Laptop Initiatives
Like other segments of our society, school districts
have readily adopted computers as tools within
their organizations. The impressive achievement of
improving the amount of hardware, networking capability,
and Internet access throughout the 1990s has been remarkable. With these improvements, advocates for technology in
schools have argued that with increased access,
changes in teaching and learning would
materialize. Although U.S. schools
currently have nearly a 4: 1 student-to-computer ratio and Internet
access within schools is at nearly
99%, questions remain about
whether teachers use these
technologies in meaningful
ways to improve teaching and
learning. Although schools
have made tremendous improvements, many advocates
for technology use in schools
argue that the ratio needs to
narrow so that each student has a
personal computing device, and that
only within a 1: 1 context will students
and teachers be able to truly harness the power
of technology to improve teaching and learning.
As advocates for effective integration of technology and
the instructional process, we have integrated technology in
our own work with students and attempted to model ways
that encourage preservice teachers to use technology within their own (eventual) practice with students. Our intention, therefore, is not to say laptops are bad or that schools
and teachers should not pursue new technologies. Instead,
we want to re-emphasize the importance of thoroughly
thinking through how these technologies are going to support meaningful instruction and determining whether that
instructional vision is supported by building-level administrators and teachers.
Careful consideration of teachers’ instructional practices—and whether current practices support effective
technology use by students—should be the foundation for
district decision-makers before jumping into a 1: 1 laptop
initiative. The history of technology adoption in K– 12
schools has demonstrated that for those who used technology it was great, but for those who didn’t, it hasn’t changed
much of anything about their instructional choices. Look-
ing at our own experiences in public schools and in teacher
education, the hardware was the easy part. Getting people
to make instructional choices that supported use of these
new tools within their courses was another story.
A recent survey of 74 building-level school administrators
in Indiana challenged many of the assumptions regarding
1: 1 laptop initiatives and how 1: 1 access would affect
teaching and learning. (See survey highlights
on page 20.) It also revealed disturbing re-
alities regarding instructional practices
of teachers, as well as efforts to improve
school technology integration. The
intent of the survey was to identify
administrators’ perspectives regard-
ing technology priorities within
their schools and their perceptions
toward digital portfolios in the hir-
ing process. However, embedded in
the survey were questions regarding
the administrators’ observed instruc-
tional technology use by teachers,
along with questions regarding adminis-
trators’ current technology infrastructure.
When factoring differences between observed
instructional practices and infrastructure, results
resurrect a challenge to the assumption made by 1: 1 advo-
cates: Without a well-articulated and supported vision of
technology integration by teachers and administrators, add-
ing new technologies to the school and classroom will have
minimal effect on changing teachers’ instructional practice
and their technology use with students.
How About Those Technology Standards?
Indiana has referenced the National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS•T) and Administrators
(NETS•A), but surprisingly, the building-level administrators have little knowledge of these standards. If the notion
of national educational technology standards is to provide a
framework of expectations and offer insight on how essential conditions within the school can support technology,
the leaders of these schools have to be informed, knowledgeable, and supportive of instructional technology use.
Scant knowledge of NETS•A among participants raises
questions regarding leadership. It also raises questions
about instructional technology use as administrators wrestle with a variety of demands on their time and resources.
© ISTOCKPHOTOS.COM/ PENFOLD
