EdTechTrek

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 reading brain rules by John Medina and love this quotation as it relates to how we learn:

“If you wanted to create an education environment that was directly opposed to what the brain was good at doing, you probably would design something like a classroom.”

He is not saying that one cannot learn in a traditional classroom. We all have. However, he does challenge the notion that it is the best or most effective way to learn.

Oh, what we sacrifice in the name of “efficiency”.

“It would be particularly oxymoronic to convey the idea of constructionism through a definition, since, after all, constructionism boils down to demanding that everything be understood by being constructed.”

~Seymour Papert

Hmmmm….

How well do we learn new concepts by simply defining them using a dictionary… a staple of educational practice in classrooms? There are certainly differing levels of knowing, and choosing a correct definition from incorrect distractors has value at some level. However, when real understanding is the goal, something else must be valued and sought after in the classroom. If we want our students to USE knowledge or information in meaningful ways, the definitions themselves hold very little value.

What are you doing to get your students to move beyond knowledge as definitions?

“Once the technology is sunk deep enough into the culture, the social effects that get built on it simultaneously require the technology and aren’t about the technology.”

~Clay Shirkey

So true.

Yet we must continually examine those “social effects” rather than get too giddy about the required technologies. Too many discussions are focused on these required technologies (and a google alternatives) rather than looking hard at the social effects that result from new technological “enablers”. Taking the view of Neil Postman and others, technology is not always enabling “good” things. Seamless, transparent technology is certainly the goal in the classroom so that it is the learning that is the focus, not the technology. Otherwise, learning outcomes become secondary to the exciting new technologies and users become blinded by the “technology delusion”. This reminded my of an article worth reading and thinking about, written by Todd Oppenheimer in 1997, titled, The Computer Delusion. Things have evolved since he wrote it, but it is still worth reading. I love this last quotation:

“The purpose of the schools [is] to, as one teacher argues, ‘Teach carpentry, not hammer,’” he testified. “We need to teach the whys and ways of the world. Tools come and tools go. Teaching our children tools limits their knowledge to these tools and hence limits their futures.”

A good reminder…

“…creativity is not universally valued. Many cultures and communities prefer training students to accept existing structures rather than training them to form new ones; they prefer memorization and copying to research and creative writing. These conflicts are likely to remain controversial.” (B. Schneiderman: Leonardo’s Laptop)

So which students are really most “at risk”? We must be educating ALL students to ask questions, who are curious, who challenge “authority” (ie. Joe Blo’s webpage, Wikipedia, conventional wisdom, bias, …), and who create new ideas and express knowledge and evidenced learning in new ways… ways that are personal, relevant, meaningful, powerful… creative.

Or, we can continue to educate students for a world that no longer exists.

Are these ideas controversial in your world?