brunner Warning Concerning Copyright Restrictions The Copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyright material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction not be “used for any purposes other than private study, schokship, or research.” If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of “fair use,” that user may be liable for copyright infkgement. -* THE I j AN EDUCATOR’S GUIDE TO BRINGING NEW MEDIA I i INTO THE CLASSROOM I f. i I i t I CORNELIA BRUNNER, PH. D. *ND WILLIAM TALLY ANCHOR BOOKS DOUBLEDAY New York London Toronto Sydney Auckland AN ANCHOR Boon PUBLISHED BY DOUBLEDAY a division of Random House, Inc. 1540 Broadway, New York, New York 10036 ANCHOR Booxs, DOUBLEDAY, and the portrayal of an anchor are trademarks of Doubleday, a division of Random House, Inc. Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data Brunner, Cornelia, Ph. D. The new media literacy handbook: an educator’s guide to bringing new media into the classroom / Comelia Brunner & William Tally. p. cm. Includes index. 1. Educational technology- Handbooks, manuals, etc. 2. Media literacy- Handbooks, manuals, etc. 3. Interactive multimedia- Handbooks, manuals, etc. 4. Computer- assisted instruction- Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Tally, William. II. Title. LB1028.3. B77 1999 371.33’46~ 21 99- 11339 CIP ISBN O- 385- 49614- 1 Copyright 0 1999 by Cornelia Brunner and William Tally All Rights Reserved Printed in the United States of America First Anchor Books Edition: June 1999 Text design by Stanley S. Drate/ Folio Graphics Co. Inc. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 *$ Acknowledgments First and foremost the authors wish to thank the Bertelsmann Founda- tion for supporting the Media Workshop New York, the program of cur- riculum development, teacher training, and research out of which this book emerged. It is not every day that a global media conglomerate chooses to help urban schoolteachers make their students more critical, creative, and discerning about the media they consume and the technol- ogies they use. We were lucky, in particular, to work with Dr. Ingrid Hamm from the Foundation, who recognized the need for this work from the beginning and helped shape it throughout. We also owe heart- felt thanks to our friend Melissa Phillips, director of the Media Work- shop, and all her staff, who helped us refine these ideas through practical work with teachers, and taught us much in the process. The best of the thinking in this book grows, however, from more than ten years of argu- ments, explorations, and conversations with our colleagues at the EDC Center for Children and Technology, who have never failed to be chal- lenging and stimulating and supportive, even when we didn’t deserve it. Weaknesses of the writing are all ours, since we benefited from the care and attention of our talented editor and close friend, Lorin Driggs. Fi- nally the authors offer our greatest thanks, as well as a standing plea for forgiveness for putting up with us, to our respective partners in love and life, Lucy ‘Gilbert and Peggy Tally. This book is dedicated to Jan Hawkins, 1952- 1999. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Contents Introduction Technology for Change: A NEW VISION OF TEACHING AND LEARNING New Media in the History and Social Studies Classroom Arts Education and the New Media Language Arts and the New Media Using New Technologies to Develop Science Literacy 1 22 40 83 124 169 Index 217 Technology for Change: A NEW VISION OF TEACHING AND LEARNING Introduction The chief premise behind this book is that media and technolo- gies are tools. They are not, in other words, ends in themselves. They may greatly expand the range of teaching, learning, and communication modalities available to teachers and students, but at bottom their only value is in helping us to do other things well- engage students deeply in a topic, help them take more re- sponsibility for their learning, help them learn to communicate clearly about their work and their ideas. Yet, for a variety of reasons, educational technologies tend to draw our attention until they seem to be the most important thing in the picture. Fixated on new technologies, excited by their capabilities, or preoccupied with their new demands, we forget the far more important relationships and interactions that the technologies are in schools and in classrooms to support. The purpose ‘of this chapter is to put back into focus the human side of the educational equation, the goals and aims that we have as teachers for our students. What kinds of knowledge, what forms of interaction, what habits of mind and of work do we want to foster in students? And how might new media, taken broadly, serve or not serve these most basic and most important of goals? Technology for Change 23 Our intention in this chapter is to “come clean” about our biases as authors- the particular vision of schooling that under- lies our discussions in this book of the uses of new technologies and new media and related media literacy issues. This vision is not ours alone, but is broadly shared by reform- minded educators nationwide; and it is not pure bias, but is based on a large amount of developmental and educational research into how children learn well in a variety of disciplines. First, however, we should ’ explain why it is important to be clear about educational visions, goals, and biases when talking about the use of technologies in schools. ,” Technologies Are Tools Yes, technologies are tools, but for what ends? To use them well, we must be clear about the educational and human purposes we want them to serve. Computers and network technologies have been and are now being used for very different educational ends. Consider these two scenarios: At James Madison High School in New York City, tenth- grade students, mostly African American and Latino, file into a networked computer lab and find seats at large new monitors and keyboards. Outside, in the hallways, in the stairwells, and in the foyers, the school resembles a mini- mum- security- prison facility, with metal detectors at the doors, a police substation located off the foyer, and secu- rity guards who move through the halls breaking up small groups of students who are avoiding classes by lounging on stairs and in rest rooms. James Madison is a large school in a middle- income neighborhood, but nearly all the students are poor and working- class. Drugs and vio- lence are a recurrent problem. The computer lab, however, is a relative haven: it is quiet here, and as students enter their names into the computer, they find that the software program greets them warmly by name, remembers exactly where they were when they left off the day before with their work, and gently guides them through well- designed exercises in biology, algebra, and American history, prais- : .- 24 The New Media literacy Handbook ing successful answers and offering patient prompting and another chance- without a hint of judgment- when they miss an answer. The teacher, who monitors the students’ individual workstations from a central machine of his own, moves around the room, helping students with tech- nical problems, finding files, and printing. The students work well and mostly silently until the bell rings fifty min- utes after they entered the room. Then they file out to re- turn to their regular classrooms where, despite some dedicated teachers, the crowded, noisy, and sometimes in- timidating teaching conditions will ensure that they re- main relatively anonymous, and will have little contact with challenging material. In the chaotic context of James Madison, technology is the vehicle of a more individual- ized, effective- and possibly humane- instruction than students might otherwise get. At the Richmond Academy, a private school across town from James Madison, ninth- graders file into their so- cial studies classroom and, before class begins, log on to one of six workstations at tables against the walls. They argue noisily about what they are finding as they unearth an archaeological site in ancient Greece. The students have been working on the computer- based archaeology simulation for about three weeks, and teams of students are each responsible for excavating one of four separate quadrants of the site. It is a welcome break for the ninth- graders, who in their other classes spend much of their time taking lecture notes and learning to parse sophisti- cated texts as part of their college- prep curriculum. Here they are “digging up” pottery shards, fragments of weap- ons, pieces of masonry, and bits of ancient texts, and try- ing to identify and interpret each artifact in order to fit it into their emerging picture of the site as a whole. In their research the students visit local museums, consult refer- ence works on Greek history, art, and architecture, and ask other teachers in the school to help translate texts. Clev- erly, the students’ teachers have filled the site with ambig- uous evidence, so that some teams find a preponderance of data suggesting the site was a temple, while others find Technology for Change 25 artifacts mostly suggesting it was a battlefield. In weekly meetings the teams present their latest findings to the rest of the class, and a hot debate ensues as the amateur ar- chaeologists struggle to reconcile the fragmentary and am- biguous data. On this day the classroom is active and noisy, yet controlled, as students take turns at the com- puter, graph their findings on large wall- charts, call across the room to ask if anyone has a spearhead to compare with one just found, and argue about whose final interpre- tation of the site will best explain the bulk of the evidence. In both of these settings the computers are state- of- the- art; in both they are being used for valid educational ends; and in both they are contributing positively to the educational needs of the students, While the school contexts are in sharp contrast- a large urban public high school serving low- income students, and a well- endowed private prep school serving elite students- by itself this contrast only underscores that technologies, as flexible tools, can meet very different needs, and can meet them well. At James Madison the computer- based curriculum manages to individual- ize, streamline, and even humanize learning in an otherwise cha- otic, depersonalized school setting. At Richmond Academy, the computer- based simulation challenges students to develop skills beyond those of processing texts, and to learn to “read” and rea- son from images, architecture, and art about cultures distant in time and place. All in all, the computer as a “tool” appears to be used appropriately, given the different goals that define success for students in these two settings. Indeed, educators in both schools cite their computer- based classes as models of “information- age schooling,” schooling “for the twenty- first century. ” What do these slogans mean? Most im- portant is the implicit idea that students are gaining skills they will need to be successful in a technology- infused workplace. This is perhaps the most frequently heard rationale for why schools must integrate new technologies. On their face, both claims ap- pear to be true: students at James Madison and Richmond are im- mersed in computer learning environments every day and are becoming familiar with keyboarding and computer “navigation” skills, simulations, computer modeling, multimedia presenta- 26 The New Media literacy Handbook tions, and more. This kind of technological literacy, in addition to the subject matter knowledge they gain, should stand them in good stead in an economy where technologies are a common fea- ture of the workplace. Instructional Delivery vs. Inquiry It can be argued, then, that both schools described above are pre- paring their students for work in the high- tech job market of the twenty- first century. By looking more closely, however, we can see that the scenarios presented above represent two very distinct visions for technology use in schools, two different visions of teaching and learning, and, very possibly, two different sets of life outcomes for students. The first vision, represented by the James Madison computer lab, can be called the instructional delivery model. In it: * learning is understood narrowly, as the mastery of discrete facts and bodies of information; l technology functions as a delivery mechanism- a clean and efficient means of achieving content mastery; l software contains the material to be learned and guides the learning process; l students interact primarily with software and not with other students or adults; l teachers are relegated to a relatively small role as monitors of learning; + subject matter and performance criteria are predetermined and remain unquestioned; and l use of the technology can be incorporated within the exist- ing structure and with little or no impact on the larger orga- nization of teaching and learning in the school. The computer lab at James Madison, with its integrated learn- ing system, organizes work along the lines of a successful factory, one that seeks to optimize the efficiency with which individual students progress in the mastery of discrete skills and bodies of information. The fact that at James Madison and schools like it, the factory model of schooling is a more personal and individual- ized form of instruction than students otherwise get should not Technology for Change ; 27 obscure the traditional and conservative nature of this form of instruction. This is the model of instruction that has held sway in American schools for most of the twentieth century, based on rote learning of preestablished material. In it there is little room for students’ own questions, concerns, or prior ways of understand- ing material; thinking is oriented to finding the right answer among a preselected set of options; and students have few oppor- tunities to learn from others, whose ideas and learning strategies may be different from theirs. But aren’t students at least being prepared for the high- tech workplace? True, students at Madison are gaining exposure to va- rieties of computer applications; but they do so as relatively pas- sive absorbers of information, not as active thinkers and inquirers. In the high- tech workplace they will have been pre- pared to perform relatively routine jobs like data entry and moni- toring computer- controlled procedures. They will not have gained the ability to learn continuously, think complexly about problems, and devise creative solutions within real- world con- straints- skills that workplaces often prize and reward. Added to this, recent analyses of the high- tech economy suggest that in it, more jobs are being created for business managers and profes- sionals who are trained to evaluate options and make decisions in complex problem- settings than are being created for high- technology workers. r The ability to use one’s mind flexibly and well remains a far better guarantee of workplace success than facil- ity with the latest technology. By contrast, the second vision of teaching and learning, re- flected in the Richmond students’ simulated archaeological dig, can be called the inquiry model. In it: + learning is understood broadly, as the ability to use one’s mind well in framing and solving open- ended problems in original ways, and in coordinating complex activities with others; l technology serves as a catalyst and support for an extended classroom inquiry that is open- ended and “messy,” involv- ing guessing, debate, and multiple materials; l technology serves limited roles and is integrated with other tools and media- students learn using many different re- 11fe IYew Media Literacy Handbook Technology for Change 29 sources, including books, libraries, museums, videos, and adult experts, in the school and beyond; l students work collaboratively (and competitively) in teams helping each other to learn and sharing data in ways tha; model how real scientists collaborate: l teachers play crucial roles in selecting goals and materials, and as guides and intellectual coaches to students; + broad subject matter decisions are made by teachers and more local ones by students, and teachers give students a role in determining performance criteria; l the use of technology challenges the dominant mode of text- driven instruction in the school, making it more in- quiry- based, collaborative, and varied in the use of re- sources. Put simply, the contrast between these two visions of educa- tion and technology use can be summarized by saying that the first one seeks an efficient mechanism for the delivery of instruc- tion, while the second seeks a rich environment in which stu- dents can learn to use their minds well. A Disturbing Divide Not surprisingly, teaching children to use their minds well has most often been a value in public and private schools serving rela- tively elite students, where educators are given some flexibility in defining what and how students learn and resources exist to sup- port enriched learning activities. In contrast, efficiency in deliver- ing pre- set curriculum has been a value in public school systems serving middle- class, working- class, and poor communities where public pressure for accountability over tight tax dollar; lessens the autonomy and resources with which educators can work. As a result, the use of computers as flexible classroom tools to support collaborative inquiry learning is relatively uncommon occurring most often in those relatively few and relatively afflul ent schools that stress thinking, that give teachers adequate re- sources to work with, and that support ongoing professional development for teachers. Far more common in large, bureaucrat- ically driven public schools is the use of technology as a delivery mechanism. Hence the proliferation of computer labs, of inte- grated learning systems, of classroom computers used only to access CD- ROM encyclopedias, drill and practice games, “info- tainment,” word processing, and, now, “research on the In- ternet.” These may or may not be valid purposes for computers in schools. But one thing seems clear: given the gap in educational aims and means so common among American schools- the bulk of which teach for rote mastery of information amid conditions of relative scarcity, while a few teach students to use their minds well amid relative plenty- technology uses like these will do little to challenge a vast and growing gap in intellectual capital be- tween our nation’s schoolchildren. How can we make rigorous- inquiry learning more widespread in American schools, and how can technologies help level the playing field instead of widen the gap between rich and poor. 7 This inherent problem in our democ- racy can be addressed only by linking three things- the move- ment for school reform, new insights about teaching and learning, and judicious and appropriate uses of technologies. 4 The Challenge: Linking School Reform, Inquiry Teaching, and New Technologies In the past ten to fifteen years a national school reform move- ment has sought to address the failings of large, bureaucratically driven schools by pushing for smaller, more intimate schools and reduced class sizes, greater responsibility for teachers in decisions over curriculum and budget, more flexibility in evaluation and assessment, and greater responsiveness and connection to parents and local communities. The Coalition for Essential Schools, James Comer’s School- Family Partnerships, the Annenberg rural and urban school initiatives, large- scale reform efforts in Chicago, Philadelphia, the San Francisco Bay Area and New York, and the growing number of charter schools across the country are just a few examples of this movement. The animating idea behind these initiatives is that where students are well known as individuals, where teachers work together from a shared educational vision, where students are trusted to take responsibility for their learning and are held to high standards of accountability, where parents 10 The New Media Literacy Handbook are deeply involved in the school community, and where deci- sions about assessment are collectively and publicly made, stu- dents of all backgrounds can and will learn at high levels of achievement. At the same time, an emerging body of developmental and cognitive research has led to a growing consensus about the ways children learn well, and this consensus has begun to change edu- cators’ views of how teaching and learning should be organized at the classroom level. Educators are now placing greater empha- sis on students as active builders and testers of knowledge in and across the disciplines. Sometimes dubbed the “cognitive revolu- tion” or “constructivism,” this new consensus in fact recapitu- lates ideas developed by John Dewey and other early educational progressives about students as “active learners.” The central in- sight, simply put, is that learners build powerful maps of the world only by starting from and adding to or revising their exist- ing maps, or schemas. Students, therefore, need opportunities to formulate, test, and revise their concepts about the world and its phenomena, whether human, mathematical, or scientific. The work that teachers do to support students’ active testing, revising, and extending of concepts is sometimes called, in educational jar- gon, “scaffolding.” This term reflects the fact that teachers let stu- dents- like construction workers on a scaffold- perform the essential task of building knowledge but provide a rich and care- fully crafted learning environment to support them in their work. The “scaffold” may include direct teaching of certain key infor- mation, ideas, or skills, and the provision of key materials and resources, but it must leave room for students to tinker, speculate, create, and revise. And the scaffolding of ideas takes place best in a human and social context of discussion, debate, and compari- son of one’s own “maps” with those of others. Armed with this view of teaching and learning, professional educators’ groups such as the National Association for Teachers of Mathematics, the National Science Teachers Association, and the National Center for History in the Schools are busy revising cur- riculum and drafting national standards that are becoming mod- els for state and local standards around the country. While they push for deeper, more active, and rigorous teaching in the disci- plines, the new standards are philosophically in sync with the Technology for Change 31 aims of the school reform community. In particular, they suggest the need for schools to provide teachers with greater autonomy and support than they have had to date, including flexibility in shaping curriculum and assessment, less instructional time and more planning time, opportunities for block- scheduling and team- teaching, and ongoing professional development opportu- nities. Finally, there is a growing recognition that technologies must be enlisted in support of changed instructional practices and in- vigorated school communities. The recognition is evrdent m many places. Conference panels and presentations on technology and school reform are now more common than ever. 2 School re- form people, having spent ten years (appropriately) focused on community- building and governance issues, are now focusing on classroom practices and, in particular, ways technologies can sup- port school cultures of inquiry and reflection. And on their side, educational technologists have understood that in order for media to have meaningful and lasting impact in schools they must be adopted in tandem with changes in school culture and organization, not simply grafted onto existing practices. Reflect- ing this shift in perspective, in 1995 the magazine Electronic Leam- ing, long an advocate of school technology, added to its name the subtitle “the magazine of technology and school reform.” Increasingly, educators and technologists- including the au- thors of this book- are arguing that technologies need to be inte- grated into schools in service of inquiry- based pedagogies and need to be supported by a changed organization of schooling. As a result, academics and practitioners have sought to align the goals of school reform with the functions and capabilities of new technologies. In this chapter we discussed three key ways technol- ogies can support work in these changed schools: as research tools, as production tools, and as conversational tools. Now we highlight features of emerging schools that link inquiry teaching, new technologies, and school reform. Democratic, Information- Age Schools These concepts come together in a vision of democratic, informa- tion- age schools- schools that will not only prepare students to 32 The New Media Literacy Handbook be successful in the workplace, but also prepare them to partici- pate actively as citizens in their communities. Prototypes of such schools exist- and not just in wealthy communities, but in lower- income urban and rural communities as well. As schools such as the celebrated Central Park East schools in New York City’s East Harlem attest, schools need not be technology rich to be “infor- mation- age.” Rather, the phrase “information- age” signals that the schools focus on developing students’ critical habits of mind with regard to ideas and evidence- the ability to use their minds well. Technologies, however, while not the key ingredients in these schools, do have important roles to play in them. Six Attributes of a Democratic, Information- Age School Researchers have suggested at least six features that distinguish democratic, information- age schools. Here is how Vicki Hancock, a curriculum supervisor who has traveled extensively document- ing these features of new schools, describes them: l Interactivity. In schools demonstrating interactivity, stu- dents communicate with other students through formal presentations, cooperative learning activities, and infor- mal dialogue. Students and teachers talk to one another about their learning tasks in large groups, small groups, and one- to- one. Students have constant access to and know how to use print and electronic information re- sources to inform their learning activities. They recog- nize the value of the information in their own communities and interact with various community members, including businesspeople, social service staff, arts professionals, athletes, older adults, and volunteer workers. l Self- initiated learning. When students initiate their own learning, they participate in productive questioning, probing for information they can use rather than wait- ing for the next question on a test or from a teacher. Information resources are central, not peripheral, in day- to- day learning activities. Students gather their Technology for Change 33 own data to learn about topics, using a variety of sources and practicing effective research techniques. They are able to examine the large quantity of informa- tion they have gathered, synthesize it, and reduce it to usable quantities for their purposes. They can analyze and interpret information in the context of the prob- lems or questions they have identified, and they can evaluate not only the quality of the information they’ve gathered, but also the processes they’ve used to gather it. + A changing role for teachers. To develop self- initiated learners in the information- age school, the teacher’s role must evolve away from dispenser of prefabricated facts to coach and guide. In this continuously changing role, teachers leave fact- finding to the computer, spend- ing their time doing what they were meant to do as content experts: arousing curiosity, asking the right questions at the right time, and stimulating debate and serious discussion around engaging topics. In fact, every adult in the school community communicates the power of knowledge by modeling a love of learning. Pre- service and in- service programs require the use of information resources and technologies as an inte- grated part of teachers’ certification and recertification. Teachers create a community among themselves in which they are willing to plan together, share successes, resolve challenges, and model strategies for one an- other. l Media and technology specialists us central participants. Media and technology specialists are critical in the in- formation- age school, and their role is twofold. Work- ing with students, they are project facilitators. They can ask the initial questions that help students develop a focus for inquiry. They are thoroughly familiar with the school’s and district’s information resources and can di- rect students to multidisciplinary materials suitable for their investigations. With their technology skills they can assist students in their efforts to develop technol- ogy- enhanced products and presentations. Working I’ 34 The New Media Literacy Handbook with teachers, they are instructional designers- partners in curriculum development and unit planning. Their expertise with information resources can inform teachers’ exploration of curriculum topics and assist them in locating the materials they need. And, because ongoing professional development is an integral part of the work in an information- age school, media and tech- nology specialists contribute their expertise to the de- sign and delivery of technology- enhanced in- service programs, l Continuous evaluation. Everyone in the information- age school recognizes the need for continuous evaluation is not limited to scheduled standardized assessments. They engage in a high level of introspection, asking questions about the appropriateness of information re- sources, the efficiency of information searches, and the quality of information selection and evaluation. They also examine the quality of the products and presenta- tions they use to share the results of their inquiries, as well as the communication process itself. + A changed environment. An information- age school has a different look and feel from a traditional school. Class- room methods link information retrieval, analysis, and application with strategies such as cooperative learning, guided inquiry, and thematic teaching. Information technologies are easily accessible, not locked away in media closets or labs. Student projects and p&# ucts proliferate- not just as display items but as resources for other students and information for future investiga- tions. Classrooms and hallways are frequently the scene of discussions and debates about substantive issues- topics important to both the curriculum and to the stu- dents investigating them. Most important, the most probing questions come from the learners, who are curi- ous about a variety of issues and intent on communicat- ing what they discover: How do you know that? What evidence do you have for that? Who says? How can we find out? j Technology for Change 35 A Seventh Attribute: Critical Media literacy In addition to the six attributes of the information- age school de- scribed by Vicki Hancock, we must add a seventh: habits of criti- cal reflection on the impacts of media themselves- including educational technologies- on our lives and our learning. Media literacy is an important part of being a productive and effective citizen in a media- saturated world, and it is an especially impor- tant adjunct to the use of new technologies in the information- rich classroom. In information- age schools, students and teachers alike reflect critically on mass media messages and experiences with new tech- nologies, asking whose point of view is being expressed, what in- terests or motivations are represented, how the form of the message or product affects our reception of it, and whether it can be judged an accurate, balanced, or distorted presentation. Such media literacy is crucial in our contemporary world, where prob- lems, ideas, and arguments find complex representation in an ever- wider variety of media forms and channels, and has an espe- cially important place in an information- rich school. Helping students move from relatively passive absorption of information to habits in which they are able to frame arguments, consider evidence, and apply judgment creatively is key if we are to develop powerful and flexible thinkers capable of communicat- ing about and solving difficult problems. *‘* Changes Needed in the Organization of Schooling In closing, it is important to underscore again the changes in school organization that will be necessary in order for the activi- ties and values of information- age schooling discussed in this chapter to take root and thrive in schools, supported by new tech- nologies. To see why, briefly consider the way learning is orga- nized at the Educational, Video Center, described in Chapter 1. At EVC, classes are typically: l driven by students’ social and cultural interests and ques- tions across disciplines; l based on information drawn from a range of print, visual, I 36 The New Media Literacy Handbook Media Literacy- Key Habits of Mind Media or information literacy embraces the following considerations, whether one is composing one’s own media text or responding to another. What What’s the main idea? What picture of the world is being presented? Who What argument is being made? Whose point of view is it? What does the author want the viewer/ reader/ user to think or do? Evidence What facts or information are offered in support of the argument or idea? How relevant and reliable is the information? Style What’s the form of the presentation? What genre is it? How is the message conveyed via words, images, sounds? Audience Who are the intended viewers/ readers/ users? How might they or other audiences respond? Representation What people and what subjects are represented, and how? Are the portrayals of people or other subjects accurate, exaggerated, biased? What else? What questions do I have now? What other points of view might be included? What additional information do I need, and where can I get it? and community sources and not from a standard curricu- lum or mandated textbook; l video- and computer- technology intensive; l two or more hours long to allow for in- depth work, travel for shoots, etc.; l taught through a range of visual, oral, and print- based lan- guages; l designed for fewer than fifteen students per teacher; l assessed by performance standards and portfolios. Many if not most of these practices run counter to what adminis- trators, teachers, and parents consider to be practical or good edu- Technology for Change 37 cation- what has been called “real school.“ 4 For example, video work that requires teams of students to leave the building for hours at a time may not fit with a school schedule built around students moving through discrete classes at fifty- minute intervals. A topic like “our city’s unequal schools” that is of interest to stu- dents may be viewed as inappropriate because it is not part of any established curriculum or standardized test. Likewise, teachers may not see the value of analyzing photographs or television commercials as part of developing visual literacy skills, because they have to prepare students for exams in literature. Video may not be seen as a valid medium of student work because it cannot be assessed using standard evaluation practices. Teachers who are unfamiliar with the video medium but want to learn about it may be unable to because their school does not provide sufficient time for faculty development, nor the support of a media specialist who knows how to help teachers integrate media into instruction. Some of the key areas that schools will need to change in order to support more democratic, information- age instruction, include: l Greater autonomy and trust for teachers and students. Within a general framework of agreed- upon curriculum standards, teachers need to be given responsibility for key decisions about exactly what curriculum is taught and via what strat- egies and approaches. Students, too, must be trusted to take greater responsibility for their own learning, and left to make key choices about topics, resources, and methods of study. In both cases, teachers and students should be held accountable to high standards and must be able to justify their choices with reference to agreed- upon performance criteria, l Smaller schooZs and class sizes. Schools must function as communities if adults and students are to have any hope of reaching consensus about educational goals and standards. So schools need to be small enough so that every student is well known, all the adults can meet productively in face- to- face meetings, and each adult has primary responsibility for no more than forty students. And because inquiry- based and collaborative learning requires close monitoring and coaching of students, class sizes need to be small. 38 The New Media Literacy Handbook l Flexible- and block- scheduling. Students’ curiosity and in- depth project work rarely obey the fifty- minute hour and the neat division of subject matter into math, English, so- cial studies, and science. For teachers to foster deep learning through meaningful student projects, they need the flexi- bility to experiment with interdisciplinary courses, block- scheduling, and team- teaching. l Alternative assessments. Student projects that result in plays, performances, models, novels, videos, science experiments, Web sites, and other outcomes can rarely be evaluated using standardized tests. Further, as long as teachers are held accountable via standardized test scores, innovative practices of any kind will gain little foothold. As a result, schools need to experiment with alternatives to traditional assessment that invite teachers, administrators, and com- munity members to define shared criteria for good perfor- tmance. These include portfolio and performance assessments that display students’ progress over time through concrete evidence, and “roundtable” assessments and reviews where multiple stake- holders, including parents, are at the table and students are given opportunities to explain and defend their work. l Media and technology support. Classroom teachers cannot be expected to keep up with the latest software upgrades, un- derstand the newest vogue in on- line interactions and its implications for classrooms, or guide students in HTML au- thoring. On- demand, school- based technology support is therefore crucial. But the most common organization of technology support in schools- the “media specialist” or “computer coordinator” who presides over the computer lab and has very little to do with teachers or curriculum- is a key barrier to successful technology integration. Schools need, instead, “media generalists”- staff members who are technically skilled but who are equally knowledgeable about curriculum and interpersonally skilled at working with teachers where the rubber meets the road- around students’ use of technologies for subject- matter learning. + Ongoing faculty development. Above all, schools need to pro- vide teachers with ongoing professional development op- Technology for Change 39 portunities. Teachers need to be supported in taking risks and adopting new instructional strategies. Existing models of staff development that stress one- time workshops with occasional group brushups are wholly inadequate to the de- mands of changing complex instructional practices, includ- ing those involving new media tools. Teachers need to be given time and support to approach a new practice as learn- ers, gradually experiment with aspects of the new practice in the classroom, and continuously reflect on the meaning and value of the innovation with other teachers. On- line technologies themselves have roles to play in this process, linking teachers in safe and supportive learning communi- ties in which they can reflect with one another on their learning as they adopt new instructional strategies and re- sources. By moving forward with these changes in school organiza- tion, supporting teachers as they adopt teaching practices ori- ented toward helping students use their minds flexibly and well, and integrating media tools in a thoughtful and critical fashion, educators and policymakers will have taken a big step toward making the democratic, information- age schooling a reality for all children. NOTES 1. L. Uchitelle. “Study questions the usual view of downsizing.” The New York Times. February 10, 1998. p. Dl. 2. Cf. Wingspread Conference on Media, Arts, and School Reform. Racine, Wis- consin, October 1996. Also, the Coalition of Essential Schools Fall Forum in San Fran- cisco, November 1997. 3. V. Hancock. “Creating the Information Age School.” Educational Leadership. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. November 1997. 4. D. Tyack and L. Cuban. Tinkering Toward Utopia: A Centrrry of School Refer. (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996).