Figure 1. Authentic Challenging Tasks as the Core of Education Reform
Computing power has become more available and affordable than ever before. Satellite transmission can beam instructional material to sites thousands of miles away. Computer graphics can create "virtual environments" in which the user sees and interacts with an artificial three-dimensional world. Tools to support computer applications make it possible for school children to do everything from communicating with their counterparts on the other side of the world to building their own curriculum materials in hypermedia formats to collecting and analyzing data much as practicing scientists would. Software for computer-supported collaborative work enables students and researchers thousands of miles apart to view and manipulate the same data sets simultaneously.
Having witnessed technology's transformation of the workplace, the home, and, indeed, most of our communications and commercial activities, many are looking for comparable changes within schools. During this era of widespread education reform activity, it is not surprising that educators, policy-makers, and business and other community groups are looking to technology as a tool for reshaping and improving education.
As a counterpoint, there are those who argue that multimedia and the information superhighway are simply the latest in a long line of innovations that have been touted naively as the instrument for transforming schools. What happens instead, these critics assert, is that the technology is either adapted to traditional school structures and teaching styles, if it is sufficiently flexible, or discarded if it cannot be so adapted (Cohen, 1988; Cuban, 1986). Piele (1989) points out that although microcomputers have found their way into schools in large numbers, they have failed to transform schools because they are typically set off in a computer "lab," usually supervised by someone other than the classroom teacher. Thus, most teachers can and do "ignore them altogether" (p. 95). Cohen concludes that uses of instructional technology that break the mold of conventional instruction are most likely to be adopted "at the margins," that is, in advanced placement courses, special education, or vocational training. The central instructional program remains much as it was 50 years ago, untouched by the technological revolution going on around it.
Fortunately, this pessimistic picture does not apply universally, and there are schools that have been using technology on a broad scale for 5 years or more within the context of a serious reform effort. We have the opportunity to profit from their experiences in trying to understand the factors that make technology-supported innovations more or less successful from an education reform perspective.
Our first goal reflects a theoretical model of constructivist classrooms structured around project-based learning and authentic tasks, as described in more detail below. In these days of rapid technological advances and media hype, it is all too easy to assume that there is some educational value that adheres to a new technology per se. Yet, the research literature shows us that the instructional value lies in the way the technology is used and in the activity structure that surrounds it, rather than in the hardware or software itself (Means et al., 1993). We studied technology-using classrooms in order to provide illustrations of content-rich, technology-supported constructivist learning activities that could inspire teachers, not to try to duplicate the described activities, but to create something comparable fitting their own circumstances and local curriculum goals.
Our study's second purpose was to provide school administrators, teachers, parents, community leaders, and education policymakers with information about implementing technology-supported reforms that would help them profit from the experiences of pioneering technology-using schools. The school as a whole, rather than the individual classroom, was our basic unit of study for this purpose. By interviewing administrators, technology coordinators, students, and teachers, we sought to understand the histories of both education reform efforts and the technology implementation at the school level, as well as the ways in which the two efforts (technology and reform) were or were not intertwined.
Thus, the data collection and analysis occurred along two tracks, the classroom level and the school level, but always with the goal of understanding how the school's approach to implementation set the stage for the observed classroom activities.
The data collection portion of this project consisted of case studies of nine schools or projects using technology as part of their education reform efforts. The nine sites were selected from a set of nearly 40 schools nominated as worthy examples of educational uses of technology. They were chosen with an eye to representing the diversity of American schools and students and the very different paths to implementation that technology-supported innovations may take. At the same time, we sought sites that used technology not for its own sake, but rather as a support for constructivist learning activities. Within each school, we interviewed and observed a range of teachers, selecting several who conducted interesting, technology-supported activities for more concentrated study. (More details about methods and selection criteria are provided in Chapter 3 of this report and in the Technical Appendix.)
Although variously described, the student-level outcome goals of most reform efforts are to increase learning, especially of advanced or higher-level skills, and to enhance student motivation and self-concept. In our view, the catalyst for this transformation is centering instruction around authentic, challenging tasks. Research suggests that schools have decomposed and decontextualized tasks into discrete component skills (e.g., learning algorithms for finding square roots) that have no obvious connection with anything students do outside of school. Reformers argue that, instead, students should be given tasks that are personally meaningful and challenging to them (e.g., describe their city to students in another part of the world). As shown in Figure 1, the provision of authentic challenging tasks has implications for almost every other part of pedagogy, leading to the kinds of changes reformers advocate. Authentic tasks are almost always more complex than the tasks assigned with a discrete-skills approach, and they also will tend to be multidisciplinary (e.g., describing the city means assembling geographic and historical facts as well as working on composition skills), a feature that conflicts with the standard middle and secondary school structure of distinct disciplines. Further, the fact that the tasks will be more complex suggests that longer blocks of time will be required to work on them, again conflicting with the notion of 50-minute periods for distinct subject areas.
Figure 1. Authentic Challenging Tasks as the Core of Education Reform
Complex tasks permit students to take a more active role in defining their own learning goals and regulating their own learning. Students explore ideas and bodies of knowledge, not in order to recite verbal formalisms on demand but to understand phenomena more deeply and search for information they need for their project work. Instruction becomes interactive. Complex, authentic tasks lend themselves to collaborative work. Among the advantages of collaborative learning for students are opportunities to negotiate the purpose of their work, the meaning of the terms they use, and so on. As students justify their conclusions and act as external critics for each other, they become more reflective about their own thinking and able to evaluate the quality of their own work.
Collaborative projects facilitate the adjustment of tasks to accommodate individual differences. Thus, it becomes feasible to teach heterogeneous groups of students who vary in age, expertise (e.g., each group may need a video expert), achievement levels, and so on. Within such groups, the experience of explaining something to a fellow student who does not understand it can in itself be an educationally valuable experience.
In the constructive learning model, the teacher becomes a facilitator and "coach" rather than knowledge dispenser or project director. Teachers are responsible for setting up inquiry projects, arranging for access to appropriate resources, and creating the organizational structure within which groups do their work, but once work begins, teachers no longer have the total control of the direction of instruction that they exercise in more conventional classrooms. Rather, they allow students to follow diverse learning pathways.
This is not to say that all school activities need be, or should be, project based. We need not throw every piece of skills practice out with the bath water as we seek to make schools more stimulated, student-centered places for learning. Moreover, computers have proven benefits in providing extensive, individualized practice on basic skills (Kulik and Bangert-Drowns, 1984; Samson, Niemiec, Weinstein, and Walberg, 1986). Rather, we emphasize project-based learning because it is such an essential part of the thinking behind education reform. In this study, we have sought to explore and document the role that technology can play in supporting project-based learning and the evolution of classrooms in directions consistent with the reform agenda.
In Chapter 2 we summarize some of the prior research suggesting that technology can support constructivist learning activities. (See Means et al., 1993 for a more complete review.) After presenting an overview of our study approach (Chapter 3) and brief profiles of our nine sites (Chapter 4), we discuss the challenges schools face in implementing technology and the resources required in Chapters 5 and 6. In Chapter 7 we provide an analysis of our case study sites with respect to the sources of leadership for technology and education reform initiatives and the roles of various levels of the education system. We return to the question of how technology can support constructivist, project-based learning in Chapter 8, using findings from our case studies. The question of the impacts on students and teachers when technology is introduced as part of constructivist learning activities is dealt with in Chapters 9 and 10. Chapter 11 concludes the report with a discussion of implications for policy and practice.
-###-
![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
[Review of Literature]