Views on Technology in U.S. and UK: Larry Cuban

I met Bob Harrison through my blog. He is a former  teacher in the UK and is now a technology consultant. He visited me a few months ago and I agreed to be interviewed. The complete interview transcript appeared on his website. Note that some of the words use UK spelling.

It is ten years since you published [Oversold and Underused]. Have your views about the use of technology for teaching and learning changed?

LC: Over the past decade, I have met with teachers, administrators, state policymakers, and district board members across the nation, all of whom were eager to talk about their experiences in using computers for instruction. Many had read Oversold and Underused; others had heard about the book and the research that I had reported. Many wanted me to answer their questions, tell me where I had erred, and raise issues that I had neglected to cover in the book.

In responding to the questions, I made clear that my views about the centrality of the teacher – the gatekeeper to the classroom – had not changed a bit. However, my views about the degree to which teachers would adopt and use hardware and software as part of daily lessons had. What I reported in Oversold and Underused was minimal teacher and professor use of technology in classrooms. Since then, with new machines appearing on the market and in schools annually, particularly, hand-held devices, I have seen in my research in schools a clear trend line of increasing teacher and student use of new technologies in classrooms. The growth of online schooling and rise of blended learning options have contributed greatly to that trend as well.

While the trend is toward greater integration of technology into lessons, the overall portion of daily use falls well below half of teacher time spent in instruction, even in those schools with 1:1 computing. I also note that the uses of the new technologies tend to be familiar (i.e., internet searches, direct instruction via interactive whiteboards, PowerPoint presentations, word processing, etc.) and fall within the usual sequence of lessons (e.g., going over homework, use of textbook, teacher questioning, worksheets – often on screens now, etc) rather than the imaginative uses that champions of the new hardware/software envisioned.

A common and recurrent theme through your research and writings is the importance of the role of the teacher in using technology. Do you feel this is still the case?

LC: Of course, teachers’ expertise, beliefs, and thinking are central to student learning in schools. It is not the only influence on students, of course, but it is pivotal, especially when it comes to the use of hardware and software in classroom lessons. As a gatekeeper to the classroom and policy broker, that is, the teacher determines what comes into the classroom and what stays insofar as lessons are concerned. Teachers are crucial in figuring out how to integrate laptops, tablets, and hand-held devices. For blended schools where online learning is customized for individual students for part of the school day, teachers still work with students in classes and small groups. I, for one, do not foresee online learning where teaching occurs at a distance replacing regular schools, so teachers will remain central to formal schooling.

The debate seems to become very polarised between “Techno-zealots” and “Techno-sceptics”. The emergence of “blended” learning suggests that it is not either-or? What is your view?

LC: I do not think the debate is as fractious as it once was, especially when it is removed from the media spotlight and the over-heated rhetoric of bloggers and headline chasers. I have found that discussions among serious folks interested in the issues and personal conversations about computers in schools have become less testy, less polarising, and more engaging in their policy implications than exchanges I had a decade ago.

Name-calling, at least public scorn for anyone who would question the prevailing belief in the magical efficacy of computers in schools, is unfashionable. I found educators and non-educators who deeply believed in classroom computers as engines of learning, willing to listen to critics when concerns were raised about the many goals of schooling in a democracy, the small part technology plays in overall classroom instruction, and insufficient technical support.

In the past, promoters of new technologies, be they vendors, practitioners or policymakers, would curtly dismiss these concerns by calling sceptics “Luddites” (note the labels may have to be updated now). No more. At least in public.

As investments in new technologies continue to mount, as the all-important concept of total-cost-of-operations has sunk into the skulls of policymakers, and as fiscal retrenchment has reduced school budgets, there is far more willingness on the part of ardent promoters to pause and consider answers to tough questions:

What keeps teachers from integrating new technologies into their daily instruction?

How much of the technology budget is devoted to on-site professional development and technical support of teachers?

What kind of research designs have to be pursued to show that teacher use of classroom technologies has caused gains in academic achievement?

How can online learning be blended into the regular school day to help students learn more and better?

That these questions could be asked and thoughtfully considered is encouraging.

I know you were a frequent user of the British Educational Communication Agency (BECTA) website and research database. Is there a need for a national strategy or agency to ensure systemic change?

LC: Yes, I believe that such a clearinghouse of research information and promoter of a national database is necessary in both UK and the US. That it has disappeared in the UK and is thoroughly fragmented in the US is disappointing and unhelpful to those of us that need data to spot trends.

In your view what are the key opportunities offered by technology in supporting and extending learning?

LC: In the hands of smart, skilled teachers who see how new technologies can become useful additions to their repertoire of teaching approaches, access to new devices, support from others who have used devices to integrate their lessons, and on-site technical assistance, expand the classroom learning opportunities exponentially. However, when policymakers and administrators purchase and deploy new technologies without involving teachers, those opportunities shrivel and disappear.

And what are the challenges to overcome?

LC: Policymakers and administrators who suffer from memory loss when it comes to earlier attempts to use technologies to improve teaching. The supreme over-confidence of policymakers who believe that schooling can be transformed through technology and willfully ignore the many purposes of tax-supported public schooling beyond transmission of knowledge.

7 Comments

Filed under how teachers teach, technology use

7 responses to “Views on Technology in U.S. and UK: Larry Cuban

  1. Larry, I agree there are some healthier signs but I wish I could feel as optimistic as you do. As long as you have the unhealthy triumvirate at the helm: naive policy makers, businesses, and gurus chasing “visions” and their latest ephemeral fad, without anything remotely like serious academic practice being followed (and Becta were one of the worst offenders) the outcomes will remain minimal at best, and educationally negative at worst. It seems to me no accident at all that just this week it was an ICT exam which had to be postponed in the UK, because of cheating by professionals who should have far higher academic standards.

    • larrycuban

      Joe,
      Guardedly optimistic or buoyantly pessimistic, it is always hard for me to read the tea leaves of the future. Didn’t know about the ICT exam.
      Have a fine holiday, Joe.

  2. No surprise at your reaction Joe.

    Using the WJEC ICT exam as evidence to support your “techno-scepticism” demosntrates once again the paucity of your arguments?

    Perhaps you are asking the wrong questions?

    http://www.connecting-learning.co.uk/articles-events/145-will-investment-in-ictdigital-technologies-raise-standards-the-wrong-question-bob-harrison-reports-december-2011.html

  3. Bob,
    I wasn’t aware I was asking a question. But at least one reader of my own blog seems to disagree with you. And resorting to vacuous marketing language like “digital citizens,” as you do in your article (which I did actually bother to read) exemplifies one of the key issues my own research for CfBT on this whole issue raised. (Which you show no sign whatsoever of having read.) If you want to be taken seriously as a scholar Bob, you need to demonstrate some scholarship. Assertion is neither research, nor scholarly.

  4. Joe, I have read your CfBT “research” Joe.

    If your CfBT paper qualifies you as a “scholar” it is a club I am glad I do not qualify for.

    I have had enough of your uninformed polemic on ICT Joe. Stick to your work on literature and poetry where you have some credibility.

    Larry’s blog deserves better so I wish you a happy xmas and my new year resolution is not to respond to your narrow minded techno scepticism.

  5. Bob,
    In your article you posted a link to, you make this comment. “Of course there is abundant evidence … here in the UK, at the OECD and in the USA that investment in ICT/Digital technologies will have an impact on teaching and learning.” This is untrue. Not only is such evidence not “abundant,” but it doesn’t exist.

    If you had read my commissioned, peer reviewed research, you would know your statement is incorrect. The World Bank, who have carried out the most thorough, professional review of all the international, academic material concerned, put it succinctly like this. “The impact of ICT use on learning outcomes 
is unclear, and open to much debate. 
Widely accepted, standard methodologies 
and indicators to assess impact of ICTs in 
education do not exist.” I repeat: do not exist.

    Petulance, like assertion, is neither research, nor scholarly.

  6. Once again Joe(it is not New Year yet) your blinkered and negative mindset hinders your view.

    I have read your CfBT paper. It is weak on a number of fronts.

    As I say in

    http://www.connecting-learning.co.uk/articles-events/145-will-investment-in-ictdigital-technologies-raise-standards-the-wrong-question-bob-harrison-reports-december-2011.html

    evidence of the impact of digital technology on attainment and achievement as measured in standardised tests is hard to find but to deny there is abundant evidence of impact on teaching and learning is frankly absurd.

    That is why your arguments are all predicated on a false premise!

    Stick to what you are good at Joe and I prefer a bit of petulance to arrogance and being patronising.

    Roll on 31st December!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s