![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
For example, although electronic networks are opening the classroom to new learning for both teachers and students, this medium brings new challenges for teachers. Driscoll and Kelemanik (1991) have found that it is very difficult for teachers to sustain regular, substantive discussions on a network. The discontinuity in conversation can be a big disadvantage because if some questions go unanswered, a request is ignored, or interesting lines of discussion are not pursued, the conversation may falter and users may drop out. Riel (1990a) has found that the use of bulletin boards is very time-consuming and that it is sometimes inefficient for teachers to negotiate their way through these bulletin boards in search of applicable and appropriate ideas or conversations.
In response to this problem, one junior high school in Maine hired a part- time computer network coordinator who monitors 11 different conferences on the PSINET network. The coordinator prints out the mail, reads through it, and sends copies to the teachers or administrators in the district for whom the information is useful. Occasionally, teachers will request particular information, and the network coordinator will send that request to the appropriate conference on the network (Ray 1991).
As teachers become more knowledgeable about the technology applications that are available, they need to develop criteria for selecting the applications that would be most valuable and effective, given the context of their class and student needs. They also need information that allows them to make wise decisions about allocating resources among students and managing instruction within the classroom. These decisions are closely tied to curriculum issues.
Regardless of how extensively technology is used (one program or multiple programs) or how state of the art the technology applications being used might be (word processing, laser disc, CD-ROM), any technology integration requires that teachers engage in rethinking, reshifting, and reshaping their curriculum. Any technology use should force teachers to pose questions such as: What does the technology offer my students in terms of developing concepts and content? How does it help them to carry out inquiry processes? How will they work together collaboratively or cooperatively? What is the relationship between the technology and other instructional materials? What knowledge, processes, skills do students need before using the technology? What new knowledge of my content or discipline, of teaching, or of technology do I need in order to foster new learning in my students? The answers to questions such as these have important implications for teachers own learning and for their role in the classroom.
Research findings on The Voyage of the Mimi indicate that teachers science and mathematics background and their preferred teaching style had an impact on what, when, and how they used the materials. Interestingly, the flexibility of the materials and the ability to make decisions about when and how to use particular materials helped teachers grapple with their own limitations in science and mathematics (Martin 1987). Although teachers can learn alongside students, discomfort with the content may cause them to limit students experiences and explorations.
These computer-supported inquiry programs also require advanced teacher skills in integrating technology into inquiry learning. Beyond "procedural knowledge" of the software, teachers need "conditional knowledge" of the contexts and situations in which the tools are appropriate and the ability to recognize those situations as they arise. When students are beginning to generate related ideas for their topic, for example, the teacher needs to recognize at that moment the contribution a software mapping tool like Inspiration might make to students organizing of ideas.
Teachers using Geometric Supposer not only need to learn how to use the software but also must be able to apply it to a variety of teaching learning situations. Wiske (1990) explained, "Teachers not only had to become familiar with the software, but also needed to develop the skills to use it in a variety of teaching formats; e.g., as a dynamic demonstration tool during class presentations, as an aid during class discussions to illustrate or verify points, and as a part of examinations of students' performance.... Fluency in one format does not automatically extend to other formats without conscious preparation and practice" (p. 8).
When teachers use and develop inquiry-based curricula that integrate technology, their role in the classroom becomes more that of a coach or facilitator of student learning. In inquiry-based learning, teachers set the context, help students pose questions to explore, stimulate problem solving, and give students tools and resources to use so that they--the students--can construct knowledge. The knowledge construction process takes place within an individual student: it is highly individualistic because of the knowledge maker's prior knowledge, experience, skills, and talent. Knowledge making can follow routes unanticipated by the teacher. For teachers and students to follow these new routes, a curriculum needs to be flexible. Teachers cannot and should not expect to--have a total grasp of the content related to every topic. What they do need to know is how to help guide students through the meaning-making process: how to ask probing questions, how to connect students to relevant resources, how to organize students into cooperative learning groups, and how to give them tools to store, manipulate, and analyze information.
Although teachers may see the desirability of this type of teaching role, they often feel vulnerable as they take the risk of shifting from a more comfortable knowledge transmission mode of teaching to inquiry-based teaching. One reason for this discomfort is their appreciation of the difficulty of managing meaning- making across a class and within individuals.
Teachers have to be very careful to honor the learner in these situations. Many times an astute teacher can see an opportunity to show a student a better or more efficient way to proceed. I have found that students would rather not hear about my great idea in the context of their current project. It is often easier for them to hear my idea after the fact, when they have already found a personally satisfying solution. Sometimes the most useful role for the teacher is that of sounding board. Instead of trying to teach students how they should think about a problem, I try to help them understand how they do think about it. (Hopkins 1991, p. 30)Teachers need to know a great deal about cognitive processes and processing in general and the learning styles and strengths of individual students in particular. When students work collaboratively on a technology-based assignment, teachers face a thorny issue. In the Earth Lab project, for example, teachers can review both individual and group workspaces (Newman 1990a; 1992a). Although teachers need to assess group performance on a project, they also need to tease out evidence of individual performance to help students who may become lost in the dynamics of a group situation.
[Conclusion]
This page was last updated December 27, 2001 (jca)