Join the conversation

Nancy Wrote:

The opposite of resisting change, however, is not always progress. It can be thoughtless reverence for novelty, or admiration for the wrong "leaders." 

This is a brilliant comment that echoes with me, Nancy.  I read an article recently on the neutral impact that interactive whiteboards have had in British classrooms and they described some of our digital decisions as "overvaluing the mundane."

And believe it or not, as a technology advocate, it's that overvaluing of the mundane that I have to fight against constantly.  I advocate for tech-driven instruction that is grounded in creation, communication and collaboration.  My final goal is to see my students begin to take ownership over their own learning in my classroom---moving from a teacher-directed environment to a more student centered environment.  

That work takes time and meaningful professional development.  Many school leaders would rather just buy whiteboards and student responders and talk a good talk about creating 21st Century Classrooms!

What drives me the craziest is when they use my words or ideas to try to justify their decisions.  I have to constantly push the idea that tools facilitate meaningful learning and should lead to changes in instruction.  I try to sell the idea that tools can increase student engagement---and student engagement is a key to academic and personal success. 

But what I see is shoddy implementation that results in more technology in a classroom that is still defined by poor instruction!

So here's an interesting question:  How do you think most school leaders would describe a "21st Century Classroom?"

(I shudder to think of what their replies might be!)

Bill 

Thanks to everyone for posting!

 Sheryl, I am thinking we may be joined at both the hip and the brain--with the difference being that you are a well-known, well-regarded technology scholar, and I am a teacher who tinkered with the available technology in one school. However, I am also a skeptic and a critic. This may be a function of grumpy old age (laughing), or a result of being a musician, grounded in appreciation for artistic craftsmanship or best performance. I have spent my life and my teaching career always asking "Why are we doing this? What's the purpose?"

You can ask that question every day, in education, and spend a lifetime trying to figure out how most school practices got started, or why we cling to them, as Bill said in his remarks about teachers thinking school needs to be punishing. The opposite of resisting change, however, is not always progress. It can be thoughtless reverence for novelty, or admiration for the wrong "leaders." As Neil Postman noted:

 “…those who cultivate competence in
the use of a new technology become an elite group that is granted undeserved
authority and prestige by those who have no such competence.”

Like Sheryl, I define "technology" broadly. One of my strong beliefs is that economists and psychometricians are driving education policy today, because Americans are all seduced by the technology of standardization--not the computerized tests or data manipulation, but the whole sameness-efficiency concept. Those who have competence in the use of new technologies like value-added statistical analysis have suddenly been granted prestige and authority, far more than the teachers who have been in classrooms with children for years.

I get that technologies change everything, and I think kids should study that idea in school--that's what I was trying to do with the Napster lessons. I knew that it would all shake out eventually; Shawn Fanning had already been sued when we started the lessons. I thought it would be interesting for kids to predict real and preferable outcomes for a technology, peer-to-peer file sharing, which would turn everything upside down. I thought it would be cool for them to consider that Shawn Fanning was a college student who changed the world. I wish all teachers would such plant seeds in kids' brains: you don't just have to stand by and let other people make decisions about what you let into your life--you can decide what technologies to embrace and which might be counterproductive.

As part of that lesson, I found an clip from the Holocaust Museum, which discussed the fact that Hitler used cheap crystal radios, a relatively new technology, to unite German citiizens with a constant stream of Aryan propoganda (another technology). Today, I would discuss the use of cell phones and virtual communication in creating and hiding terrorist cells, another way to look at Sheryl's statement about Web 2.0 tools being great enablers of marginalized populations. Those who have been de-humanized by poverty or politically alienated are given a voice and power by technology, but it's not all good.

Sheryl and I are in complete agreement about the future of schooling. Schools are rapidly becoming just one place in the great learning network, and not often the most relevant or important place for kids. For that  reason, we might put our priorities on the ability to reason and communicate, and the development of a healthy skepticism about media, rather than trying to keep abreast of "free" tools. Nothing, of course, is really free.

I really appreciated what George wrote.

* Paying off the debt owed to underserved kids by devoting federal resources toward equity for our most challenging schools
* Building a world-class teaching force and investing in genuine educational leadership
* Creating a new agenda for innovation and research
* Renewing community engagement with schools

These are the kind of policy ideas that should be written into a law. Oh wait, they are in NCLB, it just isn't part of the part that "counts".

I think that is where we are with technology too. Until it starts to "count" as a new literacy like test scores count it will always have teachers who call it unneccessary and fanatics who want everybody to plug-in. I know both of you are totally neither of these but, see the value in each side. I like to treat new technology like listening to new music. I listen to as much as I can but only buy what I really like. I try to keep a platter of possible new applications in the back of mind so that when I do run into an opportunity I can use the best tool for the job. For example, I will try to incorporate Bill's google.doc survey this year. Oh, and by the way Nancy, I still haven't figured out the whole Twitter thing.

Greta post guys.

Bill says:

"Digital tools have made meaningful learning experiences a thousand times more approachable for teachers and students alike. No longer is creation, collaboration or communication a dreaded chore for longsuffering servants. Instead, it's something we instantly embrace because we know it's doable."

Nancy says:

"Successful individuals are not creative and collaborative due to fluent use of digital tools. Their success comes from a solid grounding in applied knowledge and skills, integrated into a moral framework that nurtures socially positive innovation."

So who's right and who's wrong? 

 Bill is right. Schools and teachers have an obligation to adapt technological innovations. The internet is the encylopedia of a new world. Word processing and spell check are new steps in the progression from the quill and the dictionary. To argue against new tools because they expedite access and enhance student engagement seems to imply, as Bill puts it, ".... suffering through good old-fashioned hard work is the route to salvation."

Nancy is right. Technology has the potential to be an seductive distraction when access to search engines replaces thoughtful research and when the point of the PowerPoint becomes the presentation rather than the content.  While technology can be an effective tool or collaboration across barriers, it can create barriers that reduce the more iquality of interaction that happens face to face. As Nancy put it, "It's worth remembering that technology can also be used very effectively for exploitative and harmful purposes."

It's not about the tool, it's about the teacher. Wouldn't it be helpful if more people understood that these two very smart people are both right?  Technology is a powerful tool, but tools are only useful if they are used appropriately and skillfull to reach a well conceived outcome. It is interesting that rise of technology as tool seems to coincide with a right or wrong (binary) thinking pattern for too many users. At the same time, it's interesting that without digital access, this highly nunace (fuzzy logic) discussion would not be possible without technology. Whether technology results in more or less depth in accessing information, constructing knowledge and collaborating with others may be more dependent on the teacher than the tool. We are fortunate that there are thoughtful educators such as Bill and Nancy to continue to tease out how to adapt and apply resources to impact student learning. Tools can't replace good teaching, but good teachers are willing to learn to use new tools.

But

Just this morning I was listening to NPR when Francis Collins started talking about his work on the Human Genome project.  I thought it was particularly relevant for my work as a science teacher when he started discussing the merging of the sciences.  His belief was that the lines between discplines are blurring and scientists, who want to have ground breaking work, will no longer do their work within their single area...rather they will function as a part of a team.  Almost like an interdiscplinary team that is capable of finding threads that are problem-solvers.  Why?  Because the unanswered questions that are still out there don't have such straightforward answers and require the complex problem solving skills of many.  He also thought the days of that silo based scientist sitting at his lab bench, running experiments, collecting data...alone into the night...is gone.

 So why does this connect to the dialog between Bill and Nancy?

I believe that Nancy's comment that it is the not new technology tools that make us smarter.  I agree with the notion that just using technology isn't enough to help our students stretch for the big ideas.  I believe it is the good ole fashion teacher using technology instructional tools when it makes sense and leverages learning that will help our students be prepared for their future jobs.

That said, I've read things that Bill has done with his kids.  What always strikes me about his work?  Well.....there's the instructional part that goes on behind the technology that makes those tools work.  While his blogs and wikis are fantastic, it is the process by which he helps his students learn how to responsibly and effective communicate what they're learning to others the real meat of the experience.

 I'd bet next year's salary that when those kids finish Bill's projects they are equipped to do many things that don't have a lick to do with the specific software.  I'll bet that as soon as that 2.0 tool morphs into something newer, slicker and cooler...his kids have the requisite critical thinking, problem solving and communcation skills.  I'll be that they can adapt to any tool pretty darn quickly.

That's because he does what Nancy seems to be advocating.  He's doing the solid thing that teachers need to do before and during the instructional tool...he's teaching!!!!  Yes they may be old fashion fundamentals.  But in their bright shiny new packages and tweaked a bit for this generation, they still hum the same old tune!!!!

Thanks for taking on this topic and generating this conversation.  I wish we had more teachers trying to tackle this real issue and figure out how to utilize technology for the best advantage for all students.

Paul wrote:

They may use these sites more actively than I do, but I don't believe that they "understand technology" better than myself or 80% of the other teachers in my building. Where does this myth originate? Is it more common in high school? 

I think this conversation about the myth of students knowing more about technology than teachers is an interesting strand.  For me, I don't believe students know more about using technology for learning.  Instead, I think they are more likely to take advantage of digital opportunities to create, communicate and collaborate than most teachers are.

Our goal, then, should be to channel this interest in using digital tools towards meaningful learning experiences----which is difficult because so few of our peers are using digital tools to facilitate their own learning.  

 As as result, teachers don't see potential learning value in the same kinds of tools that our kids have embraced, but yet to systematically apply to their own personal growth in meaningful ways. 

Does this make sense? 

Students are primed to use digital tools, but aren't mature enough to use them independently for the kinds of productive purposes that are possible.  Teachers haven't seen personal value in digital tools for learning, so they aren't jumping at the bit to create learning experiences facilitated by technology.  

So what's the bridge step?  How do we bring these two diverse points of view together to create a bit of educational synergy?

Bill 

I am really enjoying this thoughtful discussion of technology in schools.  I appreciate Nancy's focus on essential questions rather than, as George puts it, "(being) caught up in the thralldom of technology".  Unfortunately, I've seen my district's attempts to embrace technology lead to decisions that fell flat rather quickly.  For one, the district spent a great deal of money to use Read 180, a computer-based reading intervention program, in all of its high schools.  The technology problems were enormous!  Students used the computers mostly to play pranks on the teachers, such as turning the screen information upside down (who knew you could do that?!) and other pranks of that sort, which brought instruction to a screeching halt on an almost daily basis.  Next, the district decided to use technology as the theme of its newly minted eighth grade English curriculum.  When it was rolled out in the pilot this year, the curriculum was incomprehensible and disjointed to teachers and students, and to literacy coaches such as myself.  Teachers got video iPods with extremely brief instruction on their use, and then the district sent CDs with video clips that didn't work.  What I didn't see was the district leaders taking the time to immerse themselves in the technology they promoted, nor the essential questions regarding its use.  Students frequently inquired, "Why are we doing this?"  I am a proponent of technology, and as I re-enter the classroom this fall, I know I will encourage its use.  However, I, too, believe we need to focus our students on the global and moral issues of the global world of technology and use the tools of technology to promote meaningful instruction.  As William Glasser said, "While the line graph for technology skyrocketed, the line graph for human nature has remained fairly static."  (Or words to that effect.)  Our future leaders need to know how to use technology to find solutions to our increasingly complex, dangerous world issues; and we teachers need to find ways to help lead them on their way.

Nancy said- Facility in using digital tools does make some things easier. If our goals include fostering democracy, equity and a just society, or nurturing curiosity and imaginative problem-solving, however, we must pay attention to who is readily able to acquire both hardware and capacity, and to what real ends these skills are used.

Equity is at the heart of what having ubiquitous self-publishing tools that are free, easily accessible, and intuitive are all about. Just imagine if reformers like Thomas Pane had been able to reach a global audience with the stroke of an electronic pen. However, the tools will change and should not be our focus, because realistically in 10-20 years other dynamic educators will be debating why these tools should be *the* tools rather than whatever the future brings us, much like we are advocating for pen and paper driven activities today. Web 2.0 tools are great enablers when it comes to marginalized populations. It gives them an instantly powerful voice with readership- where without them they remain invisible and powerless.

As to copyright and old fashion ideas of right and wrong- well that presents a problem. When you have a new technological innovation, it doesn't change some things, it changes everything. Think of life pre-printing press/post printing press- pre-automobile/post automobile- what was once considered right and moral becomes a gray area as the shift occurs and technology changes the way we live our lives and what we do with information we create. Just as US morality and other cultures' morality may differ, so does morality in the light of exponential change. Napster, Wikipedia, and other mash-up tools created a problem with current beliefs and understandings about copyright and content creation mores. It doesn't make sense to empower our students with these tools and then have a system that makes them pirates if they use them effectively. What are we doing to our students? Rather we need to rethink and make principled changes in the way we do things. I recommend Lessig for more on this topic. http://www.lessig.org/

Nancy said- It's worth remembering that technology can also be used very effectively for exploitative and harmful purposes. Yea and so can a pencil or scissors. I do agree that Web 2.0 tools do provide the opportunity of amplification of possible harm, but so did the invention of the car. 

However, all that said- the place where Nancy and I are joined at the hip is that tools are irrelevant. They will come and go. Obviously, in any learning environment a tool rich setting is nice to have-- but like Nancy says, learning is and always should be the focus. 

The question for me becomes- can digital tools, for example, create a sense of wellbeing and orchestrate a recovery of self for young people, including those who have been alienated, excluded and marginalized by conditions of de-humanizing poverty? 

I think what Nancy is reacting to is the traditional "flatland rhetoric" of the digital divide and the "increase access to information increase learning" pressure groups. I would point her to Geetha Narayanan's work. I think there she will find the balance she is looking for in preserving culture and deep learning through the tools- whatever they are.

I believe that we, as educators, do not want to become such that we "have no original position on culture and engage in bricolage, tinkering with all kinds of media without the need to be recognized for creating preserving or innovating cultural forms or products. Where education is like a shopping mall or a theme park, something that has value only in the short term as long as it attracts young consumer-learners who can plug, play and perhaps even learn!" (Narayanan, 2007).

For me, the tools are a mere means to increased connectivity and collaboration. I want teachers to learn the new literacies and pedagogies involved with using the tools to allow them to team with and learn from people with very diverse ideology and perspectives. I want them to learn this way so that they can model the building of their own personal learning network for their students. I want students to use these tools seamlessly to connect with subject matter experts around the world who will fuel their mind around their passionate interests and what results from those collaborations we call school. 

Schools are but one node in the network of learning options available to a student today. If we do not realize that quickly, both Nancy's and Bill's classrooms will become irrelevant in the lives of the students they care so deeply about and want to prepare for living our their future.

Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach
http://21stcenturycollaborative.com 

John in NC makes a good point about the assumption that kids know how to use technology fluently, and adults are "digital immigrants." It goes right to the heart of what I was trying to say in the exchange with Bill: proficient use of tech tools is only as effective as the ideas and content communicated. I'm very tired of reading about how kids NEED to learn how to use technology in school (which usually means "schools/teachers need to stay on top of every Web 2.0 tool that comes down the pike or our kids will get left behind in the global economic race"). It's an impossible goal, and not a good use of teacher or student time. What only adults can contribute (and kids don't have) is a rich array of intellectual tasks--evaluation, synthesize, creation, skill-building, do mind-work with others, and so on. In the end, you can't separate the technological fluency from the content, so saying that kids already know how to use technology is, in essence, hogwash.

 George says (among other smart things): "I decided there is a long way between the voyeuristic gratifications of
reality video and the learning potential which remains more the promise
than reality."

I do worry about the quick-new-easy gratification aspects of technological tools. Thralldom, indeed. This is another situation where it helps to be older, and perhaps less vulnerable to glitz. But--why shouldn't we be aiming to make our schools, especially our elementary schools, places where calm, personal integrity and commitment to the community are celebrated? I was very struck, in reading an article about a Finnish elementary school, with the fact that computers were almost nonexistent, and used only for routine tasks.  The focus was on the individual child, and his place in the learning community. Enlightening--.

As our two authors have already pointed out, solutions to challenges and dilemmas are rarely of the "either...or" nature, but, especially in the digital age require an unusual degree of mutual understanding and give and take. There are interesting similarities between the blitz and glitz convention Nancy attended full of sales pitches and the hype that "you gotta have the latest and greatest" and the curiously similar reasoning behind the army reports about foreigh invasions which Bill parsed. Even aside from the arrogance that it is the duty of Americans to impose American-style democracy upon the nations of the world, together with the supposed material benefits to this style of governance, the example of the intersection of the tribal world of the Afghani peoples with the digital world of the US military shows up in our classrooms as well.

 We may want to convince ourselves in our nano- and femto-second world of technology and communications that we simply have to gear up our students through digital tools' enabling them to be more efficient evaluators, inventors, creators and collaborators. However, we are still biologically and neurologically wired at several orders of magnitude slower (less efficient to some). And cultural changes and cultural understandings occur at even slower paces. What we all hope for is that the digital breakthroughs and greater ease of data acquisition and communication will bring about deeper understanding and appreciation for the differences AND SIMILARITIES between peoples globally.

Presently, most of us, particularly young people, are caught up in the thralldom of technology. Recently at a gathering of highly intelligent adults engaged in teacher assessments, the biggest distractions were things like watching You Tube displays of motorcycle daring, cats dismembering prey and being consumed by alligators, and snakes consuming prey. When I saw high school juniors in my classroom thinking how cool it was to watch a break-dancing display in which a small child (who wandered too close to the action) was catapulted across the hall way, I decided there is a long way between the voyeuristic gratifications of reality video and the learning potential which remains more the promise than reality in the use of technology in the classroom. Students, though assigned to do "web research" on topics their teacher assigned, soon wandered off into the nether-world of digital "reality" at other sites. As the recent program Front Line demonstrated in their episode on the digital generation, young kids have yet to distinguish between their reality world of games and the digital world, and the world of human interactions face to face.

 On the other hand, I have certainly seen the positive effects of technological expertise used in student-centered and student-controlled presentations in the classroom. This has occurred best where kids have had to express ideas verbally in addition to the glamour of powerpoint, and had to defend their opinions and presentations before an audience of students and adults. This no mean accomplishment when one considers the milli-second attention spans and inability to concentrate meaningfully which most of our adolescents display.

 We still seem to have this rather primitive idea of winners and losers or the "doctrine of firsts," as Bill referred to it from his army explorations. After reading his piece, I was reminded of a comment years and years ago in a PBS program on evolution. The comment was that, in evolutionary terms the true winner is he who finishes last. We need to remember this.

I also see a similarity between this idea that we invade and conquer rather than dialogue and understand as the preferred method to solving world problems, and the current buzz and hype over the wonders of technology as a solution to the deeper problems in education, so well articulated by Nancy's writing. Gathering information and acquiring knowledge is only the start toward arriving at acceptable solutions to personal and global dilemmas. We make a grave mistake in assuming that reducing diverse global communities to our digital neighborhood means either that we understand them or that they understand us. I would maintain that trust and collaboration toward common interests and goals is not achieved in the remote world of the internet, but through dialogue and interaction of the direct and personal kind. Digital tools and technological fluency are the means toward this goal, not at all an end in themselves. Bricks will always have to be laid and boards planed.

Nancy reminded me of the April report by the Forum for Education and Democracy entitled, "Democracy at Risk: The Need for a New Federal Policy in Education." These are four recommendations which that panel made:

• Paying off the debt owed to underserved kids by devoting federal resources toward equity for our most challenging schools
• Building a world-class teaching force and investing in genuine educational leadership
• Creating a new agenda for innovation and research
• Renewing community engagement with schools

None of these mentions or is built upon the necessity for efficiency and digital dominance in our schools. Each may be enhanced by the skills young people acquire in the digital world, but changes which are lasting and meaningful are made still in the hearts and souls of persons, not in their minds. Abraham Lincoln's Secretary of War once made the comment, "Mr President, I think we should destroy our enemies;" to which the President is said to have replied, "Mr Secretary, do not I destroy my enemy when I make him my friend?"

 I would maintain that we make friends who are lasting and trustworthy more through handshakes than through electronic communications and IM's.

I'm struck, as always, by the rich, multifaceted experiences Bill provides for his students through his use of Web tools. I'd like to here more about the nuts and bolts what you do to make those experiences happen and work. I think what scares some teachers is not the technology itself, but not being able to visualize their work as educators in a technology rich classroom. Bill's examples suggest that there must be much "teacher-work" that goes on to make these experiences meaningful learning for student and teacher!

I agree with John that it is a myth to say that the average student knows more about technology than her teacher. That situation can be found in some places in public schools, but I would argue that it is not very common.

In my experience, students are aware of some of the websites and applications (especially those related to games and social interactions) that have been around for several years. I had a Facebook page before most of my middle schoolers. They may use these sites more actively than I do, but I don't believe that they "understand technology" better than myself or 80% of the other teachers in my building.

Where does this myth originate? Is it more common in high school?

Thanks so much for this thoughtful discourse. It's nice to see a nuanced discussion that is bold but civil. And even nicer to see teachers given space to talk about important teaching issues. Imagine!

I think we're beginning to pass out of the "Education Utopia Coming Soon" stage of this Web 2.x conversation into a time of more careful consideration of the "Promises and Perils." I hope some other teacher readers will offer some P's of their own.

One issue raised in a discussion I listened to today had to do with what several teachers in rural and urban high-needs schools described as the "myth" that most kids are ahead of most adults in the use of technology and the Web. Anybody have thoughts about that? Is there a "technology achievement gap"?