I am honored to be here to talk to you today. I love the cultural and racial diversity, and the joyfulness of the Brazilian culture. I think the United States has much to learn from our southern neighbors.

Today I want to address the question:

How can we make best use of technology in our schools and classrooms?

I begin by clarifying some terms and concepts. After stories from a number of settings, I consider how teachers can succeed with limited resources and knowledge. I conclude by considering how all participants in a school-leadership, faculty, and students-can contribute to the strengthening of a learning culture, and to the effective integration of technology within that culture.

Forgive me, but tell me again-What is technology? Machines, of course, are technologies. Computers, software, networks are technologies. But don't let these images confuse the issue. Does technology have to be a machine?

Technologies are human artifacts, created to help us solve a problem or perform a needed task. Technologies are tools. And technologies need not be electronic machines. A pencil, book, or chalkboard are common technologies used in the classroom. In fact, technologies need not be objects. They may be specific plans, techniques, models, or strategies to accomplish a task.

Some computer technologies seem to be more than tools--We can enter a computer program and feel like we're in a whole other environment, an alternative world of our own creation.

Technologies are reflections of ourselves, since they are our creation. Technologies, in general, have both good and bad consequences, just as we as people have good and bad qualities.

Remember that every technology is designed to solve some problem or help us do some task. But in helping us, technologies have other consequences--unintended, some negative, some positive. The Information Revolution makes access to information easier. That is good. But I have to manage all this information, I have to know what to do with it. Sometimes I feel like I have too much information in my life--too much e-mail, too many webpages, too many books on my shelf. I feel the need to simplify. The blessing of information brings with it difficulties I hadn't anticipated. I don't want to go back to the old days, but I don't want the technology to hurt me.

Schools and classrooms are places where we learn to use the tools of the culture, including reading, writing, math, and accepted ways of thinking and speaking. Computers, networks, and display technologies can further help us represent problems, communicate together, and learn the tools of our culture. These learning technologies can help us store, search, and retrieve information so that it's available when we need it.

The Internet opens up for us information and interactions from around the world. Our closed classroom becomes more of an open system, with a wider circle of influence. We can get information from people in another part of our country, or another side of the globe. We, in turn, can publish information that others can use. We can engage in dialogue with these outside readers. This is very exciting to me, particularly as it helps isolated communities find resources beyond their own walls.

Communities of Learners

Learning communities are those groups of people dedicated to the common goals of continuous learning and mutual support. When teachers and students learn together and support each other in their learning activities, they build common trust and form a cohesive community.

Technology can offer tremendous support for communication, presentation, and information access within such learning communities. "First-order" learning might be to learn how to start up a computer or type at the keyboard. A "second order" of learning is to use the computer to think and solve problems in a new way. It becomes a means to a valued end, rather than the end in itself.

This bring us to the danger of 'technolotry' or 'technology worship'-the tendency to place the technology above people's needs. Technology should be subordinate to the values and goals of the community. We need to be vigilant to make sure group values are maintained as technologies are assimilated into our common life.

Many people associate technology with commerce and industry. Computers help with sales and number crunching. Manufacturing and production of goods remains competitive through advances in technology. Yet the computer is first and foremost a general-purpose, information processing machine. Of all machines, computers are best equipped to help us learn, because we too are general-purpose, information processors. We are not machines, but therein lies the computer's value. Computers can do the machine-like work that we're not good at, allowing us to do the kind of information-processing work that we're best at-making judgments, working together to solve problems and design solutions, expressing our thoughts and values to each other. I believe that computers belong in schools because they are so closely linked to our minds. Working with technology can help us codify our thoughts, find ways to express ourselves to each other, and enter interactive environments where we can manipulative objects, try things out, and learn together.

From experience in a variety of settings, I have observed that integration of technology into the local organizational culture is not easy. People change their lifestyles when they integrate technology, and this can be difficult and challenging for many. Let me tell a few stories of technology integration to illustrate the way people's lives are changed, and how the change process happens.

The Wilson Family

Years ago, the Wilson family bought our first computer. I purchased a used Apple II computer from a want-ad, because we couldn't afford a new one. I remember hoping that the computer I had just purchased wasn't stolen. I had bought it for a good price, and I wanted to feel good about it being in our home!

We had four young children at the time, and I was convinced that we needed a computer-not just for my job, but for the children's sake. I wanted them to have learning resources at home that would help them perform better at school.

Because I work every day with technologies for learning, I knew the best software to buy. We got a typing tutor to help the kids become fluent at the keyboard. We got a word processor and printer for writing papers. We found a math drill to help the kids learn their arithmetic facts--multiplying, dividing, etc. And we found some free children's games for their enjoyment. I was pleased with our decision to get these important resources for our home.

Guess which programs the kids used the most? Of course, the games. These games were like PacMan--simple arcade-style games requiring manual dexterity but little cognitive engagement. After awhile, I wasn't happy with the inordinate amount of time I saw the kids beating on the up- and down-arrow keys. (Later we purchased a joystick to keep the keyboard from being destroyed prematurely.) My wife and I found ourselves being monitors and enforcers of rules-a role we didn't like, and which we hadn't anticipated when we purchased our home computer.

Our approach to the problem included a number of strategies:

-modeling the use of software we found useful to us, primarily word processing but also checkbook software, graphics programs, and other applications;

-discussing the problem at family meetings and setting rules for appropriate use, including limits on time at the computer and limits of game time;

-encouraging kids to do their homework using the computer;

-reminding the kids when their game-playing became excessive.

I remember being unhappy at times with the kids' game-playing, but I never regretted our decision to buy one. The difficulties with game-playing were small compared to the kids' opportunity to become familiar with the technology and use the computer appropriately for schoolwork and home tasks. In spite of pressure from friends, we never succumbed to the purchase of a game machine like Nintendo or Sega. I always thought, "I don't want my kids to think of computers as simple game machines. If a computer can play a game, that's fine. But our computer in our house will be able to do much more than that!"

A couple of years ago, a TV reporter interviewed me for a local story about computers in the home. "Should families purchase a computer? Do children need a computer at home to keep up at school?" I replied:

"That's what the computer manufacturers want you to think. I must have a computer for my child, or she will be left behind! But we need to think a little further than that."

I wasn't trying to be anti-computer, but rather help parents be more thoughtful about them. "Too many parents expect a computer purchase to solve their kids' performance problems at school. Get a computer and my kids will become smart!"

This, of course, is a mistaken view. "Computers won't substitute for spending time with the kids. They won't help replace a visit to the school and talk with the teacher. Computers won't have nearly the impact of setting the child on your lap and reading a storybook together." I was trying to help parents sort out what's most important. "If you purchase a computer and integrate it into your family life, then it can be a blessing. But if you expect it to work miracles without your being involved, then the computer could do more harm than good."

A striking book on this subject is Beyond Technology's Promise: An Examination of Children's Educational Computing at Home, by Giacquinta, Bauer, and Levin (1993). This book is a needed antidote to the hyperbole generated by manufacturers, the popular press, and even the educational research establishment. The authors' research shows how poorly computers tend to be used at home. I hadn't read this book when my children were young, and I would have cited the book to my TV interviewer if I had known about it. This book is the first sign that technology integration isn't as easy as it seems. The potential of technology is difficult to achieve in real life.

Peakview Elementary School

A few years ago, a new school, Peakview Elementary, was established in a nearby school district. The principal and newly-hired teachers worked hard to develop a mission and set of values for the school. Their vision included multi-aged classrooms, multi-grade teacher teams, and a project-based curriculum. Eventually, they decided not to order textbooks, but rather to spend that money on extra technology.

Within the first year, the district hired me to evaluate the impact of the technology on the school and on students. We looked closely at the school's operation, and talked to everyone-students, staff, faculty, parents, and administration. We couldn't find anyone who would say a bad word about technology. This was astonishing to us, because everything we had read suggested that technology can be very intimidating, and that a substantial number of community participants will resist technology integration. But here we had an entire community who seemed to be happy and enthusiastic about using technology in their classrooms (see Wilson, Hamilton, Teslow, & Cyr, 1994).

We attributed Peakview's success to several key factors, including:

-Computers in every classroom. Peakview classrooms were designed in an open fashion, allowing two classes to share a pod of computers. Because each classroom had at least three or four computers, a teacher may have access to as many as six or eight computers at any given time.

-A dedicated technology coordinator. Because of the emphasis on technology, a full-time technology coordinator was hired to provide leadership and expertise. This meant larger classes for the other teachers, but the school community decided that it was worth it. This particular technology coordinator was an effective leader and community within the school.

-Two schoolwide networks for keeping applications and files. These networks allowed access to all programs and files at any point in the building. Both students and staff were given access as needed.

-Community outreach. The school worked hard to communicate its mission and values to parents and the community at large. Parents were invited to "back-to-school" nights featuring technology. Many parents became excited to see their kids' accomplishments with technology. The kids were only too proud to show their parents what they had learned. Parents were also invited to training sessions, alongside their kids.

-Total participation. Peakview enjoyed the leadership of a strong and enthusiastic principal and a talented technology coordinator, but decisions and priorities were discussed and shared among all staff members in the school.

-Learning together as a community. Teachers were invited to attend training sessions throughout the school year. Each teacher brought at least one child from their class to learn alongside them. This reinforced the idea of a total learning community, where both teachers and students were unafraid to learn together.

-Access to the technology. Before the school year began, teachers completed basic training in word processing, spreadsheet, graphics, and database applications. Such training was common to the installation of technology. What was lesson common was this: Teachers were given a computer to take home for six weeks. Many teachers reported the strong positive effect of having the computer in the home. Teachers observed their own kids having fun on the computer at home. Often, the kids would show the mom or dad how to use an application. Children thus provided an entry point for adults to use the technology and become comfortable with it.

In most settings, technology integration takes many years, with a continuing need to help resisting community members learn to accommodate technology into their lives. Peakview was an exception. Because of the very good access to the technology and the high level of support provided-and because the community itself had made the commitment-technology integration occurred faster and more smoothly than anywhere else I have seen. Of course, technology integration is a continuing process at Peakview, as it is anywhere else. Teachers and students continue to need support, encouragement, and opportunities to innovate. Yet this experience serves as a reminder to us that, given the right conditions, major change can occur with amazingly rapidity and with few negative side effects.

Creighton Middle School

Creighton Middle School is located in the Denver metro area. A couple of years ago I was asked to come and perform a "technology audit" at the school, observing conditions and making recommendations for future direction. The next year I returned and conducted a followup audit, assessing progress toward the school's goals.

Creighton was different from Peakview. The school did not have a clear mission, nor was technology's role clearly defined. The school had not received much technology support from the district, either financially or in access to expertise. Teachers' response toward technology varied widely, from near-complete avoidance to enthusiastic acceptance and constant use. One teacher, in fact, had a roomful of old computers he had collected over the years and brought to school with him. These computers were his personal property-many old and outdated, some broken, but most working-which he fit into his teaching as best he could. Because his teaching style was open and informal, students were able to take advantage of the classroom resources and use the technology effectively.

While progress is being made, Creighton is more typical of K-12 schools I have observed. Technology holds some value, but its role is not clearly thought out, and wide differences exist among teachers. Resources may be invested one year, but occasional gains are not kept up from year to year. The net result is a general neglect, and a lack of focus over the long haul. The technology audits at Creighton signaled a renewed commitment to successfully integrating technology into the goals and mission of the school; that process is now ongoing.

StorageTek Support Engineers

Martin Ryder and I report the evolution of a learning-support system used by a team of engineers at StorageTek Inc., where Martin works (Ryder & Wilson, 1997). This team is charged with providing field support for a data-storage product. Because technology itself changes so much from year to year, the support team is constantly challenged to have accurate and timely information, so that users can keep the product working effectively throughout the world.

Martin's team tried a number of approaches to their learning problem. They knew that no training was available-The products they needed knowledge about hadn't even been developed yet! They developed an online performance-support system, with answers to their most common questions. But they found that the system needed constant attention to keep it up to date, and confusion arose when multiple authors tried to contribute to it.

The team eventually hit upon a solution to their knowledge and learning problem. The team now holds in common a knowledge base of information about the product, which each team member contributes to. No official knowledge base exists-only the collections of information exchanges made available throughout the group. Information shared is immediately archived and retrievable using network search engines, much like those found on the Web. Together, the team is much stronger than any individual engineer working alone.

Martin's team members depend heavily on their common knowledge base, especially since the company downsized and their department shrunk in size. Team members use and contribute to the resource in different ways and at different levels of participation, but the system is essential to their collective work.

Martin reports occasional difficulties in fitting the knowledge base into StorageTek's larger culture. The training department, for example, initially refused to provide information for inclusion, for fear that the information was "proprietary" or would be used by outsiders inappropriately. Adjusting to an open knowledge system can force an organization to come to terms with its policies toward information. In general, open collaboration and problem solving requires generous access to information; the gains of collaboration generally justify the loss of control some managers feel about their information.

The main lesson I draw from Martin's team solution is the power of information sharing and access. Sometimes training is not available when and where you need it. Getting people talking with each other, sharing solutions and information-This can often fill the immediate learning needs of a group and help them continue functioning effectively. Groups of workers can organize informally and create such learning teams, independent of the formal machinations of the organization's hierarchy. We need not always ask permission in order to learn from each other-in businesses or schools alike!

Our School of Education at the University

A few years ago, when the Web was new and we were all excited about its potential, I worked with a group of students and alumni to organize "the Internet Task Force." I have grown now tired of the name, but we haven't yet thought of a better one. The Internet Task Force is the informal working group that maintains the homepages of our School of Education. We also provide training and support to Internet users, and conduct research on the learning effects of the Internet (see Sherry and the Internet Task Force, 1996).

While I am nominally the head of this group, we really have no head. We meet once or twice a semester, but conduct most of our business on e-mail. We provide support to anyone interested in putting up a homepage or using the Internet more effectively in their instruction. We received a small amount of financial backing this year; until then, we had operated entirely on a voluntary basis.

Is the Internet Task Force a work group or a learning group? The work is voluntary, so it doesn't seem to be a traditional work group. And no academic credit is given to participants, so it's not a classic school group. But it emphatically is a learning group! Our primary purpose for being is to serve as a learning vehicle for its members and for the School of Education as a whole.

Problems have sometimes arisen because of our informal structure. Students who might otherwise be motivated to participate are forced to withdraw because of limited time. We don't have the same clout among busy students that formal classes have. We sometimes have to beg for help. Students are always coming and going, so we sometimes lose needed information or files. Sometimes the group suffers from a lack of central leadership and direction. But tremendous energy and good will are distributed among group members. The amount of learning and collegial support is always impressive!

My Own Life

I have thought about the ways I use technology myself. I am not an "early innovator" who chases after every new technology that comes along. I try to stay informed about trends and emerging technologies, then I typically wait to see what other people are doing.

I have learned that "new" isn't necessarily "better." I still use Word 5.1 for my Macintosh, avoiding Word 6 when I can. I have an old PowerBook 140, the first black-and-white powerbooks made, which serves me very well for trips and off-site notetaking. I tend to stick with software programs, because I come to feel comfortable with them. Like an old pair of jeans, some programs just "feel right," even though I could find newer and flashier ones if I tried.

I suspect that many teachers are like me. We are not the first innovators on the block, but we are thoughtful professionals willing to use a new tool if it's worth the effort. Early innovators need to respect people who are slower to adopt technology, yet still willing to learn.

Groups like Peakview, StorageTek's engineers, and our Internet Task Force all become learning communities in some fashion. A key feature of a learning community is to draw on expertise distributed throughout the group. Other features are the shared decisionmaking, collaborative work, and interactive discussions among its members. In such environments, coercion and mandated obedience to group norms are rarely used to achieve group ends. Remember that diversity among members is a strength that results in more creative outcomes that are more reflective of people's interests and needs.

What this means in a school is that change is hard work. While it may be easy to lay down the law and declare that everyone will use computers, this strategy yields a bitter fruit. Teachers become cynical, feeling abused, bossed around, and not listened to. They will, in turn, seek to undermine the technology agenda through passive resistance and disengagement.

A "harder" strategy is to really listen to people's concerns and act on them. If a teacher feel a lack of support and access to technological expertise, it's hard to provide that support-but there's no other way!

Steps Toward Improving Access and Integration

A situation typical in many areas is a school with very limited resources-perhaps one computer in the classroom, or only a few in the school altogether. In such situations, do we need to worry about every teacher making use of the technology?

I personally feel that those willing to put the work in are usually those who can profit most from limited resources. Technology in such settings is often very unfriendly, and teachers willing to take the time to learn should be rewarded with access. At the same time, care should be taken to make sure the "guardians" of technology do not limit others' access, thus preserving their "expert" status at the expense of their peers. And care should be given to respect the contributions of all community members, whether their talents lie with technology or some other needed area.

Many teachers feel a certain frustration with technology. They attend a conference, perhaps like ours, and have their eyes opened concerning technology's potential. Then they ponder returning to their own schools, where the technology base is weak and the faculty hard to budge. The often huge disparity between promise and reality creates a dissonance that is hard to overcome, and frustration sets in.

I would urge teachers caught in this bind to take a calm, careful look at their humble situations. Are there resources that can be better utilized? Are there programs to learn, planning to engage in? Are there resources within the school and larger community that could be marshaled toward improving things? Teachers who work carefully with available resources can overcome feelings of envy, and maximize the value of their existing resource base.

Technology integration constitutes a major change in people's lives. Such change does not happen quickly or easily. Even in the best of circumstances, such as the Peakview experience, teachers and students need high levels of support, training, and access to technology. While technology can open up new possibilities in learning and curriculum, care should be taken to make sure that the technology is fit to our core values and goals-and not the other way around. Technology should never be used as a weapon of violence upon people, or as a threat to unwilling participants.

In the end, it is the cohesive communities of learners can best use technology to further their goals. These learning communities already have a direction and a purpose. Within such communities, the technology, in turn, can help strengthen group cohesion by facilitating interactions and communication among members, and providing avenues for new learning. Again, technology becomes a reflection of ourselves!

Giacquinta, J. B., Bauer, J. A., & Levin, J. E. (1993). Beyond technology's promise: An examination of children's educational computing at home. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ryder, M., & Wilson, B. (1997, March). From center to periphery: Shifting agency in complex technical environments. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Sherry, L. and the Internet Task Force. (1996, October). Supporting a networked community of learners. TechTrends, 28-32.

Wilson, B. G., Teslow, J. L., Hamilton, R., & Cyr, T. A. (1994). Technology making a difference: The Peakview Elementary School Study. Syracuse NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology.

Most of the author's projects cited in this paper can be referenced at his webpage at: http://www.cudenver.edu/~bwilson.