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.

The concept of creativity and the great opportunities for problem solving that present themselves when individuals are given the luxury to be creative in schools has been on my mind for the past few days. I have been watching my son “play” with the design game, Phun, and it has been very interesting. If you are not familiar with Phun, it is a free, cross-platform creative design environment where the  user can draw what he/she conceives and watch it work. David Perkins would describe this type of software as a “construction kit“. David Jonassen would define it as a “mindtool“. Physical attributes like gravity, wind, water, slope, motor speed and direction… and so much more can all be manipulated. The Phun website describes it in this way:

“The playful synergy of science and art is novel, and makes Phun as educational as it is entertaining.”

and

“Phun is a fantastic toy for children, where they can learn and appreciate physics, science and simulations in an open ended gameplay with rich creative and artistic freedom, including colorful freehand drawing.”

But, the name is so well chosen because it is just so much fun! My son has now spent a great deal of time trying to design creations that work according to his ideas. Because he has had no formal lessons in how to use Phun, it is all trial-and-error and studying some of the predesigned scenes that come with Phun. Through his creative exploration and problem-solving, he is wrestling with concepts that drive the physical world, like gravity, surface tension of water, how water takes the shape of it’s container, how motors can drive actions that get work done, cause and effect – and I could never list them all. We have also been working at things together because I have been so engaged with it as well and want to figure out how to design things that I can conceive in my mind. The social and collaborative aspect of this has been fantastic as we learn together. He shows me as much as I show him. However, my knowledge and experience allows me to ask him the questions he need to be thinking about and considering as he builds… a perfect scaffolding opportunity and chance to make metacognition explicit.

So, how much will happen like this in school this year? How much room is there in the tightly controlled curriculum with preparation for the myriad of tests he will have to take this year for creative problem-solving and strategic opportunities for social, collaborative metacognitive problem-solving and scaffolding? I like the following quoation found on NCREL’s website:

“Recognizing what you do know in a problem, as well as what you don’t yet understand, are aspects of metacognition in problem solving that are similar to a scaffolding approach. Perkins & Solomon (1989) point out that an expert’s behavior appears to be strongly driven by prior knowledge. When faced with an unfamiliar problem, he or she may construct a similar but simpler problem. In this way, the expert learner manages his/her own gradual self-regulation and enables him/herself to grow to meet the new task successfully.”

So, watch the video below, and, if you can indulge yourself, download it and have some Phun. Challenge your students, your children, your neighbors… to have some Phun. It may be the only opportunity for this type of learning they get all year.

I have been thinking lately of the onslaught of new tools and related learning potential that they hold. Over the past few years there has just been an onslaught of new tools and services out there. Some are still around, some have fallen by the wayside. Many of these tools fall in the Web 2.0 category. (here and here, to list a “few”). The discussions and implementations with EdTech folks have been just as numerous. I totally understand the desire to find those “perfect” tools and tools to transform “same-old” learning into learning that is culturally relevant and personally meaningful. I get that. I think about these things all the time. However, there is something innate in the tech “geek” that drives us on to try every new thing coming down the pike and to abandon tools that worked just fine for newer, shinier, cooler tools that have that one (or 100) extra feature that just makes it superior. Yet, often they are not advantages that the average teacher would take advantage of – or would even care about. Sometimes I think we are doing the typical teacher a disservice with our insatiable appetite for new tools. And, I do get the need in this time to be able to quickly adapt to new tools as old ones become extinct. However, many teachers need simple tools tied to powerful learning opportunities. I think that they feel the same inundation of innovation and simply shut down. We need to sell them on the pedagogical, not the technical. On the true learning innovation, not the innovative tools. On the passion and excitement of being in control of learning, not on controlling learning. On the power of creative production of meaningful learning artifacts, not on glitzy but empty products.

Here is a iPhone product called FriendBook that caught my eye and drove me on to write this post. I used this example in one of my comments on Will Richardson’s latest blog posts titled, “What I Hate About Twitter“. It is an interesting conversation on the value of a tool like Twitter. It is interesting to the the diversity of responses to Will’s initial thoughts. But back to my point – Friendbook allows iPhone users to “beam” to each other their contact information/address book cards.
The headline of the promo states “Business cards are so last year.” There will always be new (communication) tools out there that have advantages and disadvantages. However, we all need to get past those and seek after what is important – not simply cast aside old tools in search of the latest greatest ones. It’s not the business card per se, but the message it conveys and the audience it reaches. I think it is the same with Twitter. It is not the tool per se, but the messages that get conveyed and the audiences who choose to listen and participate.

No tool will do it all FOR us. There is no “Holy Grail” of tools that will make good teaching easy. It takes sweat, tears, devotion, passion, dedication, intelligence, skill, professionalism, continued learning and growth, collaboration, risk-taking, networking, wide reading, deep reading,… and you could add many attributes to this list as well. It does not require a trendy approach to computer applications. There is nothing wrong with the traditional business card if it gets desired results. I fear we are communicating too much that “traditional” = bad and that “cutting edge” = good. This is so wrong, so distorted, so deceptive. My previous post on Good Vs. Effective relates to this a great deal here.

So, let’s get more passionate about learning and less passionate about needing to be “up” on every new tool that gets churned out. Let’s help reading teachers become more effective and passionate about teaching the language arts in powerful and relevant ways. Let’s help math and science teachers become more effective and passionate about teaching and reaching kids in effective ways – in realistic ways. Yes – these ways should include relevant technologies. Don’t abandon digital microscopes or data probes just because they don’t carry a Web 2.0 label. Don’t ignore programming just because it is not your thing. And, don’t get so hung up on tools like Twitter. Get hung up on powerful learning.

To quote Mariana Umaschi Bers who cites Seymour Papert:

“The power of computers for education lies in their potential to assist children in encountering powerful ideas and to engage them in experimenting with and testing these ideas”.

I am reading the book, Blocks to Robots, by Marina Umaschi Bers, and I must say – the first few chapters do a fantastic job at putting technology into perspective as it applies to not only young learners, but adolescent learners as well. In particular, the second chapter presents to perspectives of how children should learn with and about technology: computer literacy and technological fluency.

Computer literacy “relies heavily on developing instrumental skills” whereas technological fluency “focuses on enabling individuals to express themselves creatively with technology.” Both are important and compliment each other. But what I appreciated in addition to this was the following statement that brings much needed balance to many on-going discussions today.

“While developing technological fluency is important for understanding the world of bits and atoms around us, it is just as important to provide children with the vision that technology can also be used to make a better world.”

So often this important dimension of ALL educational practice gets lost in our philosophical discussions and rants about which tool, pedagogy, style, approach, perspective, system, etc… is best. One of the primary goals of a democratic education is to contribute to humanity and make the world a better place for all. With this perspective, we need to think long and hard as to the purpose of our students’ PowerPoint on ________________ (you fill in the blank).

But amongst other great points, Bers  presents six assets or characteristics of thriving individuals taken from the work of applied developmental scientists whereby learners not only learn content, but also “to contribute in positive ways to themselves, their communities, and the world.” These six assets are:

1. competence – in intellectual endeavors and the acquisition of computer literacy and technological fluency
2. confidence – in their own learning potential through technology and their own ability to solve technical problems
3. caring – about others expressed by using technology to engage in collaboration and to help each other when needed
4. connection – with peers or adults to use technologies to form face-to-face or virtual communities and social support networks
5. character – to become aware of their own personal values, be respectful of other people’s values, and assume a responsible use of technology
6. contribution – by conceiving positive ways of using technology to make a better learning environment, community, and society.

This set of assets puts to shame any list of skills and proficiencies that have been generated over the years. It contextualizes isolated skills and gives them meaning. Aren’t we all looking for meaning? Do we really need to evaluate students’ ability to right-click or highlight rows, cells, or columns on a spreadsheet? Are we communicating to teachers and students alike that isolated skills make up learning? ISTE has spent countless hours developing, revising, rewriting, and “refreshing” a list of standards. On the NETS page, there it is: “What you and your students need to know to be tech savvy” and “Today’s Students Need Digital Age Skills”. How about a book that contextualizes skills and gives them meaning… gives them purpose.

Learning should be a gateway to better things… a better world. We forget this far too often. I forget this far too often as I get caught up in the “stuff”. Technology brings so many valuable tools to empower the learner. But meaningful learning contexts are still required.

So, what problems face your students and your community locally that they could tackle? Could they prepare a presentation to present to the school board, the town, the city… It makes me think of this video of a young girl presenting some compelling ideas at the UN titled, “The girl that made the UN silent“…. all done without PowerPoint, too

I am beginning to read Blocks to Robots: Learning With Technology in the Early Childhood Classroom by Mariana Umaschi Bers. I have only read the foreward which is written by David Elkind, a favorite author of mine. I love how he writes. And this passage struck me as so clear and well-written that I would like to share it here. In describing constructionism, a theoretical framework built on the shoulders of Jean Piaget, Seymour Papert, and others…

“When children build their own mechanical/electronic objects, they have created experience from which they learn new concepts of space, time, and causality. Indeed, in this self-created virutal world, space has become portable, time has become retrievable, and causality has become programmable.”

I love how that it worded. Children of all ages so need learning opportunities where causality is programmable – where they learn through direct interactions with their environment, but where they hold the power over this environment and are able to manipulate it in so many ways. The fact that these interactions are both portable and retrievable makes it even more attractive. Opportunities for learning through construction are so vast. My graduate students felt overwhelmed by the endless learning opportunities and potential afforded by new technologies.

But tell me this – is the bigger challenge getting teachers to understand and value constructivist/constructionist principles, or is it getting them to use new technologies? It would seem to me that the former must happen before the latter, or at least, they must happen simultaneously. It is extremely hard to explain the learning power that can be leveraged with new technologies when the theoretical frameworks upon which these learning experience are built are so foreign, so uncomfortable to begin with.

I’m really looking forward to the rest of this book.