***************************************
Dear TAD friends,

Attached please find the latest collection of snippets. I hope you find them

useful. In particular, we would appreciate responses to a research request

that follows. There is also a strong focuses on resources for assuring

quality.

Regards

Neil Butcher

The South African Institute for Distance Education (SAIDE) is participating

in the "National Investigation into Information and

Communication Technology (ICT) in South African Schools" which is

sponsored by the IDRC and being coordinated by the UWC EPU.

SAIDE will be describing and analysing the involvement of NGOs in the

provision and support of ICTs in schools. A questionnaire and interview

schedule is currently being drawn up. Should you know of any NGO's who

focus in this area or who have projects relating to ICT use in schools

please forward the following information to us:

FULL NAME AND ACRONYM of NGO:

CONTACT PERSON:

CONTACT DETAILS: (tel/e-mail/fax)

FOCUS:(infrastructure, teacher training, advice/support, content

development etc...)

If you do have information, you can either reply to this e-mail message or

send information to nickyr@saide.org.za

Thank you; your help and contribution will be greatly appreciated.

I am part of small working group in New Zealand looking at quality assurance

(QA) for the Virtual University (or electronically-based education in

general). The central question is:

How does an external quality agency (whether an auditor, accreditor,

assessor, or whatever) achieve a reliable evaluation of the operations of a

'virtual university'; or, more generally, of electronically-based education

in any institution?

Here is a summary of sources found:

evaluation programme

--- Teaching in the Switched On Classroom: An Introduction to Electronic

chapter 10: Tests, Grades, and New Criteria for Education & chapter 16:

Rethinking the Educational Process/Environment

issue of how to evaluate the material, and secondly, the issue of how to

evaluate the learning)

--- Quality Assurance Standards for Graduate Courses Offered via Distance

--- A Study of Training and Support programs, and Computer/Communication

Skills of Teachers and Students Who Participated in Computer-Based Distance

Conclusions, and Recommendations"

--- Flexibility, Technology and Academic staff' Practices: Tantalising Tales

--- Book:Cracking the Evaluation Conundrum: New Approaches to Evaluating Your

It was also suggested to have a look at:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

--- Charles Sturt University www.csu.edu.au

--- APCO Institute in Florida. www.apcointl.org/index.html

Kind regards

Philip Uys

Senior Lecturer and Project Director: Educational New Media

WHAT TO ASK ABOUT TECHNOLOGY

(or...and now for something completely different)

initial statement for ITFORUM discussion

November 2-5, 1998

Hank Bromley

State University of New York at Buffalo

hbromley@acsu.buffalo.edu

Background and conceptual matters

My own efforts concerning technology in education center on the social and

cultural issues connected to its development and use. Although I have a

background in technical matters (MIT undergraduate degree in computer

science and several years of work in academic and corporate AI research

efforts before beginning grad school in "educational policy studies"), I

focus primarily on the context of the technology presence in education. The

social processes related to technological practice (both in and out of

schools) are, I would suggest, a significant site - indeed, one of the most

significant sites at present - for the playing out of perennial matters

of power, privilege, social regulation...and (at least potentially) social

change.

Accordingly, I (and a merry little band of like-minded colleagues – see

Bromley & Shutkin 1998 and Bromley & Apple 1998 for recent compilations of

such work) draw from discussions of technology in the broader field of

"Science and Technology Studies," or STS. One might characterize STS as

striving to understand technology (and science, though that will concern us

less here) as a social endeavor, emerging out of particular institutional

settings, and mutually shaping and shaped by society. A rigid separation

between "the technical" and "the social" is presumed by many educators. STS,

on the other hand, insists that while technology may have certain

distinctive characteristics, it may be studied and understood through the

same means as other human activities.

In so doing, STS counters two common myths in discourse about technology:

technological determinism - the notion that technology is an autonomous,

external force, inexorably driving society along some path we cannot alter,

and technological neutralism - the notion that technology is a "neutral

tool" that may be freely applied toward whatever ends we choose. Each of

these myths presumes a one-way governing relationship between technology and

society, in one direction or the other. And both myths are rampant (despite

their incompatible implications) in discussion, both scholarly and popular,

of educational technology.

STS offers instead a view of technology and society as mutually

constituting. Portraying technology either as reflecting the social

(technological neutralism) or as affecting the social (technological

determinism) effectively prohibits public deliberation on what sort of

technology is to exist and how it is to be deployed - because conscious

social direction is unnecessary in one case, and impossible in the other. As

an alternative, one can say that technology is social; if dividing the two

leads to a forced choice between debilitatingly myopic one-way causal

models, let us instead think of them as a complex unity, bound in a

perpetual cycle of creating and re-creating themselves and each other. (See

Bromley 1997 for an effort to address the conceptual difficulties of sorting

out this relationship in the particular case of educational technology.) At

each moment, consequential choices are being made, conditioned or partly

constrained by what has already occurred, yet always with some range of

possibilities still accessible; and each choice introduces new constraints

and new possibilities for what is to follow. Every ostensibly "technical"

decision about the design or deployment of an artifact is at the very same

time a social decision, informed by the current social context and

simultaneously altering that context; every such decision, whether made by

developer or user, implicitly enacts a new social contract superseding its

predecessors.

We tend, however, to wander through those decision points unawares. Langdon

Winner notes that popular commentary on technology is often deterministic,

framing social change as the inevitable consequence of relentless and

autonomous technological development, despite the fact that choices do

exist, decisions are made. Consequently we proceed trancelike, oblivious to

the new social contracts we ourselves implicitly enact by adopting a given

technology (Winner 1986, pp. 5-10). Winner applies the term "technological

somnambulism" to this practice of "willingly sleepwalk[ing] through the

process of reconstituting the conditions of human existence" (p. 10).

So how might we, as educators and as members of the multiple communities we

all belong to, intervene? How can we interrupt our own and others'

sleepwalking? Following are a set of questions that may help (adapted from

Bromley 1998).Technology-driven or curriculum-driven?

Rather than starting with a determination of what we want schooling to

accomplish, an educational vision, and then examining how technology might

be used to achieve those goals, computing initiatives are unfortunately most

often based on the attitude "this technology exists, we've got to have it."

The first of my recommended questions, then, is:

1. Why is this initiative even occurring? In particular, is it

technology-driven (based on a perceived need to have the latest technology)

or curriculum-driven (based on a careful discussion of educational goals,

and of what means are lacking in order to reach those goals)? As a result of

being a technology-driven initiative, putting computers in public schools

has all too often meant getting more of the same, only automated: electronic

workbooks, computerized tracking of student "progress," etc.

The prospect of "more technology for schools" is self-evidently desirable,

and efforts to raise questions - even merely saying "use the same judgment

here you would in any other situation" - are perceived as anti-technology

statements. Because of the a priori presumption that the addition of new

technologies brings automatic benefits, skepticism appears simply irrational

and is therefore dismissed without consideration.

In such a context, a serious examination of what social visions are built

into - and in turn enacted by - a given technology is hardly likely.

Technology as carrier of social relations But such an examination, in both

the context of a technology's development and the context of its use, is

exactly what is needed.

Consider the distance learning classrooms being built at many colleges and

universities. The need to capture the sights and sounds of the classroom

with camera and microphone is sometimes met through constraining the

location and movement of classroom participants and furniture, thereby

limiting the form of pedagogy to a very traditional delivery of information,

conveyed from an authority-invested instructor positioned at the front of

the room to rows of passively absorbent students (Waltz 1998). This is a

fine example of the non-neutrality of technology: such classrooms impose a

particular conception of learning and form of pedagogy. (See Hodas 1993 for

a parallel argument regarding Integrated Learning Systems.)

The question raised by this example is what sort of "baggage" comes along

with a given technology:

2. What social visions are built into - and in turn enacted by - a given

technology? Does it enforce particular forms of pedagogy, or of classroom

organization? Does it impose a certain conception of knowledge or of the

learning process? Is it compatible only with particular views of what

education is for?

As David Noble has put it, technology is "hardened history, frozen fragments

of human and social endeavor" (Noble 1984, p. xi). The work done by its

developers in fashioning a technology - based on whatever they conceive to

be "natural" and "appropriate" - is given durable form in the technology

itself. What social relations they took for granted will tend to persist

wherever the technology propagates. Such tendencies can, of course, be

overridden by those who use the technology, but it may not be easy.

Consider the popular "Instructional Management System" marketed by Abacus

Educational Systems. This performance-monitoring and report-generating

software package is intended to assist with curriculum design, lesson

planning, test generation and scoring, classroom-level record-keeping, and

building and districtwide performance evaluation. It integrates all these

tasks via basing instruction on lengthy lists of simple, specific

objectives. Student progress is continually monitored on a check-off basis,

"yes" or "no" on each objective, and these results are readily aggregated to

any level of interest, at any time. But if adopted, the Abacus package does

far more than "assist" with these pedagogical and administrative tasks; it

will in fact determine important aspects of the educational process by

constraining the form of instructional objectives. The content of the

objectives may be freely specified by each district - so long as the

objectives are uniform across the entire district, and student mastery of

each objective can be expressed as a simple "yes" or "no," as determined by

computer-scored, multiple-choice tests.

The adoption of such a system clearly creates enormous pressure for adhering

to certain educational philosophies rather than others. What if, for

instance, a teacher felt (as I do regarding my own university teaching) the

most important thing for students to learn was how to ask good questions?

Where would that fit into this scheme?

The Abacus system is understandably attractive to many upper-level

administrators, because it addresses pressures they face to provide

"accountability" for district performance, in a seemingly precise fashion.

But in turn, the operation of the system passes those same pressures along

to subordinate administrators and classroom teachers. In other words, the

Abacus system is a piece of technology which is shaped by particular social

pressures, so as to embody particular views on how schooling ought be

conducted, and then constrains users of the system to act in accordance with

those views.

The context of use

Alongside the question of what assumptions are built into a given

technology, what social relations it embodies, it is equally important to

consider the context in which it is used. A full understanding of why a

particular piece of technology is or is not used, or why it is used in

particular ways or has a particular impact, is unlikely to be achieved

without careful attention to that context, the subject of the next question:

3. How is the context of use likely to shape the way this technology is

employed? Who is using it, why, toward what ends, under what conditions and

pressures, with what supporting resources?

I am currently involved in a research project at a local school, where it

has become apparent that such contextual factors as an unfavorable

student-to-teacher ratio help determine the mode of classroom computer use.

The staff at this particular school are committed to fully integrating the

computer into the curriculum, rather than treating it as some sort of

extraneous add-on. But given that there are too few adults in the classroom

to meet the diverse needs of the students, teachers sometimes find they must

resort to using the computer as a reward for good behavior, and withdrawing

access as a punishment for non-cooperation. In the immediate situation, the

teacher gets compliance and the student gets some experience with the

technology. But ultimately, this practice interferes with integrating the

computer into the curriculum, and students become habituated to a

"carrot-and-stick" model of social interaction – even though no one involved

seeks these outcomes.

What is the context of technology use in higher education? One central

feature of the current setting is intense economic pressure. With the

administrative response to this pressure now transforming nearly every

aspect of university operations, we should expect it to influence the use of

technology, as well. Administrators everywhere - with varying degrees of

faculty resistance - rely increasingly on part-time faculty, outsourcing

schemes, ancillary revenue sources, and a general embrace of

business-oriented thinking.

In an environment where students are "customers," knowledge is a "product,"

faculty are "human resources" or "content providers," and administrators are

pre-occupied with expanding their "market share," how is technology likely

to be employed? Surely in efforts to enhance the revenue stream by

increasing enrollment, packaging knowledge as a salable commodity, and

limiting (and rendering more "flexible") the cost of personnel. (For a

fuller examination of these trends and their meaning, see Winner 1997 and

Noble 1998.) Broadcasting instruction via video while capturing it for later

re-use (with or without the participation of the original faculty), or

transferring it to the World Wide Web (facilitating not only re-use but the

addition of paid advertising) fit this agenda admirably.

Of course, the existence of such an agenda by no means guarantees its

fulfillment. Competing agendas - often promoted by faculty and students -

can prevail, as demonstrated by last year's faculty strike at York

University in Toronto (Noble 1998). But regardless of the outcome, the point

here is simply that if one wishes to understand technology in use, studying

the context of that use - the complex web of relationships already

inhabiting the site - is crucial.

>From whose perspective?

Another consideration often overlooked is how people in different social

positions can have very different experiences with the same technology.

Rather than ask whether a particular use of technology is a good idea, we

need to ask "good for whom?". Who benefits (and in what ways), and who

doesn't?

In the case of K-12 instructional use of computers, broad statistical

portraits consistently disclosed systematic inequities throughout the 1980s

and early 90s (reviewed in Sutton 1991). Although these inequities may have

begun to diminish in recent years, that they persisted for so long – and in

some respects, still do - indicates definite blind spots in our thinking.

Throughout this period, measurements of computer use both in and out of

school, at all ages, in several countries, found less access for girls, as

well as for students of color, children from low-income families, and

students labeled "low-ability." And the type of use varied along the same

lines: even when students from these groups were provided access to

computers, they were disproportionately engaged with drill-and-practice

software, "mastery" learning of decontextualized basic skills, and

vocational training in the use of specific software, while boys, white

students, middle-class children, and students labeled "high-ability" were

disproportionately involved with open-ended simulations, integrated

applications, and programming. (For a current point of comparison, see

Gartner 1998, reporting that "Internet access initiatives...may actually

increase the gulf between high- and low-achieving students, rather than act

as an equalizer," even with equal access, because of differences in the

kinds of activities engaged in.)

In effect, some students were learning how to direct the new technology

while others were learning how to be directed by it. The already advantaged

became more so, adding yet another domain to their list of advantages. The

computer, introduced partly in hopes of creating new opportunities for all

children, by and large made things worse, even when everyone got to use it.

The final question, then, is:

4. Disaggregate the impact; do not limit your view to the effects on the

most visible or most powerful persons. How are groups of people in different

structural locations likely to be affected differently by this initiative?

Who will be helped, and how; who will be harmed, and how?

The Abacus system discussed earlier provides another example of a single

technology having notably different effects on different people, according

to their structural location. In this case, a tool that can ease the burden

on some administrators can simultaneously hinder the work of other

administrators and of teachers. The changes transforming higher education

obviously entail similarly uneven consequences.

Regardless of how the lines are drawn, there are always varying needs and

interests; it is therefore always necessary to "disaggregate" the question

of a given technology's impact.

Conclusion

The answers to questions such as the four discussed here - if asked – would

underscore, despite our culture's disinclination, the fundamentally social

nature of the technology at issue, a prerequisite to any meaningful effort

to determine its role in our lives.

References

Bromley, Hank (1997, Winter). "The Social Chicken and the Technological Egg:

Educational Computing and the Technology/Society Divide." Educational Theory

47:1, pp. 51-65.

Bromley, Hank (1998, October). "What Awakens a Sleepwalker?: Advice I'd Like

from Langdon Winner." Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 18:5, pp.

374-79.

Bromley, Hank and Michael W. Apple, ed. (1998). Education/Technology/Power:

Educational Computing as a Social Practice. Albany: SUNY Press.

Bromley, Hank and David S. Shutkin, ed. (1998, September). Special Issue of

Educational Policy on "Social Power, Science & Technology, and Education,"

12:5.

Gartner, John (1998). "Net Access May Increase Inequalities." TechWeb, May

Hodas, Steven (1993). "Technology Refusal and the Organizational Culture of

Schools." Education Policy Analysis Archives 1:10 (no page numbers).

Noble, David F. (1984). Forces of Production: A Social History of Industrial

Automation. New York: Knopf.

Noble, David F. (1998, January). "Digital Diploma Mills: The Automation of

Sutton, Rosemary E. (1991, Winter). "Equity and Computers in the Schools: A

Decade of Research." Review of Educational Research 61:4, pp. 475-503.

Waltz, Scott B. (1998). "Distance Learning Classrooms: A Critique." Bulletin

of Science, Technology & Society 18:3, pp. 208-16.

Winner, Langdon (1986). The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an

Age of High Technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Winner, Langdon (1997). "The Handwriting on the Wall: Resisting

Technoglobalism's Assault on Education." In Tech High: Globalization and the

Future of Canadian Education, ed. Marita Moll. Ottawa: Fernwood. Also

Taken from The Training Zone (Issue #23)

------------------

BBC Learning Zone

-----------------

The BBC website is one of the largest and possibly the most well-used UK

website. For over a year, the BBC has been promoting its Learning Zone. In

addition to carrying material related to Open University and other more

formal learning contexts, the Learning Zone promotes the notion that there

is much to be learned from watching and following up mainstream programming.

This well-indexed site will direct you to much useful learning linked to

programmes on, for example, antiques, food and drink, technology, women,

music. It's a wonderful example of lifelong learning in practice - and the

Well worth a bookmark!

neilshel@icon.co.za

www.saide.org.za