and planning. A list of committee members isincluded. (GL)

************************-f****************************** **************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

"X,CM714W117470ViiIra ?Mir" . '-f1;4k-x1R..v.jr

1. ,.;

.

: 4"-11 ;

4 1 1.e5':. f447J-..,

tY"

' "IP, 1S

-410.-21; 2146, ,t r

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research sad Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived Irom the person or organizationoriginating itMinzr changes have been made to improvereproduction Quality

Points of view or opinionsstated this document do not necessarily represent officialOERI position or policy

*It

14.

4

0.1424,4?41;f,.0'4, -S-1

-sa t -' 1141

..., . its* , -:_,...+4; ,s. ,,, e

.,14" 1-.,64 ait-1. tiLt_741 tk i, 4 ---,--i ---,A .,.. i ;.,

..5trAsq- 4.- A -44, ,1-4:, 44, ..,i- .1-5.-...+ A

ros 41..#

t.r3i vt.,

:7

4:1*4sZ

1/1, :"..).47;-

.14.%

4Nit A

:f4( 4411Ff`

rt. s=41"

14'

.1

-4"

*te KiqiNi'N.ZV. _1

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Gary Watts

44, TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

4'S 1:1' ,

-k

ci;

0,- k f, ..'fo ,

. .5; tft C.,;,41., -1.

4.17,"

4'4.2

.r.`

1:.*:'.:",:'

NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

1201 Sixteenth Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036

3

3::

EDUCATIONAL

CHNOLOGY

3 Technology and Change

5 General Principles

Restructured environmentThe teacher is central

8 Schools and Technology

Technology = value addedNew teacher rolesLong distance learning

11 Teachers and Technology

15 Collaboration and Collegiality

Bulletin board servicesInter linked, nationwide networks

17 Planning for Technology

19 Policy Recommendations

General principlesPolicy positions

Committee Members(Inside Back Cover)

NEA SPECIAL COMMITTEE REPORT

Cr-

Gj

...: ?.: '.1,:-.1:: .:t

t' i '. ;'. - :` ::-._..."-k.,

......s.: ::::., -, t . s :..0..... 44

A ..... *4 : ..., , '. ";) 41 t-: , ..,...1.

-e'' V ' : 4'tlf....k.,, '.' : T :{'* r i..

'''' `5T '''.i%i ,

-- , , 't r-ri

?.tIsA '

5, 2'.

;

. %-

s'f..tr,At 1.-,.,:';

,1

' 7

."11111.

Is'

l`r1 :1".

`;

he public schools of America of the late 1980s are in

an era of change. Change is occurring in all forms and

coming from all directions.

The student is changing. Family patterns are dramati-

cally different from those of just a few years ago. The

population is graying while young people become poorer,

more heterogeneous, and more likely to be side-tracked

by drugs, dropout problems, teenage pregnancy, and

other social dysfunctions.

The teacher is changing. The typical teacher is acquir-

ing higher levels of training and becoming more experi-

enced. At the same time low pay and uninspiring working

conditions are discouraging teachers and creating short-

ages in.a growing number of areas.

The school structure is changing. Reform programs,

innovative projects, and restructuring proposals abound.

The education reform movement that began in the early

1980s surges on, but the direction is changing, from the

early emphasis on top-down efforts to further standardize

and regulate to more recent efforts to decentralize, indi-

iidualize, and provide more flexibility.

The American economy is changing. The shift from an

industrial to an information and service economy signals a

profound need to reexamine the school curriculum and

pedagogical methods. The analytical, collaborative, inno-

vative, problem-solving American workers needed for

TechnologyAndChange

PAGE 3

industry and business will require a different educationfrom that required by an individual expected to do stan-dardized routine work in a factory.

Some observers are advocating the expanded use oftechnological innovations as the method to respond tothese many changes. While that may be too narrow aviewpoint, these changes provide an excellent opportunityto examine the potential benefits of integrating technologyinto the schools of America.

The 1987 National Education Association Representa-tive Assembly approved the creation of the Special Com-mittee on Educational Technology. In authorizing thecommittee, the Representative Assembly directed it tobuild on the work of the recently completed UnitedKingdom/United States project on microelectronics ineducation, technology projects of state affiliates, and vari-ous reports commissioned by the NEA and otherorganizations.

The specific charge given the committee was to reviewthe status of technology in the public schools and makerecommendations for appropriate NEA policy and pro-grammatic activities.

The committee believes that computers, facsimile

machines, multimedia technology, interactive video, tele-

communications, hypermedia, and other technological

advances can hold real promise for support and enrich-

ment of classroom instruction and classroom management.

The committee shares the hope that when conceived and

implemented appropriately, technological innovation can

contribute significantly to the improvement of educational

opportunity, to managing the increasing knowledge base,

and to improving the quality of work life for school

employees.

GeneralPrinciples

PAGE 5

Restructured environment

Educators and other school employees have a unique needand opportunity to plan for the inevitable inclusion oftechnology in the American schools. The committee be-lieves that the integration of technology should be con-ceived in terms of a restructured school environment, notas piecemeal appendages grafted onto the current schoolstructure and curriculum. To the extent that resources aredevoted to the research and development of the technol-ogy, similar efforts must also be devoted to matching thesophisticated technology with a sophisticated pedagogyand curriculum designed to educate Americans for the21st century.

Indeed, the committee expresses the strong opinion thatthe schools must focus the uses of technology not on moreroutinized standardization of the learning environment buton the opportunities to enrich instructional lessons, toindividualize instructional objectives for students, toextend the shift from a centralized to a decentralizedlearning environment, and to support the teacher by eas-ing the classroom management burden of reports and pa-perwork, thus allowing the teacher to spend more timewith students.

The teacher is central

The committee recognizes and confirms the importantconclusion of the Office of Technology Assessment(OTA) in its recent report, Power On!, that the teacher iscentral to the full development of technology's use in theschools. Technology cannot be an end in itself. The use ofcomputers and other technologies should be seen as an in-tegral part of the whole school curriculum, aiding andabetting the best instructional practices and curriculardesigns. If the implementation of the rew technology isconceived improperly, one more passing fancy can beadded to the unfulfilled promises of schools without walls,the discovery method, behavioral objectives, the newmath, team teaching, TV courses, and many other dis-carded hopes for change.

1 TJ.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Power On! NewTools for Teaching and Learning, OTA-SET-379, Washington, DC,September 1988.

PAGE 6

9

','vt"tsigi",cfk-kr14-,

,,e. a' . Z. ...

:: ;'

, .

rA

e

,

4 .

, rr is

it411.;.S°1:

4 . ;i, =

tarr ..'t* '113544't4

A'`r t*.

St

55')

,4

k 1.

44.1. tiDe .

'.4 A.4,14' ,. 14,

,4..n. 1,61 4_..41, .,,...ic., 1

-191} t';' G 7

!,

%1A) it4417';::!::* r- klfro ly::'?:i ,,.';'-'.2;4%. s.':;..1.1k t::a

' c . ..r..tos:L.

7

ill.' 41;C 4 s.,iiit A

..4.4",4::41ti':'`r1.4f4.14/244*):,..PIIS-

..%' 'A As:. 1 -4-"'er.t.14.,1*:t1..._-;i1,4

4 ?

Viil.,, etA..01-- L'.° k ir ActrY-tr.firt.t;

- - '',st'4, -"I,. 4,1A...* t','

V' ..m,-..- 7-i,,,.. # f L -, _ _44, ,,...

- I. . ..,- t:f i -,,Zsills;47.V..,-r t.., ..

,,,. . ,..,,.t,,..."1:,.1.j' - giaii.". ' , " 'is' -.4,4,_;-.=.1..v.,...9 ,{ tMk .4 Ar. Z-r-Z,t, !

5' =,;:-i..,,,; '4. - VV.h' qiri 4410,,,,, Z,4:0'4's 4 04 4 , 0..'t .1%,, .1- ''' i',..1- ..!i'',..1 pot: 'el'. ."s ".' -.

..-.C. ,... rfk

ri II..

--.. `i. . i..0..-, .3 .. ,-s.;,r4-Pli.,,A,1..x of c ,:*-Po.til

-*-4,,kr,- . * ''.vot A, ti j. ,* '' Is ."..'31'''',:fil-

:a t:Niit' 4-CA 'S i

As.:,....-)...t 1 ,,k.i ,,,,;',V ,s4 ,,:., , try,Tr .; iott'`1:

.1, ,^. o,-..,. 0-,,,, , ,;,..: , .. 4 ,s.'0-S ,''' 4

$''4".A..!'i:4-;''.r 1.' '...'*.k ..' r

tc ''.."'$a 4I?ift '''*'V'L

,t `!,..,'"1;74, `Iti..1,...:7t;.1.;`,1t.'1"...pl-..",ys c7,4. C';'`

; 'I;

. , A

... C.C.OV.*-, IP'?' '. '

'''''' 1.2: 'tI'7,X11 -:. ;74 444 1, '.. : ...i :Ssi A..., ,171.- re IV,,''..'?,/:+;

,

..14, . i.-: --- .,-i-'.'.,

't , A. ,..1:_-;, y .,,,, iet, I .. : <,.....,,

, ..,,,i .4-lit.,- ,, rr=,,, ' It- k ...,.,,51 f --..

xi-?cr.!, s-... :, ,iJ- 5-, ,.,:-1.1;';',..1.:,-N-JI:AC. .7A , .. ,. ,... ex%

1.41.T., 55

... ,))14< N, Zle.:,`, .' t s,k-vs.t,'" ..Iti, (0.1

'21` '''' 'V:4 '71..41,1%?,p1:1.4, -f"-...4.7.

....45..V.4-A.A'et.,,,,..."). :' kr /.e-

" Vi;41:lie X, '1/4;';' ., .,4,. 4.-:,,,,,,,A,

c4, ;1;

ei...t--4t

5.1 4-t

4'41.1. .,.

r;*--"4.1.;11:.44;

"iifl. e., .1411?,$'1',1, ti4

l':'`.*I'' ',krriii "" : 'r'ltirt.

*4 0..% '''''',,,,11. .,p,.`. ',:}! TT `

Af.,\P , 0. .

,,.s....6....,1

'.7r21`f `. 1,k . -. , , br,..10 "

4"'

Two separate and distil t visions of the future potential

of technology permeate the literature. One vision sees

technology's use as a substitute or remediation for work-

ers. This vision is based on the assumption that high qual-

ity technology can be more efficient and probably less

expensive than human capital.

Schools Technoingy = value added

And The other vision sees technology's use to enrich humancapital. This "value-added" perspective visualizes using

Technology technology to expand the employees' scope in handlingand sorting information, in allowing modeling and othercreative scenario building, in relieving employees fromreports and other administrative burdens, and in servingas a tool that expands their discretion rather than furthersimplifies their jobs.

One example of the value-added approach is referencedby a noted economist in a recent report for the NEA. Thereport states:

One of the key lessons to emerge from the GeneralMotors-Toyota joint venture in California is that theJapanese automaker does not rely on automation andtechnology to replace workers in the plant. In fact,human workers still occupy the most critical jobsthose where judgment and evaluation are essential.Instead, Toyota uses technology to allow workers tofocus on those important tasks where choices have tobe made. Under this approach, technology gives work-ers the chance to use their imagination and their insighton behalf of the company.2

The committee embraces the value-added vision as themodel for the expanded use of technology in education.As the OTA report notes, "Educational technologies arenot self-implementing, and they do not replace the teach-er."3 The acceptance of the value-added approach is thefoundation for the general principles cited above.

2 Robert B. Reich, Education and the Next Economy, National Educa-tion Association, Washington, DC, 1988, p. 16.

3 U S. Congress, p. 16.

PAGE 8

New teacher roles

The committee also recognizes that as schools utilize mul-tiple technologies and restructure programs and curricu-lum, the roles of teachers and other educational personnelwill change. The Christa McAuliffe Educators4 devotedsignificant time to the examination of the question, "Whatare the most appropriate roles of teachers as technologybecomes more available and sophisticated'?" The emerg-ing roles identified by the Educators are as follows:

1. Collaboratorinitiates and nurtures relationshipsthat expand the boundaries of the classroom andshares knowledge with colleagues. A collaboratorfully participates in establishing the standards andeducational climate of the school.

2. Mentor/Mcnteeteaches and learns from his/herstudents, community, and colleagues.

3. Plannercreates a vision of the future, developsmethods to achieve that vision, and structures thelearning environment.

4. Researcheraccesses, analyzes, and organizes in-formation. A researcher guides students in under-standing problem-solving strategies and developingdiscovery and learning skills.

5. Seekerventures outside of the classroom to importideas and rescurces.

Indeed, the concept of restructured schools (whereeducational decisions are decentralized and shared,where programs are tailored to meet the individualeducational needs of the student, and where the princi-ples of collegiality, cooperative learning, and creativityare nt. !lured) fits hand-in-glove with the value-addedapproach to integration of technology into the schools.

The concept of a computer lab down the hall utilizedby a few teachers just doesn't cut it any more. For exam-ple, the real concern of the schools is student writing

4.0M=MINDIIM.

The Christa McAuliffe Institute for Educationat qneering is designedto stimulate expi ration by teachirs into the stbti the art and scienceof teaching. The Institute is a program of the al Foundation forthe Improvement of Education created by the Na:.. . Education Asso-ciadon. Each year five educators are selected to research and teach.The 1985 Educators focused on integrating technology into schools andthe roles required of teachers.

PAGE 9

1. 12

skills, not word processing. The schools should not putthe teacher into the electronic box. The technology canserve as a tool, a resource, a support, a supplement, anenrichment, but the teacher/student relationship is still atthe heart of the process. In fact, the introduction of tech-nology into education can enhance that relationship bycreating new and additional options for learning and bygiving time back to the teacher from the growing burdenof nonteaching duties.

Long distance learning

One technology receiving considerable attention is thetelecommunications technology of "long distance learn-ing." This technology exemplifies the contrasting peda-gogical choices.

Long distance learning has several distinct advantageswhen conceived and implemented appropriately. Longdistance learning can broaden a classroom's horizons bychanneling unique experiences from other sites throughelectronic field trips or live participation in historic or sci-entific events. It can provide opportunities for isolatedrural areas to receive curricular offerings normally un-available or impractical. Long distance learning can in-deed serve as a resource, a supplement, and anenrichment.

The down side of the pedagogical choice is the optionof replacing the personal student/teacher relationship witha teacher in the electronic box. An everyday replacementdiet of this latter option will likely be limited by the prac-tical problems of inflexible schedules, lack of attention tounique student needs in distant locations, and boredomfrom "talking heads" methodologies.

The crucial yardstick differentiating between the twochoices is the availability of a licensed teacher in the re-ceiving classroom to introduce the instructional material,monitor the presentation, answer questions of and interactwith each student, evaluate the progress of the learningactivity, and make adjustments for each student as neces-sary. Quality teaching is a matrix of professional decisionmaking, which requires on-site attention.

The committee believes that the Association and itsaffiliates should be involved in the planning, implementa-tion, and evaluation of long distance learning proposalsand programs to provide students the highest qualitylearning experience.

13

The OTA report presents several findings of importance

to understanding the relationship between teachers and

technology.5 While most teachers report a desire to use

technology in their teaching, only half of the nation's

teachers report that they have used computers in instruc-

tion despite the presence of computers in almost all K-12

schools nationwide. The report comments, "Teachers are

not the problem, and without them there. can be no solu-

tion. Most teachers want to use technology, but few have

found ways to exploit its full potential."

There are real and substantial reasons for the above

circumstances. It is true that quality and technical prob-

lems exist, but of critical importance is the fact that

schools are not doing enough to help teachers become

familiar and comfortable with computers.6

To learn to play a piano, one must have an instrument

personally available and quality time to practice. Using a

computer is no different. The policies of priority place-

ment of computers for student use and minimal training

opportunities for teachers will not produce computer-

using teachers. OTA reports that only about one-third of

5 U.S. Congress, pp. 87-88. 114.

6 Henry Kepner. "What Ever Happened to the Computer Revolution?",NEA Today,October 1988.

14

TeachersAndTechnology

PAGE 11

all K-12 teachers have had even 10 hours of computertraining.,

One author described the lack of teacher access tocomputer technology as disrespectful. He stated,"Truth be known, almost all of us have so far been deep-ly disrespectful to teachers, in our failure to give thempersonal access to the developing microcomputer technol-ogy.... Increasingly, we expect to see computers on thedesks of business people, scientists, engineers, doctors,lawyers, social scientists, writers, even some artists andcomposers. In short, we have come to expect computerson the desks of everyone outside of school who's most in-tensely involved in the literate activity that school is sup-posed to teach and promote. Yet we have not stood upand shouted that computers should also be on the desks ofteachers, to use as their own personal machines."8

If the teacher is essential to the integration of the tech-nological potential in education, the critical elements forthe teacher are access, training, and time. The committeesupports the following:

1. All schools should develop and implement a plan toinstall a computer with adequate software on thedesk of each teacher by 1991. In addition to educa-tional software the teacher may be using with stu-dents, the teacher should have access to a word pro-cessor, a database management program, and otherproductivity tools such as test creators, gradebooks,and worksheet generators. Only when teachers begin using computers on a personal basis will schoolsexperience an upsurge in the use of technology.

The committee visited a recently constructed highschool where computers were installed on eachteacher's classroom desk as well as in each academ-ic department office, where all teachers had a pri-vate desk and study area. The computers werelinked together on a network and also linked withthe student computer labs. Every teacher had accessfrom both the classroom and the office to all studentwork and records as well as a full menu of applica-tions programs. While exceptional today, this con-figuration should become the norm.

7 U.S. Congress, p. 98.

8 David Grady, "Giving Teachers Their Due," Phi Delta Kappan, Sep-tember 1988, p. 31.

PAGE 12

15

2. Classroolit management software designed for teach-er use to manage the instructional process (e.g.,word processing, gradebooks, attendt.nce records,test development, and so forth) should be madeavailable for all teachers and be compatiblethroughout the school district. Approximately 40percent of a teacher's time is spent on nonteachingduties. In the 1986 NEA survey of K-12 teachers,the aspect of teaching with which teachers weremost dissatisfied was the amount of time spent onrecordkeuping and clerical duties.9 An unchallengedbenefit of computers is the ability of the machine tohandle routine clerical and administrative tasks.This function in education needs higher-priorityattention.

3. The school district and the teacher associationshould investigate options for teachers to haveaccess to computers in their homes for training, de-velopment of instructional materials, and researchpurposes. The options could include "take homeprivileges" and discounted purchase options withemployer funding participation.

4. Teacher-planned training opportunities must be pro-vided tor teachers. Practical, hands-on, and regulartraining in technological applications for learningand managing should be provided during schoolhours at the school's expense. The training shouldfocus on how to use technology to enhance instruc-tion and personal productivity.

5. Training in the use of technology to enhance instruc-tion and professional productivity must be a part ofthe preparation of every entry-level teacher. Thisexpectation will necessitate major changes in theavailability of curricular offerings and availablehardware and software in colleges of education.

6. Teachers should be provided encouragement, time,and resource's to experiment with and research ap-plications of technology, and to integrate technologyinto the curriculum. The focus should b. on helpingteachers to make up their own recipes rather thanfollowing the cookbook. Experimentation and inno-vation are necessary in such a new and developingarea of expertise and knowledge.

9 National Education Association, Survey of NEA K -12 Teacher Mem-bers 1986, Research Division, p. 12.

ITI,F141,7"""!,

4...

,=.e.,4-.144-4;-(

"beAst. _.ef

NYWj'

.;.V":,';'...i. ..:':*:.:7..-' \'',i . S

1

i,;... ,S... *,Y.;',44 .,(.A4p

1-- '' '?tt '0 t7;i"tire ti'Se"..'44":01':*1 : ' ..t,: ''' S1 -.S,1 ) 1

,-.171e44`;''':',it4*4 /.;c:4.° 17<t k- -,

, du iVef ::.i.??,,...1,4-41,;!44,.;:.,k:i4,:";".122)44f: 3:1f:::i:. 41,4,:;"3", "3t4 ,7

Ti.4t.fit pi, L 3,4t, `ivf. vc, ^3.' 4 lei3.- t"., %. ,

A c .2:.? kn qtyc-

.41

1.40

1,16"

s

cfr,,....:i2p

tart.# : tite

lea v:Ty,-4. 3 3r-4 .06 ,,4 It

v.. .17,4i.,:fr, .:. 4-1',., W; 4 A , x<,. .., N

14 , 'It.'%\:.4 l'ey ; t M.

-4Vt3V1 k't.rikp't vesilt ''' :b.: iri. .,5.1 "t t Lit'qr 4 .11-41' ,A' ' ..4 A, ;41 lk,-;Avi 41, .6, ,.N. 41t. ',., ,t,...4'4.4 .

Ito:, I ,f qb, ,, .4` iPii..;i:: :::4;:!e' Vs ?rile' 11.'

Z ,',.. ls\Ao&Z'4:144,1111,.4 . 1, 4 4. . .s.'

fi sq . ai qt:#9-4).*Vi

ra

e ' e

4'er ,O.'s-6,4;r4;?,

'`V

09it

". ';$1.4_1,'-a4r ,Alt?'v ,

IDA.Alth : ^

4 ''44' gfr A : 4.44

PI

,` .

hA.

L ON447:34;,italle. kt, '1140'470A 'V

A

tS.

,,1-11, '74111

The 1988 NEA Representative Assembly charged the

Committee on Educational Technology to study the feasi-

bility of a computer network for NEA locals. This con-

cept is parallel with the committee's thinking on the im-

portance of increasing the collaboration and collegiality

among teachers and other school personnel. The sharing

of ideas and experience needs to be encouraged. Col-

leagues have much to learn from each other.

Bulletin board services

In fulfilling the charge, the committee reviewed severalnetworking options. T1A.. NEA is already operating twolong distance computer networks for NEA leaders andmembers.

The NEA Instruction and Professional Development(IPD) unit maintains a toll-free electronic bulletin board.The Bulletin Board Service (BBS) operates 24 hours aday. Services available on the BBS include messages, spe-cial conferences, bulletins from the NEA, and data files.Files on dozens of education reform issues and policiesare available for downloading. Local leaders and mem-bers can use the IPD electronic bulletin board for commu-nications and the sharing of ideas. The access number is1-800-541-0816.

The NEA and the International Business Machines(IBM) Corporation recently established a joint projectlinking all of the NEA Mastery in Learning Schoolstogether in an experimental computer network. The net-work also includes several research universities and thefederally funded regional educational laboratories. Thenetwork is based on a new experimental IBM softwarepackage called "People Sharing Information NETwork"(PSInet). PSInet has the technical capability of linkingthousands of teachers together on an interconnected sys-tem based solely on microcomputers.

CollaborationAndCollegiality

I I I 111 I I I I I I I I. 11. I I I I I I II PAGE 1S

/8

Interlinked, nationwide networks

The committee encourages the continued utilization of theIPD Bulletin Board Service and believes it provides animmediate tool for teachers and Association leaders tocommunicate and share information with each other. Suchdialogue is particularly critical because of the traditionalisolation among teachers. The committee is also awarethat other bulletin boards are being installed by severalstate and local associations and many school districts.That development should be encouraged.

The committee believes that the NEA must commencethe planning to create interlinka I, nationwide interactivenetworks for teachers. It is understandable that the fullpotential of such networks resides several years in thefuture, but basic development work needs to be donenow. The empowering potential for teachers and othereducational employees of such networks is worthy of As-sociation advocacy.

PAGE 16

19

There is still a great deal of anxiety expressed by educa-

tors about the integration of technology into the school en-

vironment. Technophobia is a real and flourishing mala-

dy. The committee believes that careful and deliberate

planning can constructively advance the uses of technol-

ogy to improve Darning and teaching.

The committee has come to the following conclusions:

1. Understanding our mission is very important. Oneeducator stated our central purpose very clearly. Hesaid, "Will technology transform education? No.That transformation must take place first in educa-tion's true workplacethe minds of its decision-makers. It requires a shift in focus from what tech-nology is or does to what it enables educators todo."10 The planning focus should be on the individ-ual educational needs of students and how educatorsmeet those needs . taher than on the technology.

2. Educators and other school employees have aunique opportunity to plan for the inevitable inclu-sion of technology in the American schools. Policy-makers should recognize the inherent value of fullparticipation and collaboration by all involved par-ties in planning for technology integration into theschools. Full involvement is valuable not only be-cause it creates ownership but because it can helpperfect the quality of the final result.

3. Resource planning has often focused on hardwareneeds only. Resources for technology in educationmust be adequate to provide balanced support forstaff development, software, hardware, and researchinto curriculum integration and development. It isfolly to think that the development of a sophisticatedpedagogy to match and utilize the sophisticated tech-nology will come into being without a major invest-ment. The transition to technology-based learningand management will in the short run increase coststo schools. It is a falsehood to assume that the inte-

10 Lewis A. Rhodes, "We Have Met The SystemAnd It Is Us!", PhiDelia Kappan, September 1988, p. 30.

PlanningForTechnology

PAGE 17

20

gration of technology can be a budget reductionstrategy.

4. The OTA report points out that the very opportuni-ties opened up by the computer can create morev,ork for the teacher, making the job harder ini-tially.11 Planners need to understand the changingresponsibilities of the instructional staff and providetime, resources, and flexibility for professionaldevelopment, research, and planning.

5. Education planners must make strong efforts to in-sure that all teachers and students have equitableaccess to the new technologies. Equity of computeruse means providing comparable educational oppor-tunities for all students to have "hands-on" activi-ties which create an environment that enriches eachstudent's learning style.

,

tr.,t

Au,

11 U.S. Congress. p. 88.

21

The Special Committee on Educational Technology rec-

ommends the following general principles and policy

positions:

General principles

1. When conceived and implemented appropriately,technological innovation can contribute significantlyto the improvement of educational opportunity, tomanaging the increasing knowledge base, and to im-proving the quality of work life for schoolemployees.

2. The integration of technology should be conceivedin terms of a restructured school environment, notas piecemeal appendages grafted onto the currentschool structure and curriculum.

3. Schools must focus the uses of technology not onmore routinized standardization of the learning envi-ronment but on the potential enrichment of theteacher's instructional lessons, on the capacity to in-dividualize instructional objectives for students, toextend the shift from a centralized to decentralizedLaming environment, and to support the teacher byeasing the classroom management burden of reportsand paperwork, thus allowing the teacher to spendmore time with students.

4. The teacher is central to the full development oftechnology's use in the schools. For the teacher per-sonally the critical elements are access, training,and time.

Policy positions

I All schools should develop and implement a planto instal a computer with adequate software on thedesk of each teacher by 1991.

2. Classroom management software designed forteacher use to manage the instructional processshould be made available for all teachers and becompatible throughout the school district.

3. The school district and the teacher associationshould investigate options for teachers to haveaccess to computers in their homes for training,

22

PolicyRecommen-dations

PAGE 19

development of instructional materials, and re-search purposes.

4. Practical, hands-on, and regular training in techno-logical applications for learning and managingshould he provided during school hours at theschool's expense.

5. Training in the use of technology to enhance in-struction and professional productivity must be apart of the preparation every entry-level teacherreceives.

6. Teachers should be provided encouragement, time,and resources to experiment with and researchapplications of technology, and to integrate tech-nology into the curriculum.

7. The NEA should commence the planning to createinterlinked, nationwide interactive networks forteachers.

8. The planning focus for educational technologyshould be on the educational needs of students andhow educators meet those needs, rather than on thetechnology.

9. The planning must recognize the inherent value offull participation and collaboration by all involvedparties in planning for technology integration intothe schools.

10. The Association and its affiliates should be in-volved in the planning, implementation, and evalu-ation of long distance learning proposals and pro-grams to provide students the highest qualitylearning experience.

11. Resources for educational technology must be ade-quate to provide balanced support for staff devel-opment, software, hardware, and research intocurriculum integration and development.

12. Planners need to understand the changing responsi-bilities of the instructional staff and provide timeand flexibility for professional development,research, and planning.

13. Education planners must make strong efforts toinsure that all teachers and studentil have equitableaccess to the new technologies.

E. S^ott Brown, chairpersonClassroom teacher (secondary)2177 Rebecca DriveHatfield, Pennsylvania 19440

Carolyn L. AndersonInstructor/Administrator (higher education)2648 Tantelon PlaceWinston-Salem, North Carolina 27127

David D. BockesLead teacher/curriculum coordinator120 Armory RoadGalax, Virginia 24333

Marilyn B. CrossClassroom teacher (secondary)4160 Ruxton LaneColumbus, Ohio 43220

Leon A. Kurasowicz, Jr.Classroom teacher (secondary)80 Starr StreetLeominster, Massachusetts 01453

Joanne E. LautenschlagerClassroom teacher (secondary)813 20th Street N.W.Minot, North Dakota 58701

Damon P. MooreClassroom teacher (secondary)Indiana State Teachers Association150 West Market StreetIndianapolis, Indiana 46204

Emmitt W. WilliamsClassroom teacher (middle school)11010 Studebaker RoadDowney, California 90241

Keith A. ZookComputer coordinator18200 MeridianGrosse Ile, Michigan 48138

Staff LiaisonGary D. Watts

StaffLucille Kincaid

24

CommitteeMembers

. ^.

:: ?<.-. 1;4.4

.t.;:!,Av

.

,

,fA .& .1 :-;:

, A , `^:1'; -

,:4 r .c.

. .;'s Y',-%; .4/ ?,111 ,;

.i P..

:.`.;

. c'c 11. j--, ,_i

. .

. .. ... ...... . . ....?:,:..:;:i..,.' ': ,' 'n --,.','', . - 1. t , *.k ' ''...

%. :' . : .14'"'.'.., . .,-...:44.". . -I ".. ,.. . . "- : .. _ : .

.

' .

.*.

I-.1 i)

i

', : 1,1,4

.:' %: .

' C ,;`,"O

.- 'YAct,S ;,42,s,-

4",1,0cI ' 4

AZ-17"