Please feel free to leave a comment...
In response to the classroom of the future…
Monday, September 05, 2011
We start here: In the Classroom of the Future, Stagnant Scores. It may help if you review the usual snarky and intelligent discussion about this here on slashdot.
The New York Times has published a story by Matt Richtel has written a piece which discusses technology-rich schools not fairing so well on standardized tests. I’m sure the article is factually correct; the impression I am left with is that any use of technology in a school is suspect. I would say the main point of this article is we are spending scads of money an educational technology, and we don’t know if it works.
Fair question, good article. I have several responses, in no particular order. FYI: I’m the director of technology at a major international school, and I’ve been in the educational technology world for more than 10 years.
1. If you teach with technology the same way you taught without it, you are missing the point. I’ve seen many teachers use an interactive whiteboard the exact same way as a normal whiteboard. What’s the point? Technology is a cognitive tool that enables collaboration, constructivist learning, and truly differentiated teaching and learning. But if we don’t change the way we teach to support those ends, we will not reach them.
2. There is something transformational happening in our world. I point to the Arab Spring, and the use of social networking as concrete evidence of this transformation. I also appeal to common sense; that a student can pick up a smartphone, and answer any question, any time, anywhere is simply astounding. Augmented reality again points to a future where we can know anything, anytime, anywhere. The real question (and one I'm not sure Mr. Richtel answered) is "what does the transformation of communication and ubiquitous knowledge mean for education?". I think he observed and wrote a plain truth; schools don't "get" tech. Especially in the context of standardized test scores, the kind of deep learning we know works doesn't happen. My bias in learning is deep knowledge is better than broad knowledge. I see students able to "hang" new experiences onto something they already know.
3. I'm currently teaching a SUNY Buffalo graduate course, ED603 Technology: Best Practice as a Catalyst for Learning. Just last Saturday, we culled through some research which essentially said "the efficacy of technology really depends how you use it". There are very clear studies which show that if you are lecturing in a room full of laptops, technology actually inhibits learning; mainly through distraction (and a zone of distraction which flows from behind the student). The big problem I see in ed tech is technology (as a noun) is simply thrown into a classroom without any real effort to realize the verbs - how will teaching and learning be better? What about professional development?
4. There is a difference between using technology to help students learn and using technology to help teachers teach. Ideally, both things are happening. If a teacher has an online component to their classroom (like a moodle course, or a class-blog, or a class website) that is great! They are communicating with parents, perhaps they are posting assignments, or even class notes. This is great, but how is it helping students learn? If a teacher changes the way they are using their online classroom (like peer editing module, or portfolio module, or wiki module) then we start seeing how technology is changing the way our students learn. We see the same thing with interactive whiteboards. If a teacher is simply substituting a whiteboard for an interactive whiteboard, then it doesn't make much sense to use an interactive board. However, a small change in behavior on the part of the teacher can have wonderful value-add. If a teacher starts save their notes electronically, and then post them online, we see accessibility and availability increase. If we see a teacher ask students to start creating lessons for their peers, then we really start to see this tool work. If a teacher incorporates videos, polls and other interactive elements in their teaching, then that interactive whiteboard starts to be more than just an expensive whiteboard. It is this question we must concern ourselves with; how is technology making learning better?
5. I believe, all things being equal, it is better to not use technology if you are not changing the way you teach, and students learn. If you plan on merely substituting teaching and learning with the same tool, you will realize some benefits, but not a "real learning awakening". This goes to the heart of success in educational technology, how is learning going to be different? This requires real visioning, training, support and most importantly, changing the way we imagine learning and teaching.
I'll enjoy the comments and conversation.
The New York Times has published a story by Matt Richtel has written a piece which discusses technology-rich schools not fairing so well on standardized tests. I’m sure the article is factually correct; the impression I am left with is that any use of technology in a school is suspect. I would say the main point of this article is we are spending scads of money an educational technology, and we don’t know if it works.
Fair question, good article. I have several responses, in no particular order. FYI: I’m the director of technology at a major international school, and I’ve been in the educational technology world for more than 10 years.
1. If you teach with technology the same way you taught without it, you are missing the point. I’ve seen many teachers use an interactive whiteboard the exact same way as a normal whiteboard. What’s the point? Technology is a cognitive tool that enables collaboration, constructivist learning, and truly differentiated teaching and learning. But if we don’t change the way we teach to support those ends, we will not reach them.
2. There is something transformational happening in our world. I point to the Arab Spring, and the use of social networking as concrete evidence of this transformation. I also appeal to common sense; that a student can pick up a smartphone, and answer any question, any time, anywhere is simply astounding. Augmented reality again points to a future where we can know anything, anytime, anywhere. The real question (and one I'm not sure Mr. Richtel answered) is "what does the transformation of communication and ubiquitous knowledge mean for education?". I think he observed and wrote a plain truth; schools don't "get" tech. Especially in the context of standardized test scores, the kind of deep learning we know works doesn't happen. My bias in learning is deep knowledge is better than broad knowledge. I see students able to "hang" new experiences onto something they already know.
3. I'm currently teaching a SUNY Buffalo graduate course, ED603 Technology: Best Practice as a Catalyst for Learning. Just last Saturday, we culled through some research which essentially said "the efficacy of technology really depends how you use it". There are very clear studies which show that if you are lecturing in a room full of laptops, technology actually inhibits learning; mainly through distraction (and a zone of distraction which flows from behind the student). The big problem I see in ed tech is technology (as a noun) is simply thrown into a classroom without any real effort to realize the verbs - how will teaching and learning be better? What about professional development?
4. There is a difference between using technology to help students learn and using technology to help teachers teach. Ideally, both things are happening. If a teacher has an online component to their classroom (like a moodle course, or a class-blog, or a class website) that is great! They are communicating with parents, perhaps they are posting assignments, or even class notes. This is great, but how is it helping students learn? If a teacher changes the way they are using their online classroom (like peer editing module, or portfolio module, or wiki module) then we start seeing how technology is changing the way our students learn. We see the same thing with interactive whiteboards. If a teacher is simply substituting a whiteboard for an interactive whiteboard, then it doesn't make much sense to use an interactive board. However, a small change in behavior on the part of the teacher can have wonderful value-add. If a teacher starts save their notes electronically, and then post them online, we see accessibility and availability increase. If we see a teacher ask students to start creating lessons for their peers, then we really start to see this tool work. If a teacher incorporates videos, polls and other interactive elements in their teaching, then that interactive whiteboard starts to be more than just an expensive whiteboard. It is this question we must concern ourselves with; how is technology making learning better?
5. I believe, all things being equal, it is better to not use technology if you are not changing the way you teach, and students learn. If you plan on merely substituting teaching and learning with the same tool, you will realize some benefits, but not a "real learning awakening". This goes to the heart of success in educational technology, how is learning going to be different? This requires real visioning, training, support and most importantly, changing the way we imagine learning and teaching.
I'll enjoy the comments and conversation.
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Bill MacKenty, Chief Zuccini
I make a difference in the life of kids. You want to tell me what's more rewarding?
Resume
This is my full resume. It has all my work experience since I graduated from college in 1992, including certifications, professional memberships, and descriptions of my work.
Polish Resume
This is my full resume translated into Polish. My wife tells me it is a literal translation, and as such might convey a slightly different meaning to Polish speakers.