ABSTRACT
An urban teacher, eager to increase the availability of technology and other resources in her classroom, applies for a grant. A company that
creates supplementary computer programs for increasing students’ mathematical problem-solving abilities sponsors this grant. The teacher follows the grant guidelines, receives the grant, and purchases the materials. With all good intentions, she uses the materials. The flashy, engaging, computer-based program requires that she place students into ability groups and promotes competition between individuals to increase their scores. Although she knows that cognitive coaching has been far more successful in promoting her students’ understanding of concepts and problem solving, she did not think about this as she responded to the RFP. Happy to have children engaged by the computer program, to be able to track their progress, the teacher is content with the fruits of her effort. Her students’ charted success on computer-generated quizzes prevents her from raising critical questions about what is actually being learned, who is not learning, and why. She is disappointed when the learning she believed was measured by the computer-generated quizzes is not replicated on her class scores on state-mandated proficiency tests. Her practicality ethic supports her sense of accomplishment-the innovation worked because her students learned and were well managed.
