Computer Literacy and Educational Computing: Perspectives and Practices

The issue of computer literacy and use is becoming one of the most hotly-contested battlefields in education. The debate is increasing in intensity as the initial techno-euphoria of the 90’s slowly gives way to more sober assessments and greater critical analysis of the value and potential of computers as an educational tool. Because computers have become equated with technology, the debate is often framed in terms of two opposing camps, namely technophiles and technophobes. This framework, however, is superficial, simplistic, and ultimately unproductive, in that it limits needed discussion of the many issues surrounding the use of computers in the classroom. Indeed, the most enthusiastic computer users are often the greatest critics of current practices and the most effective gadflies in calling for balance and serious debate of this multifaceted issue. Nevertheless, it should come as no surprise that there are many diverging opinions in this debate and more and more academics calling for greater caution and moderation, since the central issues involve nothing less than the complexity of human development and learning combined with rapidly-changing technologies, influencing and being influenced by the general culture.

In this paper I would like to address various perspectives on the computer literacy debate using recent research and draw on my experiences at the secondary level to discuss common computer practices in the classroom and their implications.

What is computer literacy and what are the promises of increased computer use? Kathleen Tyner argues that computer literacy is essentially a reactionary term, coined as an attempt to come to terms with the sudden proliferation of computers and to define core competencies in an age when computer use has come to be viewed as an essential and indispensable tool in education. Citing library science expert Stuart Sutton, Tyner notes that there are "two generally agreed-upon components: Enabling Technologies... [and] Information Productivity Tools" (Tyner 78). MIT Professor of Sociology of Science, Sherry Turkle takes this a step further in arguing that the emphasis has shifted from the former to the latter:

Originally, the goal was teaching students how computers worked and how to write programs; if students could understand what was going on inside the computer, they would have mastery over it. Now the goal is to teach students how to use computer applications, on the premise that if they can work with the computer, they can forget what's inside and still be masters of the technology. (Turkle par. 1)

Despite the ever-changing nature of computer applications and the planned obsolescence of software, computer literacy now means spending valuable class time teaching students specific applications and software programs like Microsoft PowerPoint, Word, Front Page, Claris Works, and Adobe PhotoShop. A survey of on-line computer curricula confirms this trend.

One of the strongest arguments against such a curriculum and its assumption that such skills are necessary to future employment is the likelihood that targeted applications will be outmoded by the time a student enters the workforce, due to the whirlwind pace of change. In the seminal article, Computer Delusion, which opened the doors for greater criticism and skepticism concerning computer use in education, Todd Oppenheimer cites Michael Bellino, an electrical engineer at Boston University’s Center for Space Physics, who views such an approach as similar to teaching the hammer, instead of carpentry (qtd. in Oppenheimer 62). Instead of devoting coursework to explicit computer training, numerous academics believe that the necessary basic computing skills can be learned in any where from a few weeks to a single one semester course in the upper grades, if necessary. Furthermore, according to many employers and CEOs, computer skills do not seem to be as important as many claim in gaining employment, where general skills such as the ability to think, speak and write clearly are valued above all other specific, technical skills.

Regrettably, the headlong rush to introduce computers into the classroom is unlikely to be restrained in the foreseeable future, due to the widespread belief in the inherent educational benefits of computers. This techno-optimism is nothing new, Oppenheimer notes. Edison’s motion picture was initially touted as having the potential to replace textbooks, but we have seen that motion pictures and other developments such as the portable radio, B.F. Skinner’s teaching machines, overhead projectors, the telephone and television have all failed to revolutionize education and be embraced by educators, despite glowing forecasts and extravagant promises (Oppenheimer 45).

Nevertheless, uncritical enthusiasm for technology persists as schools and society are asked to upgrade or invest in the newest developments in computers and Internet technology to the tune of billions of dollars every year, a phenomenon which Oppenheimer describes as a "lucrative cycle." The fact that computers require constant maintenance and upgrading is often ignored in calculating the cost of their use. It is now becoming commonplace to hear of schools discovering that their funding is scheduled to run out at some point, leaving them with an expensive computer system to maintain and no assurance that they will be able to obtain the necessary funds to support the computers in the long-term. Alliances with business are possible at this stage, but this only increases the likelihood of further dependence and another cycle of new spending down the road. When faced with insufficient funds, schools often end up making even deeper cuts in staffing, teaching materials, programs, and maintenance (Rukeyser par. 4). While the actual costs are staggering, the opportunity costs are astronomical.

Although this would seem to be an obviously undesirable situation to enter into, investing in the latest technology creates the illusion that something significant is being done to improve student performance, especially since access has turned into one of the main issues in the computer literacy debate (Tyner 74). Providing greater access also appeals to parents, school boards, politicians, businesses, and, of course, students, who get a chance to break out of the normal classroom setting and work mode to use and, more often than not, play on the computers.

As William Rukeyser, former special assistant to the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction asks, "The promises seem too good to refuse. But are they also too good to be true" (Rukeyser par. 2). One is inclined to believe that there must be sound reasons for such computer enthusiasm, based on educational research and critical analysis of the effects of computers in the classroom, but to an objective observer’s utter dismay, such evidence is totally lacking. Although numerous studies have claimed that computer use and access have made a difference, it has been difficult to isolate and control variables to validate the claims. Critics argue that special treatment and extra attention in and of themselves are often enough to account for the positive results found in such studies (Mendels par. 12). The fact that the computer industry funds many of the studies should also give cause for skepticism:

"The research is set up in a way to find benefits that aren't really there," Edward Miller, a former editor of the Harvard Education Letter, says. "Most knowledgeable people agree that most of the research isn't valid. It's so flawed it shouldn't even be called research. Essentially, it's just worthless." Once the faulty studies are weeded out, Miller says, the ones that remain "are inconclusive" - that is, they show no significant change in either direction. (qtd. in Oppenheimer 50)

Even Apple Computer co-founder Steve Jobs is often invoked in critical essays for his honest, common-sense assessment of the role of computers in education:

I used to think that technology could help education. I've probably spearheaded giving away more computer equipment to schools than anybody else on the planet. But I've had to come to the inevitable conclusion that the problem is not one that technology can hope to solve. What's wrong with education cannot be fixed with technology. No amount of technology will make a dent. (Wolf par. 61)

Another problem is that many of the benefits asserted by computer advocates are difficult to measure, which perhaps explains why much of the research on the topic has been descriptive and qualitative. In addition to the notion that access to computers will automatically level the playing field in education and the workplace, network enthusiasts claim that student-centered, i.e. computer-centered, classrooms offer the chance for greater equality and democracy than the traditional teacher-centered classroom. The issue of classroom authority is central to this discussion. Educator Todd Taylor makes the interesting discovery that, despite his explicit intention of relinquishing authority in the computer classroom, he must confess that he inevitably ends up developing alternate means of coercion and control: "It seems that despite the high-minded goals of decentering classroom authority and empowering students, reconfigurations of the postmodern classroom often replace traditional methods of coercion with others that are not significantly different" (Taylor 112).

Taylor comes to this realization through a study of Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish, in which a panopticon is set up. The panopticon in this case could be described as both a physical and psychological arrangement of the students in a computer classroom which enables authority and power to be exercised from the teacher’s central position. For example, Taylor attempted to arrange the classroom in various ways, but each arrangement called forth certain measures of control and coercion. If students were arranged around the perimeter of the room, he then was able to enforce a type of surveillance behind their backs. If students were arranged in clusters, he inevitably tried to insure that everyone was following his directions and stayed on the same screen. This arrangement relied on willful conformity; in other words, students believed that surveillance and control from a central position of authority were necessary and beneficial. Also necessary was the impression that this classroom arrangement was needed for maximum efficiency. As a result of these beliefs, students would therefore monitor the activities of their classmates and alert the teacher to transgressions; a phenomenon which Foucault calls microphysics.This also means that authority is both supported and enforced from the bottom up with students entering into an implicit agreement to coerce and be coerced.

Taylor notes that another effective element in maintaining control is simply the rumor of control measures. When allowing students to surf the wild web, rumors of firewalls and session logs are enough to invoke willful conformity. Other measures such as signed syllabi, course contracts, instructions in netiquette and filtering software achieve roughly the same effect. As long as such measures are considered to be in the best interests of teachers and students, they seem to be tolerated. Taylor resigns himself to the fact that "we are inevitably bound up in mechanisms of authority, punishment, coercion and control"(119) as "carriers of the tradition" (118) and that he can do no more than attempt to realize as often as possible that such factors are still at play, despite all intentions of creating student-centered classrooms. Despite this position of resignation, the main point is that we should be aware that authority and power are present in every classroom and that the purely democratic, student-centered computer classroom is a utopia offered by uncritical computer enthusiasts; in other words, it doesn’t exist, but it sells well.

There are also many critics who argue that technologies are problematic due to the fact that minorities and females often suffer from unequal access and opportunity. Ellen Barton maintains that, despite the prevailing notion that computers are value-neutral and inherently beneficial, more attention should be paid to the antidominant discourse of technology, which warns that "the use of technology can contribute to the maintenance of unequal relations of power and authority" (Barton 73). Those who share such concerns are engaged in what another author calls social-system focused discourse, which is often in conflict with but needs to be merged with innovation-focused discourse (Bruce 10). This will encourage open discussion of the benefits of technology for society on the one hand, while highlighting the many political, ideological and ethical issues involved in the increasing use of technology on the other. Gail Hawisher and Cynthia Selfe also wish to situate the discussion in the larger framework of cultural and educational tradition and change. Relying on the work of anthropologist Margaret Mead, they argue that we are now in an era where we find ourselves living in a prefigurative culture, where we are faced with such completely new forms of technology that the older generation is in no position to transfer its norms and expertise to the younger generation (Hawisher and Selfe 164). The younger generation is therefore forced to look to their peers for responses to the new situation. Institutional change, however, comes slowly, leaving Selfe and Hawisher to call for an educational system in which adults create spaces for students, especially minorities and females, to develop truly revolutionary computer practices that challenge traditional paradigms of authority in the educational system and society as a whole. Concrete measures for achieving this scenario are not offered, leaving one to wonder if the change they desire can be brought about under the current system. Ideally, it seems, adults would establish new paradigms, relinquish control and then disappear, much like the eventual disappearance of a temporary ruling communist elite and central state in Marxist theory, which, of course, never happens in practice. Overall, the revolutionary promises of computers remain as yet unfulfilled.

Even if one argues that access and authority are central issues, which is also a position held by even President Clinton and his industry-heavy technology taskforce, it still cannot be argued that information equals knowledge. Giving access to computer applications and the modern push for specialization are also at odds with traditional notions of liberal education. Philosopher Richard Crandall notes that "liberal education differs from training with respect to form and breadth of knowledge" (Crandall 111).

In the wake of the failure of computers to revolutionize learning and the fact that the acquisition of basic computer skills is desirable but not necessarily something that should be taught as part of a liberal arts education, we are left with an "apparently irreplaceable arrangement: recognizable human students and recognizable human teachers in recognizable classrooms" (Crandall 113).

Astronomer, computer pioneer and technology critic, Clifford Stoll agrees that there is no replacement for the expertise a teacher brings to a classroom and the benefits of interaction with students. Widespread virtual learning in the cyberschool of the future is a horror that Stoll confronts head-on in his recent monograph, High-Tech Heretic, which is a thorough discussion of issues and abuses arising from the unquestioning enthusiasm for and introduction of computers in the classroom at the expense of teachers, materials and facilities, and, above all, common sense. Ultimately, Stoll argues, the center of the classroom is a person, not an object. There is no replacement for a competent teacher, so everything possible should be done to support teachers in their efforts.

Not only are teachers indispensable, but many would argue that books are no less necessary, because there are drawbacks to the way information is approached and processed on the computer (Crandall 81). To this end, Gary Bloom, Superintendent of the Aromas-San Juan Unified School District, notes that:

Steven Krashen, a recognized expert in literacy instruction in California, recommends in his book Every Person a Reader a "three year freeze on all technology related to literacy development ... with the money going to books and other reading materials." Krashen writes, "There is no compelling evidence that computers are especially useful in helping children to learn to read, nor is there convincing evidence that they have increased anyone's reading ability." He concludes, "Computers are important but books must come first." (Bloom par. 14)

If current trends continue, however, it is not unlikely that kids from wealthy families will continue to get good teachers and books, while poor kids end up getting computers. The more one researches this issue, the more it seems that giving a computer to a disadvantaged child would be like giving junk food to a person suffering from malnutrition.

While uncritical computer enthusiasts argue that computers help motivate students, because it supposedly makes learning fun and easy, Clifford Stoll adamantly insists that this is a lie: "Most learning isn’t fun. Learning takes work. Discipline. Commitment, from both teacher and student. Responsibility - you have to do your homework. There’s no shortcut to a quality education" (Stoll 12). Stoll quotes Austrian educator Rudolf Steiner, who wrote "I’ve often heard that there must be an education which makes learning a game for children; school must become all joy. The children should laugh all the time and learning will be play. This is the best educational principle to ensure that nothing at all is learned (Stoll 13).

Many computer critics are also distressed to note that hands-on activities are giving way to sterile simulations and that real experiences are being substituted with virtual ones, even though either could be funded. The most disconcerting examples surround the call for introducing computers in early childhood education. Stoll cites examples of kindergarten sandboxes being removed to make room for computers and the use of painting programs in place of finger-painting and crayons (Stoll 65). Indeed, many early childhood education specialists consider the use of computers to be detrimental to early development for two reasons: "First, they consider it important to give children a broad base - emotionally, intellectually, and in the five senses - before introducing something as technical and one-dimensional as a computer. Second, they believe that the human and physical world holds greater learning potential (Oppenheimer 54).

There are many other issues to discuss and many further criticisms of the social, technological and educational drawbacks to widespread computer use in the classroom, but I now would like to consider some of the practices I see on a daily basis.

I teach at three middle schools in a fairly wealthy, suburban school district. The first school has no computer lab at all, is from one of the poorer areas, and also has the poorest test scores of the three schools. The second school has a very old computer lab that can only run simple DOS and basic word-processing programs. This school is from the wealthiest part of the district and has the oldest facilities, but it also has the highest test scores and sees no urgent need to introduce widespread computer use. The third school has reserved a large portion of its budget for a new state-of-the-art computer lab, complete with scanners, printers and software. Teachers demand constant support at this school and consider technology to be a high priority. It is also hoped that technology will enable this school to bring its test scores up to the level of the second school. Unfortunately, the practices I see on a daily basis make it unlikely that computers will be the answer. I see similar practices at the other two schools, but on a smaller scale, so I will use this third school as my focus.

The most common use of computers on a daily basis is for word-processing. While word-processing allows for easy revision and creates cleaner copy for teacher editing, there are drawbacks. For example, I seldom see students working from a written rough draft; most seem to be composing as they go along. Because the layout of a computer document looks professional, it seems that students give less attention to detail and argument. It also seems common for students to take spoken dialogue, run the spellcheck over it, and consider the result to be a finished written paper. I have also witnessed classes where the teacher spends a bulk of the class time on layout and formatting problems, such as indenting, font sizes and types, centering, etc. In addition to issues of outright plagiarism, there is also the issue of clip art, which students can easily cut and paste into their documents. This creates a very attractive document, but says little about a student’s creative abilities, other than the understanding of how to cut and paste.

In addition to word-processing, there are other examples of this obsession with form. The worst example is seen in the widespread use of PowerPoint, which is essentially a computerized version of a slideshow. All grade levels and subjects seem to spend weeks setting up PowerPoint presentation, including the P.E. students I see working on health reports every year. This amounts to taking a small amount of pre-programmed content and spending days on graphics, background colors, buttons, font sizes, sound effects and visual tricks used to transition between slides. PowerPoint is fairly easy to learn and many students already know how to manipulate it, so I am baffled by the amount of time spent on this application. Clifford Stoll devotes an entire chapter entitled "The Plague of PowerPoint" to this program in High-Tech Heretic, where he calls this program nothing less than "the enemy of a good talk" (Stoll 179). Stoll argues that knowledge and passion are what an audience expects from a presentation, not a "boring slide show, complete with irrelevant whizzing graphics" (179). In a humorous but sad anecdote, Stoll quotes from a student’s description of his experience with PowerPoint, complete with grammar and spelling errors:

I wasn’t doing crap for a presentation that I had to do in class. But I still received a good grade because it was on a PowerPoint stack that took me a half hour to make. There was others in the class that worked their butts off to memorize their presentation, and here I am just reading off my presentation that was being projected on the screen. (Stoll 182-183)

Even more puzzling to me is the growing tendency to have students create webpages for "publishing" on the web using Microsoft FrontPage, which also happens to be a fairly expensive program. This is another easy program to use and requires little time to master. Nevertheless, I often see classes spending days importing and editing images, changing colors and fonts, adding buttons, bars and navigational icons. The content almost seems to be an afterthought and is merely a foundation around which to add all the bells and whistles. It is also not certain that the information they have will be turned into knowledge as the result of such formatting exercises. While students seem to be proud of such projects, I nevertheless disagree with the time and attention devoted to form and I am troubled by the possibility that such programs might limit and even suppress individual creativity and imagination. In the end, a student can only take his or her project and imagination as far as the formatting capabilities of such programs.

One should also ask where students get the information for their projects. Perhaps because of the widely-held belief that Internet is the all-purpose information clearinghouse of the future, I often see students given the assignment of conducting "research" using search engines instead of the library. I find this to be a very dangerous approach. The main issue concerns the quality of material on the web. Due to the fact that anyone can publish on the web without undergoing any type of screening or editing for accuracy and quality, it is imperative that students, and sadly enough, many secondary teachers, learn how to evaluate sources before accepting the information presented. Until this can be assured, the sheer immensity of the web and the large amount of low-quality material that must be perused make any kind of reasonable research on the web nearly impossible for inexperienced students. Oppenheimer quotes two eminent academics on this topic: We need less surfing in the schools, not more," David Gelernter, a professor of computer science at Yale, wrote last year in The Weekly Standard. "Couldn't we teach them to use what they've got before favoring them with three orders of magnitude more?" In my conversations with Larry Cuban, of Stanford, he argued, "Schooling is not about information. It's getting kids to think about information. It's about understanding and knowledge and wisdom. (Oppenheimer 60)

It is one thing to rely on unreliable sources, but it is an entirely different thing to borrow and even copy from such sources, which is often how students get the information that serves as the foundation for their formatting adventures. Students are also tempted by the fact that they can cut and paste information from websites into their documents, while feeling safe that their plagiarism won’t be found out due to the immensity of the web.

Instead of using search engines, teachers can rely on a selected number of websites that are deemed appropriate and useful. Nevertheless, these sites must be previewed and the links leading from each page need to be screened. For example, if I had failed to check all the links that I wanted to add to my website a few years back, I would not have discovered that the Harvard German Department Site had a link to Playboy (which it has since removed), or that a certain informative website describing Halloween customs linked to websites dealing with occult ritual. For all these reasons, I create my own websites to frame the parameters of my students on-line time and to ensure that we only see quality sites dealing with the topic at hand. Nevertheless, experience has shown that many students simply want to surf the web aimlessly, mostly looking at multimedia effects and images; text is almost completely ignored as students scroll in every direction possible. The temptation is clearly there for them to be passive viewers, looking to be entertained and dazzled.

Nevertheless, there are certain computer applications that I find useful. The Internet is useful for accessing up-to-date information, live images, and cultural information. Video continues to be the best medium for visual input, but the Internet has much to offer in this regard. There is very little commercial software that I use in class. Having reviewed CD-ROMs and numerous commercial software programs as a member of a district-wide software committee, I can say with certainty that most of the software on the market is fairly worthless from a teaching standpoint. Much of the software is teeming with graphics and sound, but offers little in the way of learning experiences. Many of these programs feature simulations and virtual experiences, but these are of questionable value. To illustrate the poverty of simulations and virtual experiences, I can cite an example from my own experience. While eighth-grade teachers at my third school let students play an Oregon Trail simulation game as a supplement to their unit on Westward expansion, the second school has a full-fledged field day with costumes, arts and crafts, foods and activities. It is not difficult to predict which experience will be remembered years from now.

In addition to using selected websites for news and cultural information, I mostly use the computers at the third school for on-line interactive exercises, which are fairly easy to create and allow a great measure of control. While this enables my students to focus on the form of the language, it cannot, however, make up for listening and speaking practice. Some students are able to work successfully at their own pace on these exercises and benefit from the immediate correction and feedback that they provide. Others simply look for the correct answer, so that they can move on to the next exercise in the belief that coming to the end of the exercises means they have done their work and have therefore learned something. I have to pay special attention to such students and then check their work in the classroom to see if they truly have learned anything. One student, who recently failed my class, was very fond of working on the computer on those few occasions we used them at the second school. As it became clear that he was not going to make it through the semester, his mother asked if he could possibly do all his work on the computer, since that was the only thing he seemed to enjoy. The computer was somehow seen as the answer, simply because he liked the fact that it was easy to use and that he could eventually get right answers without really thinking, especially if he stuck to working on multiple choice exercises. I noted that this was an impossibility, because he never paid attention in class and never made any effort whatsoever. As we continued to learn new material, it became clear that he had not developed a knowledge base to work from and could therefore do less and less on the computer as time went on. This corresponds to my belief that computers, when used carefully and with much planning and experience, can supplement student learning, but only after students have done their regular work of listening, practicing, studying and giving daily effort.

Finally, there are the issues of cost, maintenance and technical support. Even though the third school has a new computer lab, there have been ongoing problems of viruses, pirated software being setup on the network, breakdowns in the system, individual computers going down, tried and true programs being incompatible with the new system, and general user errors on the part of both teachers and students from a lack of training or experience. It has also been hard to find qualified support staff who agree to work for minimum wage, while a small technical support crew is called upon to maintain computers in a district 150 square miles in size. The computers bought three years ago are already outdated and need to be upgraded and are too slow for the new network installed this year, but the district argues that the pace of change makes it more prudent to simply wait before further inevitable investment, which seems like trying to put the genie back in the bottle for the moment.

In conclusion, there are instances where computers can prove useful. There is no denying that children with special needs often benefit from computers and technology, for example. It also should be acknowledged that that an experienced, competent teacher could probably use any tool successfully. Nevertheless, I agree with the many computer experts and academics who argue for a more thorough, open debate on the issue of computers in the classroom. More research needs to be conducted to demonstrate proven benefits of computer use, so that the immense costs related to computer use can be considered in light of any real benefits. The opportunity costs of investing heavily in computers also need to be considered in terms of overall school budgets. Teachers need to be given training and time to learn the new tools in addition to developing sound pedagogical practices. Social and cultural issues related to the use of and access to computers need to be considered. Realistic expectations need to be created to replace the wildly optimistic claim that computers are an educational panacea. Alternatives to computer use should also be considered and compared with computer use in terms of effectiveness. Above all, I would urge greater caution and skepticism on the part of educators and parents. It remains to be seen whether computers will prove to be a useful teaching tool, or whether they will go the way of other innovations. Although I once considered myself a computer-phile, I now consider myself to be nothing more than a cautious and critical enthusiast, bordering on skepticism. I wait in hope that the benefits of computer use will be demonstrated in scholarly studies and that a sound pedagogy will be developed in the near future, but the prospects are not promising at this point.

Annotated List of Works Cited (see Washington U. - St. Louis library)

Barton, Ellen L. "Interpreting the Discourses of Technology." Literacy and Computers: The Complication of Teaching and Learning with Technology Ed. Cynthia Selfe and Susan Hilligoss. New York: The MLA of America, 1994. 56-75.
In this essay, Barton problematizes the view that technology is inherently beneficial and value-neutral. There seems to be a dominant discourse in society which is optimistic in its assessment of the effects of technology. This discourse has become so entrenched that it has virtually silenced the arguments of those who want to take a step back and consider issues of unequal access, funding and possible pitfalls of computer use. Writing before the explosion of the Internet, Barton clearly foresaw many of the issues that have become topics of debate today. Her essay remains as relevant today as when it was written.

Bloom, Gary S. "Caveat Emptor Buyer Beware (Technohype)" Learning in the Real World April 1996. 22 December 1999 <http://www.realworld.org/articles/Caveat_Empt.html>.
Gary Bloom writes from experience as a long-time computer user and superintendent of the Aromas-San Juan Unified School District on the topic of computers. In this brief essay he warns about the lack of compelling evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of investments in technology. Bloom also guidelines for schools to follow when developing technology plans, urging greater caution, savvy and long-term vision and planning. Bloom also warns about falling prey to computer hype and the dangers of investing in technology at the expense of investing in books, materials, facilities and teachers.

Bruce, Bertram C. "Innovation and Social Change." Network-based Classrooms: Promises and Realities. Ed. Bertram C. Bruce, Joy Kreeft Peyton and Trent Batson. Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 1993. 9-33.
This work features fourteen chapters by various academics on the issue of innovations and change, the attempts at realizing one particular innovation, namely the network-based classroom, and assessing the outcomes of network-based instruction. The main approach discussed is known as the ENFI (Electronic Networks for Interaction), which was developed in 1985 at Gallaudet University. In the chapter on "Innovation and Change," Bruce argues that we need to consider both innovation-focused and social-system focused discourses. Giving heed to both discourses will allow a merging of complex socio-political and technological concerns and provide a more comprehensive discussion of issues surrounding technology and the innovations it can bring.

Crandall, Richard E. A Network Orange: Logic and Responsibility in the Computer Age. New York: Springer, 1998.
A philosopher teams up with a computer scientist to discuss the limits of technology in terms of its ability to enable students to pursue truth and a better life in addition to receiving a broad liberal education. The strengths and weaknesses of computers are openly discussed, but the overall tendency is to highlight examples of computer hype, misuse and inadequacy in promoting scholarship and the attainment of true education. The authors debunk many arguments for increased computer use and urge greater skepticism and caution before introducing computers into the classroom. The title of this six chapter work emphasizes the authors’ concerns that modern computer networks are odd things, which often create problems of logic and responsibility.

Hawisher, Gail and Cynthia Selfe. "Tradition and Change in Computer-Supported Writing Environments: A Call for Action." Theoretical and Critical Perspectives on Teacher Change. Ed. Phyllis Kahaney, Linda A. M. Perry, and Joseph Janangelo. Norwood: Ablex, 1993. 155-186.
In this collection of essays on current changes and trends in education, Hawisher and Selfe offer a chapter on changes wrought by the introduction of technology in which they argue using a social-innovation discourse that is pessimistic. Despite the promises of technology, Hawisher and Selfe warn that computers preserve the status quo in society and in the classroom, which is biased against minorities, women and the poor in terms of access and opportunity. Changes brought on by technology must also be considered in terms of their political, social and ethical ramifications. Although they propose revolutionizing current teaching practices and paradigms, they are short on specifics and realistic alternatives. The one alternative they propose, namely hypertext, is fraught with problems and inadequacies so severe that it is difficult to understand how an essay urging caution and skepticism could make a virtually blind leap of faith and place all their hopes in such a limited medium. Written in 1993, this solution has proven unsuccessful over time. Finally, the essay highlights issues for discussion, but offers little in the way of practical solutions.

Mendels, Pamela. "After Years of Research, Study on In-Home Computers Leaves Questions." New York Times on the Web 22 July 1998. 22 December 1999 <www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/07/cyber/education/22education.html>.
Award-winning columnist Pamela Mendels covers issues of education, government, censorship and civil rights issues for web edition of The New York Times. She has written numerous articles on the issue of Educational Technology, mostly questioning the soaring costs and unfulfilled promises made by computer advocates. In this article, she discusses a study designed to show the benefits of extensive computer use for disadvantaged students. Due to flaws in design study and the inability of researchers to define and isolate variables, Mendels questions the validity of the study and disputes its conclusions, offering the more likely explanation that student improvement is promoted by the extra attention and care that can be given in any of a number of forms.

Oppenheimer, Todd. "The Computer Delusion." The Atlantic Monthly July 1997: 45-62.
Oppenheimer’s article of 1997 broke ground and opened the door for greater criticism and skepticism as to the extravagant, unsupported claims made by computer enthusiasts and salesmen. His article forms the starting point for any discussion of the benefits of computer in the classroom and provides much ammunition for those wishing to address the extreme dangers, drawbacks and costs associated with computing. Oppenheimer offers a multifaceted discussion, drawing on the knowledge and expertise of high-profile scholars and academics and urging greater caution before chasing another technology, which might go the way of all others before it as a tool with much unrealized promise.

Rukeyser, William. "Technology in Our Schools." Our Children Magazine June-July 1998. 22 December 1999 <http://www.pta.org/pubs/techsch.htm>.
William L. Rukeyser heads The Real World (http://www.realworld.org), a non-profit organization, which offers grants for educational research and provides information on current issues such as computer literacy. Rukeyser was also former special assistant to theCalifornia State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Rukeyser discusses the pros and cons of computer use in the classroom, while dispelling myths about the Internet and its alleged benefits. Rukeyser encourages parents to question whether they agree with the new vision of modern schools currently being marketed and to ask for evidence of improvements brought about by technology. Overall, Rukeyser urges us to give a greater role to the time-honored virtues of skepticism and thrift in the technology debate.

Stoll, Clifford. High-Tech Heretic: Why Computers Don’t Belong in the Classroom and Other Reflections by a Computer Contrarian. New York: Doubleday, 1999.
Stoll’s most recent work is an account of the dangers, drawbacks and ultimate undesirability of computers in the classroom is written in a conversational, yet passionate tone. Stoll takes on many of the prevailing assumptions as to the benefits of educational technology and offers numerous anecdotes from his own observations of schools across the country. A computer-pioneer, Internet guru and astronomer, Stoll concedes that there are some things that computers do well, but ultimately, he categorically states that they are unnecessary in the classroom and are a hollow replacement for real hands-on learning with a caring teacher.

Taylor, Todd. "The Persistence of Authority: Coercing the Student Body." Literacy Theory in the Age of the Internet. Ed. Todd Taylor Todd and Irene Ward. New York: Columbia University, 1998.
Todd Taylor tackles one of the much-heralded claims of computer enthusiasts, namely that computers can foster a democratic, student-centered classroom. Drawing on the work of Michel Foucault, Taylor looks at his own teaching experiences to discover that alternative classroom arrangements and teaching approaches often entail equally coercive measures, albeit more implicit and subtle. Taylor gives an honest appraisal of his own teaching practices in this chapter, offering a strong theoretical discussion backed up with numerous examples and insights. Taylor is one of only a few to have approached this aspect of computer literacy.

Turkle, Sherry, "Seeing Through Computers: Education in a Culture of Simulation," The American Prospect March-April 1997. 22 December 1999 <http://www.prospect.org/archives/31/31turkfs.html>.
In this essay, Sociology of Science Professor, Sherry Turkle decries the dumbing down of notions of computer literacy in recent times. Turkle believes students must understand the inner workings of a computer and not accept this technology unquestioningly. Sadly, she notes that there is now a divide between those who grew up in what she calls a culture of calculation and those now growing up in a culture of simulation. The current press towards simulation implies that students seek to get results without understanding the processes. Turkle argues that students need to develop greater understanding of the entire context of computer use and avoid falling into the trap of being passive "users."

Tyner, Kathleen. Literacy in a Digital World: Teaching and Learning in the Age of Information Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998.
Kathleen Tyner discusses notions of literacy relating to various media forms. Tyner devotes much space to considerations of access and social equity in several chapters. Tyner argues that both pedagogies and policies need to be developed to keep pace with the rapid rate of technological change. Tyner addresses most of the relevant issues, but does so with thoroughness and solid argumentation.

Wolf, Gary. "Steve Jobs: The Next Insanely Great Thing." Wired Magazine 4 Feb 1996. 26 December 1999 <http://www.wired.com/wired/archive//4.02/jobs_pr.html>.
Gary Wolf’s interview with Apple co-founder is an eye-opening account of an educational technology enthusiast turned skeptic. Jobs also believes that the web has been turned into the domain of business and that it holds little promise for changing schools or society, on the whole, simply due to its democratic nature. In the end, Jobs doesn’t seem to believe that technology can change much at all. It is utterly convincing to hear this computer pioneer issue such devastating refutations of commonly-held positions.