Synthesis of Cuban’s Teachers and Machines

In Teachers and Machines, author Larry Cuban sought to give his readers a short history of technological innovations in American classrooms from the early days of film and radio up to the time of publication of his book in 1986.  At that time the author saw the rising tide of support for use of computers in classroom instruction, and he wrote with a goal of giving a historical perspective that would caution educators and the public to weigh carefully costs and benefits before spending large sums on machines that may do little to improve performance of schools.  Although the use of computers in schools has progressed far and continues to increase exponentially since Cuban wrote the book, his message of caution should not be ignored in the quest for better instruction.

The author noted at the outset the difficulty of bringing significant change to schools, the paradox of the constancy which is embedded in educational policies and routines versus the loud and incessant demands for change.  The teachers caught in this paradox have found practical ways to cope with it in their task of educating young people.  Cuban found that these practical approaches by teachers were a primary reason that 20^th-century technologies did not “revolutionize” American education in the way that their promoters had envisioned.  He observed that for the most part these promoters were not teachers themselves, and some of them stood to gain financially from the technologies entering the classroom. 

Cuban gives his reader the benefit of his investigation into the attempts to bring about radical educational reform through motion pictures, radio, and television in schools.  He probed the history of these considering the questions of to what degree they were used; what factors explain their degree of use; and from the answers to those, what could be extrapolated regarding the potential influence of computer technology in our schools.

By the late 1920s motion-picture technology had advanced to the point that films with sound were in wide production, and many saw these as a way that education might be reformed.  Thomas Edison had predicted in 1922 that inefficient textbooks would be replaced by films that would prove to be one hundred percent efficient as a medium for knowledge.   Over the next quarter-century, films did become a tool for classroom teachers as a small part of the culture of American education, but they did not bring about any basic change in method of teaching anywhere.  Cuban gives an estimate of their rate of use in the early 1950s, before the advent of educational television, at about one film per teacher per month. 

Why were films so infrequently used in schools?  Primary reasons were lack of teachers’ skills to use them, dollar cost, inaccessibility at the time a film and projector were needed, and lack of availability of films suitable to class needs.

The promise and popularity of radio in the 1920s brought that medium into focus as a potential tool for revolutionizing education, but Cuban found that it received an even lower acceptance rate than had films.   Commercial radio stations cooperated by broadcasting instructional programs to be received in classrooms during the school day, but in the 1930s there were often problems with reception and with faulty radios.  Lower cost and improved quality of radio sets and transmissions in the 1940s did not increase use of the medium in schools.  Before the introduction of instructional television in the 1950s, radio had been abandoned as an educational tool.

Television received acceptance into American culture as readily as had motion pictures and radio, but its track record as a medium of school instruction was no better than theirs had been.  Cuban stated that by 1971 100 million dollars had gone into the effort to reform education through televised lessons.  It was not for lack of funds, effort, or adequate equipment that school reform did not occur through TV.  The author related the adoption of a total-television program of instruction in American Samoa.  It took less than ten years for strong resistance to the program to arise from Samoan teachers and students and for the television use in the schools to be severely scaled back in favor of traditional classroom instruction.

Cuban’s personal observation through visits to classrooms in one district from 1975 to 1981 led him to write that two percent of teachers were using the innovative medium.  Why?  “Television was hurled at teachers.”  As had been the case with the previous two media, educational TV was pushed and adopted through a top-down approach, not from teachers finding that it could help them to better attain their classroom objectives.

In his third chapter, Cuban further expounded upon his evaluation of the reasons school reform through new media had not occurred.  Relying upon his personal study which he had published in his 1984 book How Teachers Taught and upon his experience as a teacher and a superintendent, he concluded that “school and classroom structures” and “the culture of teaching” explain the constancy of practice in instruction in our schools.  It is not that there were no changes in practice in the 20^th century.  There were many, but generally they came through teachers finding ways that would help them teach more effectively without giving control of the classroom over to someone else, thus undermining their authority, as films, radio, and TV might have done.

Cuban was moved to write Teachers and Machines because of the push which he was seeing over 25 years ago for computers to become the next technological tool for “revolutionizing” education.  He acknowledged that computer use in schools would certainly grow, but he called upon his reader to consider the costs, beyond just that in dollars, of a wholesale embrace of the latest technology. 

As with the earlier technologies, activism toward this educational innovation came for the greater part from outside the classroom, causing the author to wonder whether teachers would readily accept and regularly use it.  If not, then likely far more money would be wasted on computer hardware and software than had been thrown at films, radio, and TV for schools.  Regarding the dollar cost of the hardware and software, we might observe today that it has been offset somewhat by the savings on devices and media that the computer and its peripherals have replaced.  Typewriters were a mainstay in all high schools in the early 1980s, but they are no longer needed or desired.  Those film projectors and TV sets have been supplanted by the more convenient and accessible computer with DVD player, LCD projector, and web connection.  Overhead projectors may still see some use, but it will be very limited. 

These replacement uses of computer technology, however, do not touch on Cuban’s deepest concerns regarding the innovation:  What will be the effect of increased mechanization upon teaching, and what impact will it have upon children?  The teacher-student relationship is a major factor in the success of instruction.  Making machines the primary delivery method will change the teacher’s role dramatically.  Cuban’s warning seems to be that we must not think that mechanical technology of any kind is at the heart of success in teaching.  Those who push for computers to take over as the instructors do not realize what is being traded for what they see as greater efficiency and (for some) greater profits.

Cuban feared that the nature of computer technology will fundamentally change the way of thinking of children who are taught primarily by machine.  More is taught by use of any technology than just the curricular content.  The technology carries its own message with that content.  We did not know when Cuban wrote, and we still do not know, what heavy human costs might be paid in students’ creativity, emotions, and well-being should we take a radical course in making machines the primary teachers. 

Cuban’s concerns here stated echo those of Neil Postman in Technopoly.  That author likewise stressed that new technologies alter the things we think about, and that by the nature of what they are computers emphasize “the technical processes of communication and offer little in the way of substance.”  He feared what may be lost when we use them, urging readers to ponder the question, “Why should we do this?”

The thoughts of Thomas Hughes in Human-Built World can be added to those of Cuban and Postman regarding weighing the effects of technology before making wholesale changes.  Hughes did not address concerns about computers and education of children, but pointed his readers to the history of mechanical technology as it has affected the physical world and human existence.   Wholesale embrace of machines in the Industrial Revolution did not bring the beautiful Second Creation that some expected, but rather unsatisfying lives of drudgery for many workers and environmental damage to the earth.  Flexing of human technological muscle in channelizing the Kissimmee River basin in Florida produced environmental disaster on a grand scale; great efforts are under way to reverse the damage and restore the basin and the Everglades to ecological balance.

As he closed the final chapter, Cuban himself gave a historical illustration of society taking a radical approach to solving a problem:  the sudden change in policy toward the mentally ill in this nation starting about 50 years ago, embracing the idea of releasing them from mental hospitals and treating them at lower dollar cost with drugs in clinics.  It was a colossal failure which produced a dramatic rise in homelessness, solving nothing for anyone.  Cuban pleads that educators and the public consider the possible costs before making sweeping changes in school instruction through the latest technology.

Over a quarter of a century of history has been added to the annals of education since Larry Cuban penned these warnings.  From our present vantage point we see that computers have established a permanent place in American schools.  They have not replaced teachers, nor have their widespread use “fixed” American education.  The same problems which were familiar in 1986 are still with us.  Some people yet hope and predict that in the future these magnificent machines will be used as the primary means of instruction.  If that happens, will they improve education?  If they were to raise standardized test scores, are we certain that that would mean improvement?  Would the change in the educational experience, the diminishing of the relationship of teacher and student, be worth the points gained in those measurements?  Would our students become better adjusted to the world through immersion in the virtual world of digital technology?  Will they thus become better members of their communities and citizens of their nation?  If they are better prepared to earn their livings through technological knowledge, would we consider that to be educational success?  Cuban and the other authors mentioned would have us to reflect upon and weigh carefully our choices regarding technological solutions to human problems.

What Questions Should Be Asked About Teachers and Machines?

What questions do you think I should have asked about this book? Make up two and talk about why you think those ideas are important. (This should help organize your thinking about the synthesis task for tomorrow. Don’t over think it.)

1.  Are there any cases of successful “bottom-up” reforms and improvements in American schools—those arising from teachers, students, and schools rather than imposed from above through governments and school boards?

Cuban emphasized that the innovations which he examined were shoved upon teachers by those outside the classroom, “top-down.” What has happened from the other direction? “Don’t overthink it.” If you know of one, name it; if you don’t, just say “none.”

2. Could computer technology hold the key to raising standards in American schools? If computer technology were to be embraced as the primary means of educating America’s children—something on the scale of what the Samoans tried with television school–would they be better educated?

Cuban insists that we must answer the question, “Why?” before we get to the matter of “how.” We see much money and effort going into computer technology in schools. Will we after eight to ten years be wondering whether we took the wrong path? If we continue our current pace of embrace of computers in the classroom, will test scores be better in 2025?  What will be done if they are not?  

Cuban Chapter 4, question 2

Teacher asks:  How does this dynamic change when the computer is the classroom (like this class)? Or does it? Another way to think about that is “Beyond the communications aspect, how do we use computers in this class? How do other teachers use computers in their online classes?” (Note: I’m not fishing for compliments or standing up for brickbats, but rather looking for your perceptions on variations and consistency in use. There’s a point, I promise)

When the computer is the classroom, there is definitely a big difference in interpersonal relations. In a campus classroom setting, students know the teacher and each other by sight and voice as well as by verbally communicated ideas. I am receiving personal instruction from one whom I have never seen and likely never will. (Does that matter? I don’t know yet.) We do have the advantage in this class of hearing our instructor’s soothing, reassuring voice for a few minutes each morning. My one other online course did not offer that; maybe the teacher did not have the voice for it. Our computers are used for finding, collecting, and storing information for the class as well as for organizing it and presenting it to the other participants. If this course were being done by paper correspondence, it would be much harder and of far less value. We would have all dropped out by now!

Was Cuban Right? Chapter 4

Cuban predicted that computers would be used the same way radio, tv, and film are used. Was he right?

Use of computers in schools has exceeded that of those previous aids for different reasons. One is that the computer is a tool for both teacher and student use, not just a medium for passing information. Typewriters, because of their value in the business world, were readily accepted for use in high schools in film/radio/TV days and were used daily, though generally only for specialized training in their use. For this same reason computers have replaced the typewriters, having far wider applicability in business, industry, and communications.

Computer technology development has made a big difference as well. Laptop computers with wireless connections make them a much better fit in space and in convenience than desktops. (At the school where I shall work this fall, each student is provided a Mac Book.)  The graphical user interface has come to the fore since Cuban wrote, making the machines much more user-friendly than in the MS/DOS days. Most significantly, the world wide web makes available a vast range of information—like the school library does, but broader and easier to use—and makes helpful software programs easy to find and access. Computer technology offers teachers flexibility that the earlier innovations did not.

Teachers and Machines, Chapter 3

1.  Cuban offers a collection of reasons why teachers adopt or fail to adopt innovation. Pick one and discuss it from your own perception/practice.

One reason cited by Cuban is “classroom and school as work setting,” and this touches to some degree on the matter of flexibility that I have mentioned before. Consider the secondary teacher and his 50-minute class periods. The school year is set for September through May; his class has the same 25 to 30 students every day for those months; he is responsible for teaching each one of them the course content, though their abilities and interest vary widely; and his course content is, for most subjects, rigidly set by the school system.

All those elements were present in schools a century ago, and education policy and practice have yielded to this rigidity through the decades. Inflexibility is built into the system. In order for the teacher to accomplish what he was sent into the classroom to do, there has to be some flexibility in some elements. Radio, TV, and films do not offer any such flexibility in this setting. The teacher using textbook and whiteboard can be flexible (without chalk dust on his sleeve, these days). He might examine what is offered through those innovative media and find something helpful to his task, but not likely very often. With radio and TV, the program would have to fall within his 50-minute class, else it is not usable. With film, he must have a working projector and film available at that time. In many cases, if he finds an appropriate film at all, he will not have it available on the day he would like to present it for best fit with his teaching unit. (The film issue is not so difficult these days, with digital media readily available and hardware for their use present in each classroom, and I think Cuban would find today that films are used much more often than they were 30 years ago.)

To really change education in order to take full advantage of useful technologies, throw out those inflexible elements; structure around the innovations. Forget September-through-May school year; there does not really have to be a “school year,” does there? Do away with all students the same age thrown together in groups of 25 to 30. It is not the case that every child should start school at age five, anyway. Let content be broken up into chunks that fit the technologies, with daily time and unit time scheduled accordingly for each chunk and each student. I am persuaded that technology will permit such changes. Now, are you thinking, “It will never happen”? Yeah, I know it. It would be easier to put a man on the moon, and we can’t even afford that.

2.  There is one area that Cuban touches on but doesn’t address directly. What do you think it is? [hint: last line on page 69]

Use of electronic media may provide “a breath-catching break without calling it so.” My sympathies lie with the elementary teacher on this matter. My full-time experience is in middle and high schools, but I have done substitute work in all grades. Because of the young children’s need for constant close supervision, the elementary teacher very often needs that breath-catching break in the afternoon, and it will generally not be built into the schedule.  If she (not to be sexist, but few males are wired for this work) can get the break while the pupils view content of some educational value, that is helpful for everyone.

 

On “No Significant Difference” Research

“Media comparison studies done between televised and non-televised lessons showed no significant difference in outcomes as measured by achievement tests. With what you know about this kind of research, is this a useful finding? Why/why not?” 

The finding is useful in that it should help us to see that TV presentations and other proposed technological fixes will not necessarily result in more effective instruction. It can be useful in preventing expenditure of millions of dollars for little return learning-wise. It appears, for instance, that regarding computers in education, we cannot be so confident that they will make for better teaching. They are helpful to teachers, and instruction in their use is needed by students, inasmuch as computers are broadly used in many walks of life, but they will not replace teachers anymore than did films, radio, and television.

On technology use by teachers

“Regardless of the technology involved (radio, film, tv), teacher adoption and use remains remarkably consistent. Why do you think that might be?”

I think the reason is the inflexibility of these media in their scheduling, applicability to the lessons being taught, and suitability for the target audience. Radio and TV broadcasts are done on a set schedule, which forces the teacher to plan around them. A film is more flexible schedule-wise once it and the projector are in hand in working order, but in my experience their availability and reliability are ever in question.

A classroom teacher can adapt a lesson for his students both in the planning stage and while teaching it in the class. Media presentations are not adaptable at all. Any adaptation of the lesson taught using them must be done by the classroom teacher, so he has gained little by using the innovation.

For a particular lesson, no one of these three media may be the best for getting it across, and in fact none of them may be any better than the teacher teaching it directly.

So, as I see this, it all gets back to what teaching is. When one who knows something passes knowledge and understanding to one who needs to know, teaching and learning have occurred. The classroom teacher has personal knowledge of the students and some idea about their abilities and level of interest in what is being taught. The most valuable assessment of the lesson is that which takes place during the lesson itself. The teacher asks questions, the students answer and ask, indicating their level of understanding; the teacher adapts, and learning takes place. The teacher can be flexible in content, method, materials, and timing, while these media under consideration are rigid. The teacher sees little, if any, advantage in them.

 

On “Media Comparison Studies”

Research the terms “media comparison study” and “no significant difference research.” What do you find?

Well, I find that there is another field of great contention in education that is new to me. In a paper that appeared in the July/August 2001 issue of Educational Technology (http://courses.washington.edu/et510s05/Documents/surrey.pdf), D. Surry and D. Ensminger were astonished to find in a survey that many teachers highly value media comparison studies, as they themselves were certain that the studies are worthless. They held that the method, not the medium, is the significant factor in differences; and that the studies cannot be valid because they have too many variables to have an effective control. They referred to an illustration by one Richard A. Clark, “perhaps the best-known critic of media comparison studies.” He wrote in 1983 that media not change the way we learn any more than the truck which delivers our groceries changes our level of nutrition. They refer to the “No Significant Difference Phenomenon,” stating that these studies generally find no significant difference in media for learning because it is the method of instruction, not the means of delivering instruction, that can make a difference in student achievement.

Cuban, Postman, and Hughes

Cuban also echoes ideas mentioned in both Postman and Hughes. Discuss those ideas.

One idea that I recalled from both authors was that of efficiency through technology. Cuban related that “educational engineers” in the early 20^th century “undertook time-and-motion studies” in schools, mimicking the work of Frederick Taylor in industrial management. I thought it quaint and comical, visualizing these experts in coats and ties, with stopwatches and clipboards, making notes on everything that goes on in school. I guess by the time I started school they had perfected all this, so I was efficiently educated!

Opening Cuban’s Teachers and Machines

1.  Cuban writes about some themes that should seem familiar to current educational practice. Discuss them.

The familiar theme that stood out the most as I read was that of higher scores in student achievement through instructional innovation. Perceived value of new methods, means, and media are tied to the modern obsession with labeling with numbers everything related to learning. It was a revelation to me when I learned while reading Postman that the practice of assigning marks to students’ work is only a couple hundred years old. Even so, it is so ingrained in the system now that it is nearly impossible to think of trying to educate without it.

Another theme was problems with using the promoted media in the classroom, particularly with films. I recall those problems—the teacher saying she could not procure the projector or the film at the time needed, or the projector stopped working, the film broke, etc. It happens with the computers, too—machines not available, not working, or there are networking problems, connections to projectors fail. It made me think that for reliability and flexibility in instruction, it is hard to beat teacher talking to student.