In a recent episode of the comic strip Outland by Berkeley Breathed, Opus (the human-like penguin) stops by the home of his computer-literate friend Oliver to borrow a book. As the door opens, Opus begins to verbalize his request, but Oliver interrupts proclaiming, "We’re on the brink of a gleaming digital upheaval!!" Unable to contain his excitement, Oliver hurriedly yanks Opus into a room filled with the latest in technological devices. His smiling face pressed against a large and brightly lit television monitor, Oliver fantasizes about the prospect of navigating through 500 cable channels -- "So many sitcoms, so little time." A piece of virtual-reality headgear covering his eyes, he ponders a "shiny new world" in which computers, telephones, and TV’s are merged, entire libraries can be found on a compact disc, and individuals may awash themselves in "instant visual input." Finally pausing to wipe his brow of perspiration, Oliver turns to Opus and asks, "Did you want something?" A still-in-shock Opus replies, "I was hoping to curl up with your copy of Winnie the Pooh." The final panel shows Opus sitting in his reading chair and holding a compact disc -- his eyes filled with an empty look of bewilderment and despair.

Oliver and Opus embody the extremist positions that I find within society at large and the education profession in particular -- positions I refer to as Technocentrism and Technophobia. Technophobes are traditionalists who find great comfort in the proven routines of the past and who experience great anxiety when confronted by change -- especially technological change. Technocentrists, on the other hand, are futurists who derive great pleasure from living and working in the midst of change. For these individuals, technology takes on a deity-like aura and myopic fanaticism drives them to advocate change for the sake of change or change for the sake of technology. Push a technophobe or question a technocentrist and you risk unleashing a fury of anger and epitaphs of doom; damned if you use technology, damned if you don’t.

In truth, I believe that technocentrism and technophobia occupy endpoints on a perspective-action continuum. That is, persons occupying one end of the continuum (technophobes) engage in strategies designed to maintain a state of willful ignorance, because technology is perceived to be either threatening or overwhelming. As one moves along the continuum, however, you begin to find individuals who have gained exposure to and experience with technology. A perceptual shift becomes apparent; technology is now appreciated for its potential as a classroom tool or enabler -- as a means of carrying out administrative tasks or teaching traditional content in a more efficient manner. Technology is now employed, but usually on an as-needed basis.

Still further along the continuum are those who have experienced repeated success in learning about and implementing diverse technological tools -- master technologists if you will. With heightened awareness of personal expertise comes a new premise. If technology can be used to modify or supplement traditional ways of teaching and learning, then perhaps it also can be used to transform or redefine the learning process? The urge to explore and utilize technology naturally gains momentum and here we find a critical juncture. For if the master technologist does not learn how to apply technology with discretion -- to make judicious choices as to which elements of his life will be technology-rich versus technology-free -- he risks entering a state of total self-immersion in technology (Technocentrism). As technocentrism takes hold, a new kind of ignorance emerges (i.e., ignorance of the non-technical world) and technology is thought to be the panacea for all the ills of education and society.

Distinctions among the "technology as tool," "technology as transformer," and "technology as panacea" positions are oftentimes subtle and difficult to detect, but have important implications for those of us who are involved in education at all levels. Consider the following examples. Keith Geiger, president of the National Education Association, recently remarked that "technology, when properly used, creates time -- time that ought to be used to maximize the personal contact between teacher and student. Technology, as it frees teachers from time-consuming paperwork, has the potential to help us restructure schools so that they serve not just the academic, but the emotional needs of our students."¹ Technology as tool!

In a special issue of Time entitled "Beyond the Year 2000: What to Expect in the Next Millennium," we are told that by the middle of the next century, there will be an "almost complete breakdown of education's formal rigidity."² Highly advanced computers will serve as repositories of knowledge and will tutor individual learners. Using interactive multimedia, students will navigate self-selected paths to knowledge and skill. Diplomas will be replaced by performance-based competency tests. Teachers will assume a new role; rather than disseminating information and instructions from the front of a classroom, they will "inspire, motivate, and serve as referee for the human-to-human discussion that computerized instruction is designed to provoke." A new type of apprenticeship will arise as the teacher’s role evolves into one of technological model, information resource, and learning facilitator. Technology as transformer!

During an October 19, 1993 Satellite Town Meeting, U.S. Education Secretary Richard Riley welcomed a panel of business and community leaders to discuss how computers and technology might be used to enhance the American education system.³ Panelists proposed that greater implementation of technology in schools would (a) provide students with more opportunities to learn through participation in active, hands-on, discovery-based projects, (b) provide teachers with new techniques for accessing resources and one another, (c) improve learning opportunities for disabled or disadvantaged students, and (d) offer new ways of involving parents in their children's education. Again, technology as transformer!

Finally, there is a new book written by the futurist Lewis Perelman (School's Out: Hyperlearning, The New Technology, and the End of Education) in which he predicts and advocates the "extinction of public schools."⁴ Beyond arguing for competitive, private sector alternatives to the "socialist" public education system in the short-term, Perelman contends that new and emerging technologies like multimedia and telecommunications are so powerful that they will eventually allow the consumer to bypass the education establishment (and teachers) altogether and engage in hyperlearning in the comfort of the home. Perelman simply dismisses schools and teachers as obsolete rather than addressing how various elements of school structure (staffing, facilities, scheduling, budget) might be altered to facilitate the implementation of technology, or how technology will respond to the realities of an increasingly troubled and disillusioned society in which, over the past 15 years, school violence, births to unwed teens, adolescent suicide, and school dropout rates have all increased. Technology as panacea!

In the remainder of this paper, I would like to explore some selected research on the current status of technology in public schools as well as the outcomes associated with technology-based instruction. In addition, I will attempt to illuminate some of the challenges that teacher education programs, including the one I work in at Ball State University, face in attempting to prepare a generation of technology-literate teachers. Finally, I will make a case for the middleground by discussing some of the ways in which ongoing changes and advances in music technology may be widening, rather than narrowing, the knowledge-application gap that already exists between technocentrists and technophobes within the music education profession.

In the October 1993 issue of Electronic Learning, an extensive amount of survey information collected by Connecticut-based marketing firms (e.g., Market Data Retrieval, SIMBA Information Inc.) on the topic of educational technology in schools is summarized.⁵ According to the data, the nationwide student-to-computer ratio has been reduced from a figure of 30:1 in 1988 to 16:1 in 1993. Clearly, more computers are reaching more students every school day, though the patterns of distribution across districts and even schools within districts is far from equitable. Most districts reported using IBM (48%) or Macintosh (42%) computers for administrative purposes while computer-assisted instruction is most often accomplished through the use of Apple IIe (74%), Macintosh (58%), or Apple IIGS (53%) computers. Interestingly, over one-half of the districts indicated that they plan to stop using Apple II computers for instruction at some point in the immediate future. IBM seems to be making some headway in developing an educational market -- they are currently used for instruction in 48% of the districts and only 13% of the districts plan to discontinue their use.

Most districts (64%) have a technology committee and a technology plan (typically five years in length) with an appointed technology director or building principal given responsibility for implementing the plan and appropriating dollars. Out of a typical technology budget, 50% or more of the funds goes toward the purchase of hardware and less than 25% goes toward teacher training (more will be said about this later), with software purchases accounting for the remainder. For any given district, one can find students learning via computers in nearly every discipline. Implementation rates of 50% or higher were reported for computer education (83%), as one might expect, but also for core subjects like math (82%), language arts (81%), science (73%), and social studies (60%), as well as vocational subjects like business education (71%) and graphic arts (56%). There is a strong relationship between computer usage and software allocations, but it is impossible to determine the directionality. Do science teachers, for example, use computers because they have access to quality software, or are they provided with software on the basis of a strong computer utilization track record within the classroom?

Peripheral technologies are infiltrating schools at a much faster rate than was evident for microcomputers in the previous decade. Over the past two years alone, the installed base of Integrated Learning Systems has grown to include 30% of all districts while the comparative figure for Local Area Networks is now at 68%. Currently, nearly three-fourths of all districts have telecommunications links through modems and cable and nearly one-half are able to access satellite transmissions. Perhaps the fastest growing segment of school technology is CD-ROM.⁶ In 1990, there were approximately 30,000 CD-ROM drives installed in less than 5% of the nation's school districts. One year later the figures were 75,000 drives and 16% of the districts. Three years later, in 1993, we find close to 180,000 drives installed in 73% of the districts. Estimates are that CD-ROM purchases for school districts will double again between 1993 and 1996. According to freelance writer Robert McCarthy, many experts believe that CD-Rom research and development will soon yield more sophisticated (but less costly) technology, more microcomputers will come equipped with CD-ROM drives, and related software will move beyond simplistic library-research functions to interactive curriculum-based programs and even complete curricular packages. Eventually, the rise of CD-ROM technology will signal the demise of the videodisc -- a closely-related technology that has been around a while but has just started to find its niche in education circles.

Despite the fact that there are more computers, software packages, and related technologies in schools than ever before, and despite continued pressure (coming from sources located both within and without the education establishment) on teachers to climb aboard the technology bandwagon, only 50% of the nation's educators are currently using computers for instructional purposes.⁷ Yes, the figure has grown considerably since 1982 when only 8% of educators used computers to teach. But a disturbing truth remains: most teachers still use classroom computers for the purposes of rote learning or drill for skill, rather than problem-solving or more sophisticated knowledge acquisition-navigation. The classroom environment may look slightly different, but the objectives and processes of teaching and learning remain, for the most part, unchanged.

Studies focusing upon music teachers and technology have produced similar findings. A 1990 study conducted by MENC showed that only 8% of music teachers used computers for instructional purposes (up from 1% in 1985); a higher percentage of teachers used them as an administrative tool (19%).⁸ Patrick Dunnigan surveyed Michigan band and orchestra directors and found that 50% of the teachers used computers, but once again, administrative applications (80%) were most common among users.⁹ Ten percent of computer usage involved the creation of teaching materials while the remaining 10% was split equally among computer-assisted instruction and performance-composition applications. I conducted a comprehensive survey of instrumental music programs within Indiana and one of the items assessed high school directors' use of computers.¹⁰ I found a higher user rate (73%) than either MENC or Dunnigan, but once again, a majority of the respondents in my study reported that they used the computers for administrative tasks alone.

What Are the Pathways to Improved Implementation?

The research on technology infiltration and teacher implementation seems to raise three related questions. First, what can be done to increase the number of teachers who use computers? Second, once teachers become computer-literate, how can they be encouraged to utilize computers for instruction and not just program administration? Finally, what can be done to move teachers beyond a simple, computer-assisted instruction framework to a more global and integrated system of technologies within the classroom?

Some answers have begun to emerge from school technology pilot programs sponsored by corporate organizations, private foundations, and state departments of education. Three such programs are described in the April 1993 Special Edition of Electronic Learning: the Computer for Every Teacher Program sponsored by the Indiana Department of Education; the Apple Classroom of Tomorrow Program (ACOT) sponsored by Apple Computers; and the Center for Children and Technology program sponsored by the Bank Street College of Education in New York.¹¹

Indiana teachers who worked in school sites selected by the Department of Education, for example, each received a personal computer for office and/or classroom use. Researchers found that as specialized computer skills developed, teachers began to turn to each other for assistance in learning new software or other technology. These in-house interactions led to additional collaboration on matters of course development, instruction, and classroom management. Teachers were able to accomplish administrative tasks more efficiently and save time -- time that could be reinvested in the teaching process. Most importantly, teachers felt better about themselves as professionals because they were able to do as much with technology as their students.

The ACOT Report examined changes in teacher attitudes and behaviors over time as a result of the infusion of a critical mass of Apple technology and software into school classrooms. Researchers found that teachers initially used the technology to enhance traditional instruction (i.e., lecture-recitation-seatwork), but eventually students worked with computers independently or in small groups. Teachers quit lecturing, raised their expectations, and developed creative interdisciplinary projects that, in the long run, allowed them to spend more time with individual students. Both teachers and students started to view knowledge as something to be constructed through experience, rather than transferred, and started to step outside of their traditional comfort zones.

Research related to these projects shows that for successful implementation of technology to occur, teachers need to make an emotional commitment to the process of change. Technology must be viewed as one part of a long-term, evolutionary process, rather than as a quick fix or temporary obstacle. Beyond teacher attitude and initiative, school district administrators must provide teachers with a supportive environment that openly encourages experimentation and, more importantly, administrators must recognize that glitches and setbacks are inevitable byproducts of change and necessary prerequisites to progress. It is important to note that within such a context, technology may represent just one of several components of change, or one agenda among many.

Teachers and administrators must work hard to ensure that innovative ideas, whether they be technological, pedagogical, or structural in nature, are linked into a larger common goal whenever feasible.¹² Purposeful synergy can move mountains, but put faculty to work on competing initiatives and institutional paralysis will soon follow. Computer-based assessment provides one example of how technology can be used to accomplish another reform initiative.¹³

Attitude and environment may create an impetus for change in schools, but money is the key to obtaining lasting results. Adequate funding allows schools to purchase computers, software, and additional technologies for offices and classrooms. As I noted earlier, however, more monies need to be devoted toward teacher inservice. Teachers need to be taught not only how to use the technology, but also how to teach via the technology. School districts should not continue to assume that, just because a teacher has learned how to find the on-off switch or click a mouse, he can be left alone to intuitively discover appropriate pedagogical strategies. Furthermore, because technology itself is in a state of flux, continuing education is essential. Creative approaches to scheduling (which require money) can be used to reduce teaching loads and provide educators with some unplugged time. Money, in the form of cash stipends and travel support, might also be awarded to faculty who wish to pursue highly specialized training and/or share their successful technology endeavors with peers and colleagues at professional conferences.

In examining patterns of funding and support for technological reform in schools, I believe it is important to stress two points. First, support for technology must be distributed on a more equitable basis.¹⁴ For every suburban school blessed with a plethora of Macintosh Quadra's, there is an urban or rural school somewhere in this country that has yet to see its first computer. This disparity appears destined to grow because well-to-do school districts are the ones that are able to hire more administrators and technology directors who in turn, have the skills and time to apply for grants and other external funds which in turn, yield even more advanced technology for those who are already well equipped.

Inequities also arise within individual school districts and buildings. If administrators really want to see results, then all teachers, not just those who fear technology least or sing its praises the loudest, must be provided with a minimal computer setup (hardware, software, and printer) for personal use, and an ample number of computers or media stations must be found in each classroom (i.e., a maximum ratio of three students per computer). In addition, each school district should purchase a limited amount of accessory equipment (printers, scanners, LCD panels and overheads, VCR’s and video-disk setups, CD-Rom players) to which all teachers have access.

Of course, equity is easier to propose than to bring to fruition, particularly during these times of declining school budgets. Which brings me to my second point: school district support must be stable for a long enough period of time so as to generate self-sustaining behaviors among educators. The Bank Street study of teachers who were accomplished in using technology revealed that a substantial investment of effort and money over a period of time (typically 5-6 years) was needed to surmount traditional school-imposed barriers and finally achieve technological competency. Any initiative to implement technology, without a longitudinal framework for support in place, has the potential to do more harm than good. Leading a teacher to water and then telling him the stream has run dry does not tend to engender lasting motivation.

Case in point. While driving home from work this past week, I heard a report on National Public Radio about Taft High School in the Chicago Public School system. The administration and faculty at Taft had worked for over a year on a plan to restructure the school. The two main components of this restructuring effort were (a) scheduling students and faculty into "schools within schools" and (b) integrating technology into several curricular areas. One week before classes started, the Chicago School Board confronted a massive budget deficit and instituted several cost cutting measures, one of which put the new programs at Taft High School on hold. Principals and teachers felt angry and betrayed. One individual, a science teacher who had spent a considerable amount of his own money and time designing a technology-driven curriculum over the summer, turned in his resignation, walked out the front door of the school, and drove away without bothering to gather up any of his personal belongings.

Students entering teacher education programs are bringing more skills with them than they did five years ago, though I still come across the occasional technophobe who has never touched a computer and is bound and determined to keep things that way. The skills possessed by my music education students are rather rudimentary. They generally know how to use the keyboard and mouse, and can operate at least one piece of word processing software. Occasionally I come across someone who has experience working with data base and spreadsheet applications or notation/sequencing software. Most students are not familiar with any computer-assisted instruction software.

To meet state and national accreditation standards, teacher education programs generally require that students become proficient in using technology.¹⁵ At Ball State, all students must fulfill a computer literacy requirement. Music education students can accomplish this by taking a 3-credit class offered through the Teacher's College or by completing assignments embedded within various courses in the major program. In the introductory music education course taken by freshmen or sophomores, for example, students are provided with basic instruction in how to use a Macintosh computer and a word processing program. Later on in upper-level methods courses, students complete administrative assignments that require more advanced word processing skills, they are introduced to data base and spreadsheet applications, and they review some CAI software for both Apple IIe and Macintosh computers. Theory faculty provide students with instruction and experiences in using notation-sequencing software. To date, we have not done much with MIDI-workstations or interactive-multimedia -- in large part because of lack of equipment, knowledge, and time.

Campus-wide, Ball State has a number of technologies in place including a fiber optics based courseware delivery system (Video Information System or VIS) that allows instructors to access, display, and manipulate a variety of media (film, video tape, slides, video floppy) on TV monitors that are located in classrooms throughout campus. Distance learning courses also originate from campus studios and are broadcast throughout the state via the Indiana Higher Education Telecommunications System, which also provides our campus with satellite downlink capability. A faculty development lab and regular faculty development seminars also are available to any instructor who wishes to explore and/or implement these alternative technologies within the classroom. In truth, I know of only a handful of School of Music faculty who have used the VIS system and no one, to my knowledge, has been a part of the distance education effort.

In a recent article entitled "Viewports to Technology and Teacher Training," David Williams proposed that teacher training programs in music are having a negligible impact on technology use in public school music programs and three of the roadblocks that he identified seem particularly relevant to the situation we face at Ball State.¹⁶ First, there is a limited amount of quality instructional software on the market for preservice music teachers to review. Like most schools, we invested a considerable amount of money in the 1980’s purchasing CAI software for the Apple IIe computer -- only to find ourselves engaged in a transition from Apple II to Macintosh and IBM platforms and from traditional CAI to interactive multimedia approaches in the 1990’s. So, we are left with a software graveyard on one hand, and a software vacuum on the other. Notation/sequencing software aside, there is a dearth of K-12 music instruction software available for the Macintosh and IBM. Interactive multimedia is the next logical step, but current software development is still predominantly entertainment focused.

A second roadblock is the fact that many music education faculty members tend to have limited amounts of expertise in using or teaching others about technology. My colleagues, as is true for most music education faculties across this country, represent a mix of old and new guard. Everyone uses a computer for word processing and other administrative tasks, but only three of the seven faculty including myself are really incorporating technology into undergraduate or graduate courses. And even for those of us who are competent and interested, there never seems to be enough time or desire to stay abreast of all the changes.

A third roadblock that we face is the over-crowded music education curriculum. We just revised our undergraduate degree programs in music education and at 130 hours, they already exceed the University maximum for four-year programs. To add new courses in music technology or expand existing courses to allow for a more in- depth examination of various technologies will not be possible unless we engage in a process time management experts sometimes refer to as "organized abandonment." So what courses or content should one eliminate to make room for technology? Is it even possible to prepare college students to teach within the performance-oriented paradigm that currently dominates public school music programs and then, at some point in the future, appropriately shift to some still-evolving paradigm that places technology-based instruction at its core? The decisions are not easy to contemplate at this time, let alone implement.

I began this paper by contrasting two polar perspectives on technology -- technocentrism and technophobia. I also have suggested that a middleground position, from which one might view technology as an instructional tool or as a new medium for instruction, will provide the most healthy course for negotiating the hurdles of change and have the most positive impact on education and music education in our country. Why do I endorse the middleground rather than throwing caution to wind and joining some of my technocentrist colleagues as they charge excitedly into the future?

Here are a few caveats that might help to explain:

1) The body of research that has examined the effects of technology on student attitudes and achievement is still experiencing growing pains.¹⁷ Not enough effort has been made to rule out rival hypotheses (e.g., Hawthorne effect, experimenter bias), test for long-term vs. short-term outcomes, explore the way in which technology might interact with learner or instructional context characteristics, or interpret any benefits ascribed to technology in terms of system costs. My hunch is that technology does reap rewards, but for whom? In what contexts? For how long? And at what price? It also seems plausible to me that some types of learning might not be enhanced significantly enough to justify the costs of using technology.¹⁸ Until we conduct enough quality research and synthesize the findings, technology will remain on trial!.

2) I find a certain degree of irony in the fact that as we move toward technology-based curricula and instruction, more and more students seem to be reaching out to teachers for mentoring, counseling, and emotional support. When asked to reflect upon their best teachers, students often speak in terms of interpersonal dimensions of teaching (e.g., "He cared about me as a person") but rarely cite specific instructional skills or techniques. Every week, more and more students seem to knock on my office door, seeking advice about personal matters and career decisions. And yes, sometimes to just talk. A renewed emphasis on "high touch" does seem to be in order as we see traditional institutions of family and home continue to deteriorate throughout society. Schools have been failing because parents have been failing. Technology will not allow teachers to bypass the age-old axiom they have confronted for years -- "junk in, junk out." As cyberspace and virtual reality become escape havens for troubled youths, the problems could get worse before they get better.¹⁹

3) Over the past twenty-five years, almost every school subject has undergone one or more revolutions. In math, we changed from old math to new math and then back again to a kinder and gentler old math. In science, we have seen a shift from textbook and laboratory-based instruction to field-based experimentation and real-world simulation. In language arts, phonics has given way to the whole-language approach. And in physical education, fitness awareness and lifelong wellness have supplanted athleticism as the rationale and focal point for instruction. But in music education, we still teach as we did in the 1950’s -- by emulating the professional musician paradigm. Music teachers doggedly resist any school change (structural or procedural) that is perceived as a potential threat to their programs. Whether it involves interdisciplinary learning, portfolio assessment, or block scheduling, the motto is: "Shoot it down first and ask questions later." Ironically, many school administrators have been willing to cut deals with music faculty; administrators absolve music teachers of all accountability for learning and involvement in reform initiatives with the understanding that music teachers will continue to provide entertainment and enhance school visibility via performances and music contest awards. Will the story be any different where technology is concerned? I have my doubts.

4) Technology is commonly touted as a time saver. I certainly am able to complete any single administrative task in less time than would have been required in my pre-technology days. Yet, I find myself and many colleagues working harder than ever before. Technology has raised the ante and blurred the distinctions between workplace and home. Standards of productivity and excellence continue to change as we find more tools at our disposal; mimeographed handouts have given way to multimedia presentations. Increasingly, school administrators are justifying staff reduction on the grounds that technology now allows one teacher to do the work formerly accomplished by two. New responsibilities rush to fill the time void that technology has saved, and notions of increased leisure time continue to be a pipedream. If this is salvation, then I’m not sure I want to be saved.

5) Whenever we humans get too confident about our ability to master the universe, be it through technology or some other means, nature has a way of bringing us to our knees. A recent blurb in Time magazine illustrates this point.²⁰ Back in October, the United States military, planned and executed an attack on the guerrilla forces of General Aidid in Somalia. Despite massive technological superiority, the battle left 18 U.S. Army rangers dead and 75 wounded. How did the Somali loyalists deal this shocking blow to American forces? Evidently, some of Aidid’s men were stationed near the Mogadishu airport. As they saw the Army Ranger’s helicopters take off, they signaled their comrades located in the city of an impending attack using a combination of human ingenuity and age old customs. They beat out drum calls -- not on wooden logs -- but on 50-gallon oil barrels left behind by American and United Nations troops. Not exactly high-tech communications, but it sure got the job done.

Convincing evidence, I would submit, that a middleground perspective will serve educators best as we enter the next millennium.

_______________

 1 Keith Geiger, "Hearts and Minds," Electronic Learning, (February 1993), 50.

2 Michael D. Lemonick, "Tomorrow’s Lesson: Learn or Perish," Time, Special Issue, (Fall 1992), 59-60.

3 "October Town Meeting to Focus on Technology," Community Update Newsletter, U.S. Department of Education, (October 1993).

4 Lewis J. Perelman, School’s Out: Hyperlearning, the New Technology, and the End of Education (New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1993).

5 "Technology in the USA: An Educational Perspective," Electronic Learning (October 1993), 20-28.

6 Robert McCarthy, "CD-ROM Spins Into Schools," Electronic Learning, Special Edition, (October 1993), 10-15.

7 Jan Hawkins and Katie MacMillan, "So What Are Teachers Doing with this Stuff?" Electronic Learning, (October 1993), 26.

8 "1990 Music Educator Survey," MENC Soundpost, (Fall 1991), 19.

9 Patrick Dunnigan, "The Computer in Instrumental Music," Music Educators Journal, (July 1993), 32-37, 61.

10 James Austin and Amanda Hamman, "A Survey of Indiana High School Instrumental Music Programs," Indiana Musicator, (November, 1991), 13-15.

11 Gerald Bracey, "New Pathways: Technology’s Empowering Influence on Teaching," Electronic Learning, Special Edition, (April 1993), 8-9.

¹² Karen Sheingold, "Restructuring for Learning with Technology: The Potential for Synergy," Phi Delta Kappan 71, no. 1, 17-27.

13 Robert McCarthy, "New Tools for Assessing Student Learning," Electronic Learning, Special Edition, (April 1993), 12.

¹⁴ LeRoy Finkel, "Planning for Equity," Electronic Learning, (March 1993), 14.

15 Allen Glenn, "Teacher Education," Electronic Learning, (February 1993), 18-19.

¹⁶ David Williams, "Viewports to Technology and Teacher Training," Music Educators Journal, (October 1992), 26-30.

17 Philip Elmer-Dewitt, "The Revolution the Fizzled," Time, (May 20, 1991), 48-49.

18 William Jordon and Joseph Follman, "Using Technology to Improve Teaching and Learning," ERIC Document ED 355 930, (January 1993), 16.

1⁹ See Philip Elmer-Dewitt, "Cyberpunk!" Time, (February 8, 1993), 59-65 and Richard Corliss, "Virtual Mania," Time, (November 1, 1993), 80-83.

²⁰ "Inside Mogadishu," Time, (November 8, 1993), 17.