EdTechTrek

There has been much discussion over the past few years around the notion of the role technologies can play in bringing needed change to public education. Frustration and doubt have been common elements of those discussions; frustration due to the lack of/resistance to change and doubt about the impact that technologies can/should have on our well-established system of education.

A recent article in the Journal of Computing in Teacher Education caught my eye and interest. Titled, How new technologies have (and have not) changed teaching and learning in schools. (full text available here)

In this particular article, the authors, Richard Halverson and Annette Smith, make the distinction between technologies for learning and technologies for learners. At a quick glance, one might not see the difference. However, Halverson and Smith do a good job on differentiating between the two.

David Jonassen makes this distinction when he writes about mindtools and the distinction between learning from tools and learning with tools – how learning with technologies transforms the responsibility of the learner from receiver to producer, creator, and sender. Along the same lines, Seymour Papert argued that computers in schools could radically change the relationship between teacher and student, student and content, student and learning.

I think that in many of the discussions that I have been part of, it is this very thing that we continue to struggle with. We have a well-established instructionist model of schooling that wants to use new technologies to support that model, or as Halverson and Smith write:

“K-12 schools have reacted to new technologies in two ways – co-opting tools that reinforce existing practices (Powell et al.; Cuban), or minimizing the threat of disruptive technologies through marginalization or banning (Christensen et al.)”

They go on to explain that schools tend to give preference to technologies for learning in this way:

“…schools seemed to pick up on affordances that reinforced institutionalized priorities. Rather than opening up new opportunities to reframe how teachers teach and students learn, it seemed as though instructionalism bent technologies to extend existing pedagogical, curriculum deliver, and assessment practices.”

What differentiates technologies for learners is that this type of technology gives ultimate control to the learner with success being measured “…by the degree to which the system supports and fulfills the learner agency.” (Halverson/Smith)  McCombs and Marzano describe agency as where “Students’ will or desire to engage in self-regulation is not only necessary, but primary. Students must realize that they are creative agents, responsible for and capable of achieving self-development and self-determination goals, and they must appreciate and understand their capabilities for reaching these goals. Self-regulation and the desire to enhance self-regulation capabilities then follows.” (Sylvia Martinez writes about agency here as well.)

The ‘problem’ with these types of technologies is that they require a shift from highly controlled and reliable models of instructionist schooling to models that are “notoriously unreliable” where students have agency and can go in passion-based or interest-based directions, can fulfill learning goals in different ways, can demonstrate competency in different forms, and are often quite messy. This type of model is not that appealing to many for these very same reasons. Control, order, reliability, and accountability are all forces that run counter to using technologies for learners.

Halverson and Smith conclude with the following idea:

“…although technology enthusiasts expected a revolution in technologies for school learners, what schools experienced was revolution in technologies for measuring and guiding learning. The learning revolution took place outside the schools.”

And the learning revolution continues outside of school, for there have emerged so many wonderful technologies for learners. Of course, there are also pockets of change happening within schools, but still, as Halverson and Smith put it, there is a large “gap between progressive islands of innovation and typical school practices….”. Our current direction of data-driven decision making, measurement, accountability, incentives, standardized national curricula, and pressure as we race to the top reinforce all the more the adoption and integration of technologies for learning. Whereas Seymour Papert “saw computers as liberators of curricula” (Halverson & Smith), he is quoted as saying

“as long as schools confine the technology to simply improving what they are doing rather than really changing the system, nothing very significant will happen” (2002).

Today, his words ring prophetic.

However, the power of social media and communication technologies has facilitated the networking together of those “progressive islands of innovation”. Educators no longer need feel alone or unsupported. There are many excellent examples of learning innovation and teaching with technologies for learners if one chooses to seek them out and partner with the incredible educators who share their efforts, successes, and failures in open and networked ways. Teachers are learning to harness technologies for learners themselves, finding renewed passion, interest, and hope, becoming learners all over again. As they (re)discover agency, they are striving to help their own students discover agency in powerful ways.

Alvin Toffler wrote, “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.” The gap is widening. I know which side of this gap I want to be on. How about you?

Welcome to the revolution.

This is one of those posts where I have very little to say. Instead, I just want to pass on (verbatim) something profound that Seth Godin wrote in a recent blog post of his.

“One of the most common things I hear is, “I’d like to do something remarkable like that, but my xyz won’t let me.” Where xyz = my boss, my publisher, my partner, my licensor, my franchisor, etc. Well, you can fail by going along with that and not doing it, or you can do it, cause a ruckus and work things out later. In my experience, once it’s clear you’re willing (not just willing, but itching, moving, and yes, implementing) without them, things start to happen. People are rarely willing to step up and stop you, and often just waiting to follow someone crazy enough to actually do something.

I’m going. Come along if you like.”

This is no time to be polite or timid. Do you want to see/experience meaningful change, innovation, leadership, vision, progress, …? If so, it’s time to step up to the plate and be the change you want to see. It can be risky. There will be bumps in the road. Will there be some frustration? You bet.

The alternative is to wait for someone else to step up and take action. However, it is not just you who will be waiting. It will also be your colleagues/peers and your students.

Don’t wait…

.

Image Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/teejaybee/606926494/

Race to the Top, data-driven teacher incentives and accountability, high-stakes assessment, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) above all else (meaning the arts), common national standards, global competition and ranking (be sure to read Yong Zhao’s post, The Mismeasure of Education: Worthy Knowledge in the Age of Globalization), schools run as businesses, Schools run by businesspeople, … (If you have not read Deborah Meier’s post, “Why Business Leaders Should Not Be in the Driver’s Seat“, you should.)

And then there is this: “But today is great day… a day to celebrate… the perfect storm for reform… We have the resources at the federal level to drive reform… and reach the educational equivalent of landing on the moon…”

Then I hear this:

“Tools to capture their imagination…” Tools and opportunities to engage and empower students – to make learning meaningful, relevant,… to encourage creativity, joy, problem-solving,… Thinking differently and bringing out the best in every student [and teacher]…

With all due respect, Secretary Duncan, the only Top that we are racing to is the Big Top… the federal circus that you are orchestrating – a circus that many cannot even afford admission to. I guess those that can’t make it under the Big Top will be left to wither and die, just like the schools in our nation’s capital that have been closed down to be sold to charter operating companies or to condo/hotel developers…

As Klonsky says in his blog post, “the real losers are kids, parents and communities…”

~

I’ve begun reading Deborah Meier’s book, In Schools We Trust, and already my heart is heavy, thinking about how much we underserve our students in school. However, the idea of teacher/educator trust [lack thereof] is something that the book begins with and has really made me wonder about the causes of it. Deborah writes,

“The dominant American attitude toward schooling these days, embodied in all these changes, is a fundamentally new level of distrust. We don’t trust teachers’ judgment, so we constrain their choices…. We don’t trust the public school system as a whole, so we allow those furthest removed from the schoolhouse to dictate policy that fundamentally changes the daily interactions that take place within schools… But whatever the origins, social distrust plays itself out in education in the form of draconian attempts to ‘restore accountability’ through standardized schooling and increasing bureaucratization… which fuels the very distrust they are aimed to cure.” [p. 2]

Deborah wrote this in 2002, but I think as true as it may have been then, it is becoming more and more true today. High stakes accountability, restrictive teacher/student Internet filtering, prescriptive curriculum, publisher driven textbooks and tests, federal mandates, business-led initiatives, … Has the teacher and educational leader been reduced to a pawn in the matrix of an externally controlled American education system? Diane Ravitch just wrote a wonderful blog post related to this idea: “Why Business Leaders Should Not Be in the Driver’s Seat“. You should check it out if this interests you. What happened to educational leaders/authorities (past and present) being the ones that direct policies and direction in education? Are we all just laying down and letting the machine steamroll us? We, the people? Will educational transformation require a revolution by we, the people?

Please share your thoughts as I wrestle with this. I’ll be sharing more from her book in upcoming posts.