Instructional
Although there is danger of reifying what i s essentially a highly deterministic theory, the history of computers in schools can be understood loosely in terms of the above technology expectation cycle (Lai, 1993). Arguably, over the last 20 years four main waves of educational technology have swept through New Zealand schools. The adoption of a wave metaphor as depicted in Figure 2. 1 traces the evolution of educational technology along Taylor's (1980) modes of computer use. It illustrates the main changes in the discourse over time and conveys the relatively soft boundaries between each phase as one wave washes into another with no definitive start or end-point. As such, the wave metaphor shows that each new wave is part of the previous one and represents an evolution of development rather than a standalone innovation. Thus, it avoids the determinism of the technology expectation cycle, which is a maj or flaw of Cuban's (1986) work.
The "Instructional Wave" coincides with the first wave described by Collis ( 1 996) where students were encouraged to learn from the computer as a tutor. In the early 1 980s, the enthusiasts claimed that computer assisted instruction (CA!) would help individualise learning and thereby act as a substitute for the teacher. Of course, the wave began with brave predictions of the technology' s potential to revolutionize education. This is what Bork (1 980; cited in Crook, 1 994) had to say at the beginning of the Instructional Wave:
We are at the outset of a major revolution in education, a revolution unparalleled since the invention of the printing press. The computer will be the instrument of this revolution. By the year 2000, the major way of learning at all levels, and in almost all subject areas, will be through the interactive use of computers (pA).
In keeping with the expectation cycle, early predictions were followed by a number of test beds and laboratory experiments (e.g., Project Plato). However, by the mid 1 980s as the equivocal nature of the research became apparent it was clear that CA! was failing to transform learning and make it more effective, as predicted. In some quarters, teachers were blamed for their resistance to new computer technology due to inherent conservatism and hysterical fear of being replaced by a machine (Cuban, 1 986). It was about then that another educational technology wave began to emerge.
The "Problem Solving Wave" shifted the focus to tutee applications where students taught the computer. It coincided with new adaptive theories of human intelligence that led to renewed interest in teaching students how to think-that is, metacognition. Again, there were many claims made about the potential of this latest iteration of educational technology. As Papert (1 980) the inventor of the LogoTM programming language stated:
We are at a point in the history of education when radical change is possible, and the possibility for that change is directly tied to the impact of the computer (p.36).
The use of LogoTM and other problem solving software (e.g., interactive fiction) reflected a different philosophy of educational computing in stark contrast from the behaviourist principles of the first wave. Papert (1981, p.87) adopted a romantic constructivist perspective and argued that 'In teaching the computer how to think, children embark on a exploration of how they themselves think' . By the late 1980s, it was apparent from the ambiguous research findings that LogoTM was not going to create a new kind of school without a formal curriculum. As far as some people were concerned, LogoTM did not live up to original expectations (Walsh, 1994). In short, it simply did not work.
The "Mind Tool Wave" marks a period where attention switched to students learning with the computer (Ryba & Anderson, 1990). By the 1990s, the metaphor of the computer as a tool
was dominant. As a tool, the computer had the potential to amplify thinking and scaffold human cognition to new levels. Strong emphasis was placed on student collaboration and the development of language where the teacher's role became a facilitator of learning. This wave coincided with the introduction of the term "IT" in the policy discourse and was associated with the use of tool applications such as word processing, databases and spreadsheets in the classroom. A number of brave claims were associated this type of productivity software. As Nathan (1985; cited in Roblyer, Edwards & Havriluk, 1997) stated:
These tools, if used wisely and creatively, have the potential not only to support classroom activities, but also to transform the very nature of the way people learn and work (p. 157).
There is ample evidence to show that many teachers quickly incorporated the word processor into the classroom. It was ideally suited to the new process writing approach of the time. According to Brown (1995b), teachers report that word processing is one of the success stories of computers in schools. That said, the computer is claimed to be nothing more than a glorified typewriter in many classrooms and the research findings on word processing remain highly dependent on the instructional context (Cochran-Smith, 1991). There is little evidence, moreover, to show that databases and spreadsheets ever achieved a high level of curriculum penetration in New Zealand schools (Brown, 1995b).
By the mid 1990s, the level of enthusiasm for the computer as tool was swept away by yet another wave of technology. The "Media Wave" was triggered initially by the emergence of multimedia but it was promptly fuelled by new developments in telecommunications, which
gave rise to the introduction of the tenn "ICf" into the educational policy discourse. This wave is based on a convergence of media into a digital fonn that allows students to learn through connected computers as opposed to just with or from previously disconnected machines. Schools are being wired for the Information Age so that students can expand their horizons as real-world learning enters the realm of the classroom (Tapscott, 1 999). Like previous waves, it is characterized by many pronouncements about the potential of the WWW to transfonn all facets of life. As Gates (1995) claims:
We are all beginning another greatjoumey. We aren't sure where this one will lead us either, but again I am certain this revolution will touch even more lives and take us all farther. The major changes will be in the way people communicate with each other. The benefits and problems arising from this upcoming communications revolution will be much greater than those brought about by the PC revolution (p.XI).
Obviously this revolution refers to the Internet phenomenon or Information Highway Wave described by Collis ( 1 996). The question is: Will this wave be any different? So far, arguably, the Media Wave appears to have all the hallmarks of previous waves. The Internet fever sweeping the country is shaped by some seductive rhetoric that brings into question the obsolete nature of schools. Teachers are being enticed to embrace this revolution as illustrated in the spin and marketing of the new "dream machine" (Dawns & Selwyn, 1 999). Already "ICf Lead Schools" have been appointed to act as a test-bed for realizing the potential of this latest educational technology wave. At this stage, there is a lack of research upon which to judge whether the WWW has lived up to early predictions, but history tells us that we should be wary of the overselling of the Internet. This lesson is highlighted in the following quote that could easily apply to the WWW but instead refers to the invention of the wax phonograph cylinder:
With the coming of the New Media, the need for print on paper will rapidly diminish. The day will soon arrive when the world's literature will be available from The Automatic Library at the mere pressing of a button (Uzanne, 1894; cited in McFarlane, 1997, p. 1 73).
While Collis (1996) is more optimistic about the impact of the Internet on education, the legacy of the last 20 years of computers in schools is relatively disappointing. There are of course many examples of good things happening in individual classrooms throughout the world, but as the Presidential Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology ( 1 997) in its Report to the President on the Use of Technology to Strengthen K-12 Education in the United States concludes:
During a period in which technology has fundamentally transformed America 's offices, factories, and retail establishments, however, its impact
within our nation 's classrooms has generally been quite modest.
The modest impact beyond isolated small-scale projects is one of the enduring lessons from the history of educational technology. If teachers are to avoid the assignment of blame then they must learn from past mistakes. It is a myth to believe that teaching will automatically change for the better because of a new educational technology. One of the main things learnt from experience is that the "added value" of any new computer technology is often related to how it is used (Brown & Ryba, 1 996). But this observation should not obscure the fact that historically the failure of computers in schools has been attributed to poor teaching, when in truth the discourse of policy and supporting infrastructure has been at odds with the level of hype surrounding the innovation (Selwyn, 1 999). Despite the promise of recent initiatives, it remains to be seen whether the ICY Strategy will truly address the systemic problems of incorporating new educational technologies throughout New Zealand schools.
In the meantime, a number of commentators believe that the progression from standalone PC to networked computers has followed a predictable pattern over the last two decades, which has given the impression, rightly or wrongly, that each new educational technology has been reinventing the wheel (Collis, 1996). While this observation paints an overly bleak picture of the past, The Milken Exchange eloquently summarizes the technology implementation cycle-albeit following a slightly different sequence:
In the early 1980s, when personal computers first were finding their way into schools .. . we thought students should learn to program . . . This was followed by a fascination with Logo to help students think. Then came our love affair with drill and practice applications . . . to bring up test scores, individualize instruction, and, not incidentally, make technology manageable without much training on the part of teachers. But then classroom-based word processing came on the scene, and educators deemed it important to teach students to use computers for composing and writing .. . Just as that emphasis was taking hold, along came multimedia, with the spotlight turned to hypertext programming so that students could create dynamic products for an audience.
And now, in the laJe 1990s, we find the Internet is the holy grail whereby students will connect with rich educational resources throughout the world (Fulton, 1997, p. 12).
The religious fervor associated with the Internet makes it very difficult for teachers to fully understand the technology' s potential. Arguably, the level of hype combined with an over emphasis on infrastructure and preoccupation with the latest technical developments in networking has the potential to sidetrack teachers from the pursuit of new pedagogical understandings. Simply acquiring a greater level of Internet access will not automatically bestow on teachers insight into the wealth of opportunities for better learning through the Internet. As Lai (1 996) points out, we need to recognize that providing teachers with 'more training does not necessarily mean better teaching' (p. 1 0). Good teaching is likely to be dependent upon teachers with a sound conceptualization of the Internet to begin with, linked to contemporary understandings of the educative process. This remains a major challenge if the latest technological innovation of the Internet is not going to become just another passing wave in the history of educational technology.
2.3 THEORETICAL CONCEPTIONS OF THE INTERNET
This section shows that the use of the Internet in schools is still immature and further progress is required in better conceptualizing its role in education. Up until now, the Internet phenomenon has been described in a rather imprecise way. After all, the history of the Internet does not start at the beginning of the Media Wave. What we now call the Internet began in the 1 960s where in the United States (US) a small number of Department of Defense computers were networked together to share military information (Anderson &
Reed, 1 998). This initiative was motivated by the fear of the Cold War period and the possibility of a Soviet nuclear strike (Gal breath , 1 997). The intention was to establish a decentralised system for storing and exchanging information such that loss of crucial data would be minimised in any nuclear attack. In their spare-time, the people who developed the network also used it to communicate with one another on topics of interest (Merritt &
Reynolds, 1995). While the hardware was crude and the method of data transfer slow, this unforeseen use of networked computers was a sign of things to come (Brown, 1 995c).
By the 1980s, with the advent of microcomputers and the support of the National Science Foundation (NSF), more universities and government agencies joined the Internet network (Hahn & Stout, 1994). At about the sarne time, many universities and special interest groups created their own local area networks (LAN) which offered more users a gateway to the much larger original network. By this stage, the Internet had expanded beyond the boundaries of the US and soon just about all the universities throughout the world were connected via computer (Brown & Ryba, 1 996). In New Zealand, this network of networks was first available at universities through an intermittent satellite link. This early system was, however, unreliable and with growing demand, in 1 992, it was eventually replaced by fibre optic cable (Merritt & Reynolds, 1995).
At first, the Internet was slow, clumsy to operate and dominated by text requmng hierarchical applications such as Gopher. This quickly changed in the early 1990s with the launch of the WWW, which was first conceptualised in Switzerland and later developed by the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) at the University of Illinois. The Web, as it became affectionately known, provided a non-linear hypertext-based system for searching and retrieving electronic resources. Using navigation software such as Mosaic and Netscape, it was now possible to access images, text, audio, and later animations, and even video at the click of a button. These new web browsers combined with the number of new Internet Service Providers (lSPs) sparked a wave of growth that opened up the Web and other Internet services to schools and the public.
As the Internet has evolved it has become a technical innovation with many different meanings (Becker & Ravitz, 1998). It can involve the Web but it might equally entail the use of email, chat, mailing lists, telnet, Usenet, muds and moos, and so forth. The Internet has become a means to play, communicate, search for infonnation, shop electronically, download and listen to music, and teach and learn. By way of the Internet, teachers now have the potential to access just about any kind of material that can be stored in an electronic fonn. A teacher can use the Internet to find teaching resources or their students can search the Web for infonnation for a report. It is now possible for teachers to incorporate a wide range of Internet activities into their classroom including collaborating with other schools, participating in live events and virtual experiences, and students creating and publishing infonnation on the Web (Cunningham & Andersson, 1999). The point is that when we talk of the Internet it can mean all of these activities and many others. Despite popular belief, it is not just the technical phenomenon of the Web or merely a static source of infonnation.
In the context of education, the Internet needs to be reframed as a pedagogical innovation. Put simply, it needs to be conceptualised from an educational perspective. Over the last 20 years, a plethora of conceptual frameworks has been proposed for understanding the pedagogical value of computers. In the early days, Rushby ( 1 979) proposed a systematic framework for categorising the different uses of computers under four main paradigms of computer use: (a) the instructional, (b) the revelatory, (c) the conjectural, and, (d) the emancipatory. In many ways, these paradigms have stood the test of time and could be adapted easily to better explain the different pedagogical uses of the Internet. However, the categories were never intended to address the potential of networked computers and the framework overlooks the non-neutrality of the technology itself. Although this criticism is accommodated by an extension of Taylor' s (1980) 3Ts to include the computer as toy and as
topic of study, the focus is on the applications themselves rather than the context or purpose of their use. Hence, despite the utility of this framework, it contains a significant flaw and is inherently technocentric.
In a more contemporary framework, Crook (1 994) places the emphasis not on the technology but on the dimensions of collaboration and social interaction between computers, students and the teacher. There are four configurations of interaction described within this framework: (a) interactions with computers, (b) interactions in relation to computers, (c) interactions at the computer, and, (d) interactions around and through computers (Crook, 1 994).
Collaborative interactions "with" computers simulate traditional guided instruction where the computer acts as the expert and engages the novice student in a type of instructional conversation. Whereas, collaborative interactions "in relation to" computers refer to the way students and the teacher interact in the presence of the technology. This is not just intennittent contact while students are engaged in computer activities, but interactions that occur within the broader social context of the classroom. Collaborative interactions "at" computers involve situations where groups of students work together using the technology. This type of interaction is usually where pairs or small groups of students work on the same computer at
the same time. The interest here is the type of collaboration that is occurring between the learners as they discuss their ideas and negotiate shared understandings. In contrast, collaborative interactions "around and through" computers entail circumstances where contact may be dislocated in time and space-that is, students are not using the technology together at the same moment or in the same geographical location. The emphasis is on the level of collaboration that can arise when activities are extended beyond standalone classroom computers. While this latter category of interaction involves networked computers, it falls short of conceptualising the different types of learning experiences available beyond the classroom.
In another recent framework, Bruce and Levin (1997) propose a taxonomy for encapsulating the variety of educational technologies and their many uses by adapting a four part division borrowed from Dewey-namely: (a) inquiry, (b) communication, (c) construction, and (d) expression. They expand on each category to demonstrate how this enduring multi-faceted framework supports a raft of technology-based pedagogical activities that incorporate a range of media including the Internet. The term "media" is selected deliberately by Bruce and Levin