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.

Well, it’s day two of the NYSCATE conference and I am just a little jaded. We KNOW that it is how teachers teach that makes learning meaningful and engaging for students, not the tools that they use. However, so much of the discussion about these things is about the tools. Granted, folks come to these things in large part just for that reason. But Here are some of the comments I have overheard while sitting down quietly eating lunch from Subway (not paying the $45 to sit at a table in the banquet hall).

– “I just heard the greatest idea… have kids write haikus in PowerPoint!”

– “Did you know that we shouldn’t use serif fonts in our presentations… we should use “sans-serif” (teacher struggling with the pronunciation here)”. Colleague asks, “Why?” Response: “I think it’s harder to read?… and did you know, using Comic Sans is illegal?”

-”I went to two of the Troxell presentations yesterday trying to win a document camera.” (Troxell and other vendor-driven sessions rob attendees of potential professional knowledge they could gain from sessions that actually might make a difference).

Then, to top it off, Marc Prensky’s keynote… sigh. Here it is in a nutshell:
-YouTube rules the world.
-Let kids make “YouTubes” and the world will be a better place.
-All you need to do is use digital tools and wisdom will abound.
-Digital tools somehow make age old, good teaching pedagogy built on the shoulders of giants like Dewey, Piaget, Vygotsky, Bruner, Papert… somehow new and sexy.
-I am a digital immigrant… a 21st century retard.
-He invites up a panel of “digital natives”, of which only two are in high school and one is 38 with children of her own. Then he asks the hundred million dollar question: “How many of you have cell phones and how many of you use Facebook?” Gary Stager tweets out that his 92 year old grandmother has one and so what?

Granted, he did make some good points, but by and large, I wanted to stand up and scream. Perhaps I should have. I could have competed with his obnoxious beeps that he had strategically placed in his linear 197 slide presentation to keep the audience awake.

After that keynote, I tried to find a presentation that was not solely about cool tools or cool stuff. I tried one, then another. A third sounded hopeful, but the presentation was dreadful. If you’re going to talk about assessment, you’d better be relevant and engaging – that’s all I have to say about that. Thankfully, I ended up in Sylvia Martinez’s session on GenYes. And thankfully, she set Prensky straight on his failure to realize that good has always been good teaching – teaching engages and creates valuable and relevant learning opportunity, not the tools. The tools help… that good teaching is not easy and that it requires more than YouTube and cellphones. Gary Stager talks a great deal about using computers for powerful ideas, but I don’t hear much about powerful ideas

Anyway, I’m really not trying to complain… although I guess that I am. Oh, how I am wishing for sessions that couch new tools within teaching excellence. How I wish I could sense an atmosphere of hungering to improve one’s own teaching craft. Oh, to overhear conversations about how new ideas on more effective teaching have been gleaned rather than which font should be used or isn’t ________ (you fill in the blank) so cool. We all need help… but not help in how to create stunning. gimmicky Powerpoints, flashy podcasts, “interactive” white board lessons, fancy document camera acrobatics, cool videos, clicker quizzes, … We (myself included here) need help on teaching our students in powerful ways and learning how to relinquish some of the control in order to empower them as learners, creators, communicators, problem-solvers, collaborators, meaning-makers,… students who make a difference and who feel empowered.

What if… what if we did away altogether with technology professional development/training and focused solely on effective and meaningful pedagogies while embedding in those pedagogies the necessary tools both teachers and students can use to make learning meaningful, relevant, and powerful?

The day ended with some good conversation in a session with Peter Riley and other leaders in their own right… conversation that needs to continue as we all struggle with how to best negotiate this new digital landscape and continue (or perhaps begin?) to meet the needs of students. I’m hoping that I will find more of these little nuggets – these types of conversations that I missed when the podcasts are available.

My fear is that these conferences do as much (if not more) to preserve the status quo as they do challenge it.

Am I off base here?

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”.

“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…