CURRICULAR ARTIFACTS

you cant fight something with nothing a wise man once said. If you want to
change existing practice, you must give people new artifacts to signify the
change. In all domains of human endeavor, the artifacts people enjoy are
emblematic of the undertaking. A new undertaking requires new emblems. In the
case of education reform, there need to be new curricular artifacts that allow the
users to mark the newness of their undertaking.
With respect to the question of making new artifacts to celebrate innovation, we
live at particularly interesting time, with all of the ambiguity of the adjective
interesting intended. The microcomputer, the digital chameleon of our era,
allows us to make an endless stream artifacts, each encased in the increasingly
familiar box with screen and keyboard. We, as a society, have developed an
enthusiasm for the computer tools that we have learned to build, some of which
are eminently sensible and useful. For the most part educators have shared this
enthusiasm for new tools. As a consequence, those of us interested in education
reform have another arrow in our quiver with which to attack the problem.
One must be careful in seizing this opportunity. Despite the enthusiasm of some,
there are still many educators who are frightened of the newer technologies. In
addition, financial constraints and inequities are such that not all classrooms and
teachers have free and easy access to the use of the newer technologies.
As a consequence, one must be careful to implement microcomputer materials
on those machines that are most likely to be found in schools and least likely to
frighten inexperienced users, be they students or teachers. This constraint rules
out writing software meant to be run on cutting-edge hardware. This constraint
also rules out making the systems overly capable. The more features the system
has, the harder it becomes to use and less likely the educational system is to
perceive it as an extension and augmentation of its current practice.
Who should develop these artifacts? There is no general solution to this problem.
It seems clear that full-time teachers are too overburdened with the demands of
the classroom from day to day as to be able to devote the time to such
development. Further, I think it is difficult for most teachers to detach
themselves from the curriculum they are teaching sufficiently to think about the
material with the total freshness I am advocating. However, let it be clearly said
and recognized, that any curricular development that takes place without
continuing central and focal ivolvement of teachers is almost certain to fall far
short of its potential. The penchant that humans have for deluding themselves
seems to be unbounded. Leaving curricular design totally in the hands of those
who are not teaching seems to be a fatal error.
In similar fashion, mathematicians alone cannot be trusted to generate artifacts.
They are far too prone to be captivated by a beauty and an aesthetic that they
have not succeeded in getting others to appreciate. But clearly, no undertaking
of the sort described here makes sense without them. In addition, the
perspective of the cognitive scientist, particularly one who works in the field of
mathematics learning and teaching is equally insufficient and equally necessary.
Finally, insofar as curricular artifacts that are based on the computer are
concerned, the nature of the publics expectations has gotten to the point that

smoothness, look, feel, and speed of software exceeds the capabilities of most
nonprofessional programmers.