In light of the current financial crisis and its inevitable impact on schools of all sorts, I worry about the near-term future of education and, more specifically, the role of education technology in the classroom. In particular, I'm concerned that, in most cases, we have failed to effectively integrate technology as an essential, strategic part of the educational process.
Don't get me wrong, I believe we've been heading in the right direction with ed tech, albeit slowly. In fact, I have witnessed a number of programs that suggest the beginnings of what I believe will be an important shift in the use of education technology. My only question is, is it too late? When budget cuts come, that which is viewed as neither strategic or essential generally finds itself on the cut list.
So how do education technologists make the right choices and demonstrate a measurable effect on teaching and learning in the classroom? The solution requires no less than an organization-wide cultural shift with regard to technology in schools - from the technology directors to integration specialists to principals and teachers. A few thoughts:
Change the decision making process. When selecting technologies for implementation, we must ask ALL the right questions. Deciding for a technology based on emotion, a great sales pitch, word of mouth, or even because we think it will work is not enough. Before any technology implementation is begun, we need to answer four key questions:
- What is our vision for this technology - ie, what do we believe it will do to meet our educational goals?
- What are the skills necessary to use and support this technology?
- What are the resources we will commit to ensure the success of the implementation, from staff development to release time to support to infrastructure?
- How will we measure the results to ensure that the technology is having the desired impact?
Too often, one or more of these are overlooked or glossed over, particularly number 4. If you can't demonstrate the effectiveness of the technology in the educational environment, then you can't establish its value with stakeholders.
Loosen our filtering policies. The Children's Internet Protection Act was never intended to be used as an excuse to remove responsibility from the classroom, yet our response to it has had just that effect. In an effort to “protect” our children from “inappropriate” content, we have created an environment where noone takes responsibility for their activities, instead choosing to “blame it on the technology.” In an ever escalating effort to restrict, ban, and block anything that might have the remotest potential to be misused, we have denied our staff and students access to some of the most powerful tools for creativity, collaboration, and learning on the web, and eliminated every opportunity to teach children to use these tools wisely and safely. When you consider that recent studies have show web filters to only be about 90% effective (which translates into 1 in 10 attempts to access “banned” sites or content is successful) and couple that with all the lost educational potential, it becomes clear that something has got to change. Staff and students need to be held responsible for their activities on the Internet, just as they are for the content of any other media they might bring to school (ie magazines, music, video, etc.) Internet use in the classroom should be executed with purpose or not at all. Computer time should not be a free-for-all, but an opportunity to take part in learning activities of educational value, and teachers need to take an active role in supervising their students' activities, taking advantage of teachable moments at every opportunity. And finally, intentional inappropriate behavior should be treated for what it is: a behavior issue, not a technology issue.
Choose the right technologies. If there is one thing that nearly everyone agrees on, it is that the educational process must change to meet the growing demands of a 21st century economy. But when we consider the role of technology in the classroom, we have a tendency to mold it to our habits, to fit it to they way we've always done things. So we upgrade our whiteboards to super whiteboards, and our overheads to super overheads (ie doc cams) because we think the reason kids aren't learning is because we aren't interesting enough. Then we pretend that “engagement” equals achievement, even though the achievement gains come in anywhere from modest to non-existent. Any honest look reveals the obvious: that we've spent thousands of dollars on classroom technologies that are most used by teachers, rather than kids. If we really want to transform the classroom into a place where student learn and put to use real 21st century skills, then we need to spend scarce technology dollars on technologies that do more than merely enhance delivery while reinforcing 19th century classroom practices. We need to invest in technologies that empower students to learn, create, and discover in exciting new ways. In short, we need to invest less in instructional technology, and more in educational technology. A good rule of thumb is this: if the teacher touches the technology more often than the students, then the technology has no hope of transforming the learning environment.
If we as education technology leaders will consider just these three, we will not only establish technology's strategic value within our schools, but also effect transformative change in the learning environment. My greatest fear, however, is that we have failed to do so for so long that technology will continue to be viewed as an add-on, an expendable extension of the classroom that is easily jettisoned in times of crisis, as have been so many art, music, and science programs over the years. A setback such as that could take years to recover from – years our students simply do not have to lose.
Keywords: 21st Century Learning, Educational Technology, Leadership
Posted by Jim Klein
|
Comments
There's quite a bit here to comment on, so I'll start at the top...
I totally agree that there's reason for concern for ed techies with our fiscal situation. However, I can see two possibilities. There could be, like you say, a cutting back of all the "non-essentials." What qualifies as a non-essential depends on the person(s) calling it such. Assessment is the key here, like you say. If I'm involving students in cooperative groups, giving them task-oriented projects, and asking them to use modern tools to solve those problems/complete those tasks, I feel pretty good about that because I'm preparing them for the real deal, not some artificial measuring stick mandated by people who have a knowledge of politics, not education. Unfortunately, since we don't follow these students in their careers and find out the impact of our efforts, it is almost counter productive to teach this way, unless you have a conscience.
I doubt that we'll ever follow these students that far, because that is not how humans, historically, solve problems. We are short-sighted and generally self-oriented in our methods. We want to put our piece of the mosaic into place and point to it and say, "There we go. Look at what I did." If this continues, then you probably will see the same model of education that we've had since the one room schoolhouse on the prairie. What's changed? Blackboards become whiteboards, whiteboards become Smartboards. Slate and chalk turns to paper and pencil, and then to Airliner tablets. If this is all we're doing, then we probably will lose the tech because tech is just being used as a glorified version of what went before. Is this bad? It probably isn't cataclysmic, but it is a missed opportunity to address our changing world and the students who have changed with it, in spite of the teachers who haven't. Our problems are global, have social implications, and are driven by economics. We've got students who have access to technologies right now that can communicate globally, but lack many social skills, growing up in a world that is teetering on economic thin ice. So let's keep them in their seats, staring at the wall. Let's put in charge of that classroom an authority figure that "has all the answers" so they don't have to worry about coming up with them themselves. That makes a lot of sense /sarcasm off.
It is possible that the financial situation will implode making it necessary for a fundamental restructuring of the classroom. If we can't afford enough teachers to teach in the small classrooms necessary to maintain order in classrooms with increasingly fidgetty students, we might just have to engage those students in a totally different way.
-----
As for the security concerns, I agree. I think it is totally unreasonable and unethical to turn our children's world into a police state that is totally bubble wrapped. If there's an inappropriate movie on at our child's friend's house that an older sibling is watching, we expect our child to avoid watching it. We don't send a crew of people to the house preemptively to screen it. If children aren't allowed to make choices, those who have removed the choices have surgically removed the ability of that child to solve problems for themselves. I'm not saying that we have to treat every choice they make as a good one. In fact, I'm saying just the opposite. They have to experience making wrong choices to be able to notice the difference between them. We already see this happening in our society. Few people make decisions; most pass the decision up the ladder. Many businesses don't even feature people you can talk to when you call them. Your problems are solved by computer-voiced menu systems instead.
I once attended a talk given by author, Daniel Quinn. He asserted in this talk that vision is a river. It has to start with small streams and tributaries, but ultimately becomes a force to be reckoned with. There is a new vision of education. Some of us embrace it, even if we're having trouble adapting to it right away. If all of us keep echoing this viral message, perhaps, eventually we'll be able to undermine the foundation of and topple this antiquated machine of education that we've put in place.