EdTechTrek

I’ve been thinking for some time now of how to express this idea that has been heavy on my mind. Today, a tweet came by my window that expressed this sentiment, pushing me over the edge and making me put pen to paper… er… fingers to keyboard and get it out.

Of course, I asked @TeachKidd if I could use her tweet.

So, what is “it”?

“It” has been that elusive thing that changes everything for all learners. But somehow, we have equated “it” with tools. They can take any form, from chalk, quill & ink, paper/pencil, overhead projector, dry erase boards, television and video-on-demand, document cameras, interactive white boards, semantic webbing software, data search tools, graphing and calculator tools, web 2.0 social learning and collaborative tools, synchronous communication and instructional courseware,… I don’t need to finish this list. The point is, that tools are a moving target. I say this because the tools represent the potential of something larger, much more important, much more significant.

Or not.

The idea of technology bringing about efficiency and educational reform is often spoken of by futurists, politicians, policy makers, researchers, edtech evangelists and computer hardware and software vendors. Pressures from all sides to technologize have resulted in the steady increase in the presence of computer technologies in America’s K-12 schools. Despite impressive increases in the amount of computer technology in America’s K-12 schools, boundless access to vast stores of information, and the undeniable reality that computer technologies have had a positive impact on schools and schooling, the impact that computer technologies have had in K-12 schools has been difficult to assess and concrete answers still remain elusive in many respects. For certain, widespread educational benefits as a result of new technologies have been quite elusive.

If we have learned anything from research in education and computing technologies, it is that change is slow and dependent upon many interrelated and complex factors (ACOT, 1995; Byrom & Bingham, 2001; Cuban, 2001; Marcinkiewicz, 1993-94; Means & Olson, 1995; Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997). There is no easy answer or simple solution. The solution is not computers alone, that much we do know. But critics of current investments and improvements in access to computing technologies in America’s K-12 schools are divided as to why we continue to see such fragmented positive outcomes as a result of computing technologies.

While some believe that we have invested far too much in technologies that have yielded far too little of any value (and perhaps have caused more harm than good) (Armstrong & Casement, 2000; Baines, 1997; Cuban, 2001; Lightfoot, 2000; Oppenheimer, 1997; Postman, 1993), others believe that despite the massive investments we have made toward improving technological infrastructures in schools, we will continue to see little educational return on those investments until computing technologies become ubiquitous.

There have been major problems with quantifying positive impacts of the investment of computer technologies in K-12 schooling. Although there have been many studies that have been able to demonstrate significant positive learning outcomes as a result of computer technologies (Kulik & Kulik, 1991; Kulik, Kulik, & Bangert-Drowns, 1985), such favorable outcomes do not appear to be the norm and are the result of very specific technology use (i.e. computer-based instruction). Roschelle and others (2000) provide three primary reasons to explain this paucity of conclusive research in the field of educational technology:
(1) hardware and software vary among schools and how such software is implemented varies even more
(2) successful use of technology is always accompanied by concurrent reforms in other areas such as curriculum, assessment, and teacher professional development, so the gains in learning cannot be attributed to use of technology alone, and
(3) rigorously structured longitudinal studies that document the isolated effects of technology are expensive and difficult to implement in public schools, so few have been conducted. In actuality, computer use in most school settings is inconsistent at best.
Although we are continually realizing our national imperative of infusing schools with more computers and more internet access, there continues to be little consensus on how those computers and internet connectivity are to be used. There is also little evidence that this increased technological capital has improved education at all

Cuban (2001) tries to explain this problem by claiming that despite theoretical and hypothetical promises of educational technology as a vehicle to transform teaching and learning, what is seen most prevalently are computers used to sustain rather than transform teaching practices. This phenomenon may be partly due to pressures from policy maker and software and hardware vendors to embrace new technologies now and consider how they are most effectively used later. The problem is that with rapid growth and change in the computer industry, ‘now’ is always here and ‘later’ never comes. Until we address issues of effective pedagogy (Clark, 1994; Cuban, 1997, 2001) with or without the help of technology, effective teachers will continue being effective while less effective teachers will continue as they always have, even with the addition of technology.

Jonassen, Peck, and Wilson (1999) write:
“The most productive and meaningful uses of technology will not occur if technologies are used in traditional ways – as delivery vehicles for instructional lessons. Technology cannot teach students. Rather, learners should use the technologies to teach themselves and others. They learn through teaching with technologies. Meaningful learning will result when technologies engage learners in: (a) knowledge construction, not reproduction, (b) conversation, not reception, (c) articulation, not repetition, (d) collaboration, not competition, and (e) reflection, not prescription.” (p. 16)

Of course, tools can be put into taxonomies that somewhat delineate their use – and usefulness.

Jonassen (2000) organizes them by (a) semantic organization tools (databases, semantic networks) for organizing what one knows, (b) dynamic modeling tools (expert systems, spreadsheets, systems modeling tools), (c) microworlds for exploring and experimenting with phenomena (i.e. SimCity or Oregon Trail), (d) synchronous and asynchronous conferencing environments (chat rooms, conferencing, discussion boards, e-mail) for socially co-constructing meaning, (e) knowledge construction tools (hypermedia, multimedia, Web publishing), (f) information interpretation tools (visualization tools, information search engines) for better understanding information encountered, and (g) video for visualizing the range of ideas that students generate. The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV, 1996) categorize technology tools into (a) tutorial environments, (b) exploratory environments, (c) computer programming environments, (d) application tools, and (e) communication and telecommunication tools. Perkins (1992) organizes them this way: (a) information banks (tools that provide instant access to vast databases of information), (b) symbol pads (word processors, drawing programs, and schematic mapping tools that serve to support learners’ short term memories as they record ideas, develop outlines, formulate and manipulate equations), (c) construction kits (programming tools and simulations), (d) phenomenaria (microworlds that can be manipulated), and (e) task managers (computer-aided instruction, intelligent tutors and trouble-shooters). However one chooses to label and categorize these tools, Vygotsky’s concept of mental tools (external and internal), and what Jonassen calls ‘mindtools’, are at the learner’s disposal that can assist learners in engaging in constructive, higher-order, critical thinking about the subjects they are studying as well has function as external mediators that provide essential scaffolding for the building of understanding.

Mental tools or mindtools are dependent upon learners’ mindfulness, which in turn is dependent upon the learning materials used and the context within which those materials are used. When technological mindtools are used as intellectual partners in the learning process (Jonassen, 1996), they can help in the creation and organization of personal understanding as well as in the representation and communication of individuals’ understanding. Of course, just as any tool can be used in many ways, the mere presence of a tool is no guarantee that it will be used effectively. How a tool is used is subject to the user’s understanding of the purpose and function of that tool (McDonald & Ingvarson, 1997). It is for this reason that learning opportunities need to be organized to allow for these potentially powerful tools to be used to their fullest. Many schools are in an almost panicked state as they rush to get classrooms and labs wired and fitted with the latest hardware and software, but too often they continue to use these new tools and infrastructure in very traditional ways, doing what they have always done – only with new sophisticated tools.

In all teachers’ defense, implementing more authentic, user-centered, student-centered, meaning making forms of pedagogy is no easy task and there are many infrastructural and political policies that make pulling this off problematic. John Dewey back in 1938 addressed the difficulties of constructivist learning environments and acknowledged the need to situate learning in actual social experience that involved a larger culture than that of the classroom – both local and global communities – in order to use them as educational resources that would bring meaning to skills and concepts. He believed that one reason why traditional education remained so favorable is because it did not have to face such problems of connecting education with experience. I would argue that even today, although aspects of [social] constructivist and constructionist theory are slowly appearing in mainstream teaching and learning practices, teachers, administrators, and other stakeholders continue to struggle with these issues for a dizzying number of reasons.

So, what’s the point of all of this. Well, if we continue pointing to the tools, explicitly or implicitly, as “it”, we are missing out and are not seeing the larger context. We end up being more of a distraction than a focal force in educational reform. What I have been noticing is that there is more and more emphasis being being put on the tools. Edtech conferences have been toolapaloozas. And, to compound this problem, the rate at which the tools are changing is dizzying. By and large, the preponderance of discussion that seems to be taking place in the educational/technology community are focused on tools… new tools. Yes, these new tools bring about exciting new learning opportunities, but teachers are getting lost in the tidal wave of new tools that afford new learning opportunities. I support the notion that in this day and age, the teacher/learner needs to be flexible and adaptable as new tools become passé and get replaced by even newer, better tools. However, in our exuberance for staying on top of the tool wave, we leave most teachers to deal with the wave in whatever way they can. Often, to survive, it means to stay out of the water altogether. Or, they dabble in the waters by using tools in insignificant or trivial ways, knowing that before they can get comfortable with the current tools, they will be replaced, or left unsupported. But in our efforts to get teachers to become tool specialists, we fail miserably in the higher goal of helping teachers become learning specialists. The end result often leaves the teacher frustrated and disappointed. The target is just too elusive. Just when they master PowerPoint they are told that PowerPoint is a bad tool. Just when they master web page authoring using one software package, the district replaces it with another better one. Just when they get their mind around Delicious social bookmarking, everyone starts crying “Diigo Diigo”. A few months after they sit through the workshop on Audacity, 11 other new tools that can produce audio-based content are being touted. Just as they finally figure out what Ning is and find one to join, everyone begins to heed the siren’s call, “Twitter Twitter Tweet Tweet”. Wordpress, Blogmeister, Edublogs, or Blogger? Zoho Docs or GoogleDocs? Wikispaces or PBwiki? Moodle? MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn? PDAs? Cell phones? Document cameras? SmartBoard, PolyVision, Wacom, or Promethean? Clickers and other forms of personal response systems? Podcasting? Netbooks? Ebooks? I’m stressing myself out just trying to brainstorm some of the current trends and tools out there now. Over the next year alone, hundreds of new tools will emerge.

To bring back this earlier statement: This phenomenon may be partly due to pressures from policy maker and software and hardware vendors to embrace new technologies now and consider how they are most effectively used later. The problem is that with rapid growth and change in the computer industry, ‘now’ is always here and ‘later’ never comes.

So, what is “it”? Will we ever find “it”? Or, should we be focusing better on targets that don’t move so much; enduring targets… and in turn, help teachers and students consistently achieve great things?

Seymour Papert, Gary Stager , David Perkins, Diane Ravitch, and a handful of others are the few voices out there who have consistently promoted such ideas for years… often with tools that have been around for years.

The geek in me loves the quest for “it”.

The teacher in me knows that “it” remains firmly built on the shoulders of giants.

The educational technology community needs to continually reevaluate the definition of “it” that it communicates.

References
ACOT. (1995). Changing the conversation about teaching, learning, and technology: A report on 10 years of ACOT research. Cupertino: Apple Computers, Inc.

Armstrong, A., & Casement, C. (2000). The Child and the Machine: How Computers Put Our Children’s Education at Risk. Beltsville: Robins Lane Press.

Baines, L. (1997). Future schlock: Using fabricated data and politically correct platitudes in the name of education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(7), 492.

Byrom, E., & Bingham, M. (2001). Factors influencing the effective use of technology for teaching and learning: Lessons learned from the SEIR*TEC intensive site schools (second). SERVE. Available:http://www.seirtec.org/leader.html

CTGV. (1996). Looking at technology in context: A framework for understanding technology and education research. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 807-840). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.

Cuban, L. (1997). High-tech schools and low-tech teaching: A commentary. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 14(2), 6-7.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning With Technology: A Constructivist Perspective. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Transforming learning with technology: beyond modernism and post-modernism or whoever controls the technology creates the reality. Educational Technology, 40(2), 21-25.

Kulik, C.-L. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7(1-2), 75-94.

Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C.-L. C., & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1985). Effectiveness of computer-based education in elementary schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 1, 59-74.

Lightfoot, J. (2000). Laptops in the classroom: A bad idea whose time has come. Available:http://www.homestead.com/judy_lightfoot/files/Laptops_in_the_Classroom.html

Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1993-94). Computers and teachers: Factors influencing computer use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(2), 220-237.

McDonald, H., & Ingvarson, L. (1997). Technology: A catalyst for educational change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(5), 513-527.

Means, B., & Olson, K. (1995). Technology’s role in education reform: Findings from a national study of innovating schools (RR91172010). Washington, DC: SRI International.

Oppenheimer, T. (1997). The computer delusion. The Atlantic OnLine. Available: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97jul/computer.htm

Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage Books.

Roschelle, J. M., Pea, R. D., Hoadley, C. M., Gordin, D. N., & Means, B. M. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. Children and Computer Technology, 10(2), 76-91.

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.