EdTechTrek

This morning, I was reading this news story from NPR titled, ‘40 Years of Lessons on Sesame Street‘. The article is one of a many reflecting on the 4oth year anniversary of the popular children’s show. As I reflected on the lessons learned over those 40 years by the show and its producers and cast, I realized that many, if not all of these lessons, are relevant within our education spheres. Here are those lessons:

1. Children are adaptable.
2. G00d [muppets] take time to evolve.
3. Change is unavoidable.
4. “C” is for competition (not just cookie).
5. Freshen up.
6. Learn from your mistakes.
7. Keep it simple.
8. Push the envelope.

I am not going to make this a long narrative, but just simply want to quickly reflect on each of these lessons.

Children are adaptable: The certainly are. What comes to mind here though, is that children both adapt to good things in their environment as well as to not so good things. In schools, my concern is that children have adapted all too much to our didactic, passive, rote methods of teaching. I see this when they arrive at the college/university level. Many are struggling to battle this all-too familiar adaptation they have masterfully undergone for 12 or so years. Although, I must say many gladly rise to the challenge and move from the “feed me” “hoop jumping” and “minimum criteria” types of environments when relevant opportunities are placed before them, but it can be a struggle, nonetheless.

Good [muppets] take time to evolve: The evolutionary process can be indeed slow. Many of us get frustrated with the lack of evolutionary speed in schools. However, one key principle of evolution is that of natural selection. Wikipedia defines this as “is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations.” So, what are those traits (often influenced by environment, not just heredity) in education that seem most dominant and lead to their survival, while others just don’t seem to gain a significant foothold? Why is it that the progressive vision for education conceptualized by the likes of John Dewey, Johann Pestalozzi, Friedrich Froebel, Jerome Bruner… and their contemporaries like Herb Kohl, Deborah Meier, Ted Sizer, and others… seem so hard to achieve?

Change is unavoidable: So why does education spend so much of its efforts on avoiding change, not the superficial window dressing kind of change, but substantial, revolutionary change? It seems that we are living the axiom, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” Coming back to evolution, what are those most dominant traits that keep us from substantial change?

“C” is for competition: We have moved to this very competitive model of education over the past years. We are competing and ranking internationally on assessments like TIMSS. We rank and compete internally (NAEP)with one another for the top districts, top schools, top scores, quickest to meet AYP, top students,… We are competing for federal dollars that get dangled like carrots in front of hungry rabbits (Race to the Top, NCLB,…). (If you haven’t watched this lecture given by Yong Zhao, especially the first part of it, it is worth your time.) Competition often serves to make us better. But it is in defining “better” and “success” that we have become lost. As with Faust, have we make a bargain with the devil that has robbed us of what Dewey and other progressives understood as being most valuable?

“Jefferson told us where to look to see if a nation is a success. He did not say to look at test scores. Instead, he said to look at ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ ” (Keith Baker, 2007)

And then, Alfie Kohn and  Dean Shareski remind us all of the importance of joy in learning, both for teachers and students. Is that one of those traits that will selectively be extinguished if we let it?

Freshen Up: Who can argue with giving things a fresh look. However, too often we have giving things in education a “fresh look” in the name of meaningful change. Many folks see the addition of the interactive white board, for example, as a symbol of the 21st century classroom – a needed facelift to the aging chalkboard. They are nice and the technology is impressive. However, when major budget dollars are allocated to “fresh look” kinds of changes without any meaningful change or innovation ever happening, the result can often be no more than expensive window dressing. And then there are the schools that really need freshen up… paint, roof, air conditioning, pencil sharpeners that work, desks that aren’t broken, computers that run, physical education, art, and music equipment,… What are we doing?

Learn from your mistakes: In education, and elsewhere, we love to report on mistakes, humiliate and criticize those who make mistakes, and grade mistakes as a form of punishment rather than constructive feedback. Many have learned to avoid taking risks for fear of the consequences of making mistakes. The fact is, we learn best through our mistakes when a grade is not the end of the learning cycle. Programers understand this. Debugging is a powerful and critical part of the programming process, as it is in the learning process. Seymour Papert, Gary Stager, and others have been and continue to be passionate proponents of children learning through programming, through meaningful projects, and learning by doing meaningful, relevant, and therefore engaging things. Somehow, with current educational policy, we are not learning from our mistakes. Instead, we seem to be making the same ones over and over again. This brings me back to evolution and natural selection. What’s driving this perpetuation of the same?

Keep it simple (stupid): Embrace and keep what works. There is no need to make things overly complicated. Some of the most effective pedagogies and learning principles are not all that complicated when it comes down to it. Often, it is the limiting structures, policies, roadblocks, and other expectations that over-complicate things.

Push the envelope: To me, this is my daily challenge when it comes to growth. I try to convey this to my students ad nauseum. The opposite of this is status quo. Don’t rock the boat. Do what’s familiar. Keep things comfortable… all the enemies of business… and education. It’s about growth – becoming and remaining a professional. I am so appreciative of the countless people in my personal learning network (PLN) that share evidence of this every day. One thing that my learning network has done for me is that it has broken down the walls of isolation and has connected me to educators and experts who are truly doing great things around the globe with their students. We do not have to feel (and be) limited by those within our physical circles of influence. Too often, teachers feel isolated and become tunnel-visioned, thinking that what they see and experience around them is indeed reality on a larger scale. I am thankful to say that it isn’t. My students are beginning to understand this – that they don’t have to limit their imagination – that they can connect with inspiring, passionate and excellent teachers and experts in so many ways never before possible – that they indeed have a voice that can make a difference.

As I conclude, what has struck me in writing this morning is that many of these lessons are interrelated, making meaningful and substantial change difficult. As such, I have certainly not done each justice in my narrative here. Are we really learning from these lessons? How do these lessons resonate with you? I’d love to hear what you think.

Who would your Big Bird, Oscar the Grouch, Cookie Monster, Ernie, Bert, or Snuffleupagus of education be?

I’m curious as to what emotions and thoughts are stirred up in you as you watch this video. What progress have we made in this regard? Where are we yet struggling to see this realized? What remains impractical in public education? Why?

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.

Who made the following statement? How long ago?

Pedagogical leaders are calling upon the schools to free themselves from tradition and subject matter. Whatever students learn should be relevant to their future lives and work. It is it foolish to saturate them with a mass of knowledge that can have little application for the lives which most of them must inevitably lead. They are sure to become disappointed and discontented, and who knows where all this discontent might lead. Abandon your antiquated academic ideals and instead adapt education to the real life and real needs of your students.

So, who’s making such claims?

Ellwood P. Cubberley, dean of the education school at Stanford…

….. 1911!

(Adapted from Diane Ravitch’s post, 21st Century Skills: An Old Familiar Song

To quote Ravitch some more:

“The problem with skills-driven approaches to learning is that there are so many things we need to know that cannot be learned by hand-on experiences. The educated person learns not only from his or her own experience, but from the hard-earned experience of others. We do not restart the world anew in each generation. We stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us. What matters most in the use of our brains is our capacity to make generalizations, to see beyond our own immediate experience. The intelligent person, the one who truly is a practitioner of critical thinking, has the learned capacity to understand the lessons of history, to engage in the adventures of literature, to grasp the inner logic of science and mathematics, and to realize the meaning of philosophical debates by studying them. Through literature, for example, we have the opportunity to see the world through the eyes of another person, to walk in their shoes, to experience life as it was lived in another century and another culture, to live vicariously beyond the bounds of our own time and family and place. What a gift! How sad to refuse it!

Until we teach our teachers and our students to love knowledge and to love learning, we cannot expect them to use their minds well.“

I could quote it all, but instead, go read Diane Ravitch’s entire statement. It is time well spent.

The ABC News headline reads, “Teens Prefer Computers to Doctors“. This headline is somewhat deceptive, though. More accurately, teems may be more likely to share sensitive, high-risk and confidential information via a handheld computing system called the Health eTouch than they would in a face-to-face discussion with their doctor.

One quotation that struck me from an article titled, “Waiting room gadget may prove to be a life-saver” reads,

“Our research has found that recent advances in information technology, such as the Health eTouch system, and the immediate reporting of computerized screening results may help overcome barriers to behavioral screening.”

It made me think about the complete opposite in education – the delayed reporting that comes from standardized assessments. I was talking with a teacher the other day and we were discussing the end-of-year paperwork that needs to get done on each child. Her perspective was that it was such a waste of time because nobody really looks at it, making the process even more trivial. It is a vicious circle, because the new teachers who get anecdotal and formal assessment data on their new students know that teachers like themselves just go through the motions of filling out these district-mandated forms and checklists. We also discussed the delayed assessment data results that come from standardized testing. By the time the data arrives, it is so close to the end of the year that teachers don’t really give it attention as they will be passing their students on to other teachers (this is assuming that the teachers can make sense of the data that they are provided with). It gets filed for the next teacher to sort out.

What if standardized assessment data reporting was immediate? Would that change things (assuming that the data was actually useful, valid, and reliable), or is something still missing from the equation like a doctor’s mind – one that understands the data and combs it looking for important information and correlations. Do most teachers really take the data seriously? Do most teachers really know what to do with the data once they receive it. I remember our faculty sitting in on one – yes one “in-service”…groan… where we were told what the data we had just received means. I never had a course in undergrad or Master’s program that helped me understand the data and take action based upon the data. Only during my doctoral program did serious attention to this ever emerge.

So, we have the problem of delayed data receipt, lack of understanding of what the data means, lack of understanding of what action to take based on the data, lack of credibility and respect for the data itself, and disenfranchisement with the whole formal data gathering, reporting, recording, and action process.

Imagine if your teacher was your doctor? What then?

Would a handheld data gathering device really help any more than a handheld computing device put into the hands of a novice or traditional teacher really bring learning innovation and power into the classroom?

As Obama would say, we need change. “Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.”

Are we just waiting for change, or are we, as Hillary Clinton said, just repackaging things others have tried … “not change you can believe in, it’s change you can Xerox.”

We need educational assessment reform in this country as badly as we need healthcare reform.