Speaking as one who recently devoted his life to the field of education, I can honestly say that the reason I have done so is due to the potential I see for educators to radically influence society towards its common good and improvement. In the same breath and with as much respect and admiration I have for the calling of teaching, I am not so naive to think that the field itself is any less susceptible to stagnation and failure than that of the fields that surround it in interdependence. That is why words like those spoken by Trent Batson in a recent article that Campus Technology hosted were so relevant to me and a host of others who took the time to comment.
It is here that Batson expounds on the tensions between the demands of institutional legacy and the demands of innovation. He really speaks to what I would explain to be a shift that our society is experiencing as a whole. The ramifications specifically within the field of education are no less painful than other sectors, but also no less opportune to capitalize on such a time as this.
What are your reactions to this article? How does the picture that Batson paints here contribute to a fair assessment of your educational experience or in what ways does it clash with it?
7 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
Although I am an active “enabler”, I have serious questions about the underlying assumptions about the benefits of technology. When I see the term “stay competitive”, I can’t help thinking that it is all a capitalistic keeping-up-with-the-Jones’ game. Education used to be a service within the community, by the community for the improvement of the community. Now it is a product, with marketing, packaging, finance plans and all the other trappings of a consumable. The tech often just seems like value-added junk (except that it is so expensive to maintain).
People have not actually changed how they learn. It is ingrained in our genetics. “Education” as a industry has discovered how to really turn a profit by using technology. It has not improved education, just as iPods have not improved music, and digital cameras have not improved art. Some aspects may be more convenient, possibly easier, but education is not exactly better.
While I see and understand the (valid) points made by my posting predecessors here, I will offer an alternative viewpoint.
As Daniel said, “People have not actually changed how they learn.” If this is true, it may have something to do with the educator. When I look from the old chalkboards, to the dry erase boards, to the interactive whiteboard, I see that an educator’s default is to take the technology available to them and to use it in the fashion that it was “used on them.” For this reason, a teacher with a PowerPoint will “stand and deliver” in the same way that a chalkboard user will “stand and deliver.” No net gain is appreciated.
When teachers utilize technology that engages the students by capturing their attention through a stimulation of their senses, their minds become open to learning. While older (shall we call them “analog”?) methods are effective at accomplishing this, the glory of technology lies in it’s ability to instantly provide feedback for the teacher from EVERYONE in their class (not just the brave one who raised their hand, or the nervous one who hates being so embarrassed by being called on.)
With instant feedback, teachers can tailor their instruction “on the fly” to the real-time comprehension levels of their class. This prevents them from losing students by moving on before comprehension is attained. Analog methods provide feedback usually in a day or two, at which time other concepts may already be building on shaky ground.
Consider these technology devices for the classroom:
Student Response Systems (aka “Clickers) [eInstruction, Prometheon, Quizdom, etc...] Useful: Query all students throughout the class, gaining attentiveness and understanding. Analog: Grades papers for the teacher.
Interactive Whiteboards [Interwrite, Prometheon, Smart, etc...] Useful: Stimulate multiple senses (audio, sight, touch) to open the mind to learning. Analog: Just another chalkboard.
Computer [Dell, HP, etc...] Useful: (w/projector) bring information from far more sources directly to students in classrooms around the world. MANY educational programs, resources, and utilities. (w/wireless tablet) Teachers can control computer from anywhere in the room so as to engage their class via proximity (being near a student remains the single BEST method of engaging a student) while still being in control of the computer/lesson/content – and never has to turn their back on the class to write on the board. Analog: Just another gradebook and record-keeper.
So the moral of the story is that, yes, technology can be just a distraction. However, many pieces of good classroom technology become most effective, and therefore justifiable and necessary, when used to become more than just an Analog device. To get there, teachers must be willing to overcome the paradigms and stereotypes that have become entrenched in education, and embrace technology themselves.
My point is that humans learn in specific ways. Technology does not change this. The frame of reference used here is very small, comparing the mass education techniques of the last several decades to the latest mass education techniques today. We have been learning for a very long time without the aid of moving pictures, high-speed communication, or electronic gadgets (or even chalk boards and grade books). How do we know that we are doing it better now? How/what do you measure? We make up our own scope and units of measure, we use sterile numbers and extrapolation to find the answers we want. Our society wants technology to win. We associate technological progress/growth/advancement with “good” without asking what it means to be “good”. We are strongly (maybe blindly) biased.
I would have to heartily agree that technology itself most likely does not essentially change the way people learn (although recent studies on the matter do perk my interest and attention: http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=524&action=synopsis ), but I try to keep a healthy dose of skepticism when approaching the matter. What I do think that technology does change is the environment and in some cases the efficiency of learning. Technologies are simply tools that can literally get in the way of learning or aid in the process depending on how they are implemented. I would argue that there are many tools that, if used skillfully and with forethought, could benefit the field with quantitative results in reaching a demographic that is already engrossed in environments of deep technological integration. I think that learning theory should not be threatened by this, but should rather be used as the basis for all forms of integration.
Agreed and agreed. It’s really the age-old question of what is good teaching? The technology is the tool/delivery mechanism. Good teachers will be good teachers regardless of using a chalkboard or whiteboard. Bad teachers will be bad for the same reasons. The classic “chicken or egg” argurmen about this is Kozuma vs. Clark battling with the question “Is the media the message?” Here are some links to resources on this. As academic technicians, we innovate and bring these “tools” to teachers. We also show them best practices and some pedagogy. Whether they use them is up to the individual. Thoughts?
http://5220-91-08.wikispaces.com/Pedagogy+and+Technology
http://www.coe.tamu.edu/~mbastian/Clark-Kozma/CK-Ab-Intro.htm
http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/The_media_debate
Yes, technology should be integrated into the classroom, but I think that this author is very pro-technology. Changes will come- think word processing instead of typing, journals available online as well as in print, and distance delivery classes. These are all current uses of technology that were unimaginable when our parent’s generation were in school.
I recommend the article “the spider and the bee” by Swift. It talks about the interplay between classics and newer books. I think that the same ideas can be applied here. The new lives by digesting the ideas of the past, and often distorting them. The old ways are often sweetness and light to the mind.
Technology still has to prove itself to be better than face to face contact and physical books. It is not even equal in my mind. My school district does some math and science classes via distance delivery. I have been on the receiving end, supervising the students. I have also been in distance delivery classes and paid no attention to the teacher, and I am a “good” student.
Technology has too many issues currently, and has yet to prove itself to be up to all of the challenge that we imagine it has the potential to solve. Issues that cause distraction (chat, music, youtube, facebook), issues that cause failure of information (internet outages, viruses, loss of data), issues involving lack of discretion (use of wikipedia as a “scholarly” source by students, porn, lack of discretion about personal information)- these all plague technology. Face to face is how we are meant to interact… it’s part of humanity. Books are a cultural tradition that may seem dry in comparison to digital text, but has less distractions, and is more likely to be of proven value.
I’m a conservative. Stick to the old ways that have worked for generations. Integrate new ways slowly and see what truly works. Change the system too quickly and you’ll have a royal mess. The system needs to evolve slowly. No Saltation!
An additional comment: I was just requested to transfer this information from facebook to this forum. If we were all sitting in a room together having this discussion, I would not have to transfer my comments. Yes, the technology allowed me to interact with you from my present location (off the road system in Alaska), but this conversation would have been much better face to face.
“Progress” is a dangerous word to use. Because it is often understood as heading in a good direction, but too often used just to mean “change” (with an undefined direction).
Technology is getting cranked off the presses faster than our minds can process it. And the information flowing through it flows faster yet. Throw down an anchor and you’ll surely be labled a conservative and catch some flak. If ya don’t…..do you really know where the rip tides of change will take you?
I like what Thomas said. Infuse technology slowly, and see where a little bit will take you before adding in much more. Who knows what untold affects it could have one future generations abilities to reason, morally reason, process things in general. And if those things seem silly…..well fossile fuels and CFC’s and disposable diapers all seemed like there were the best thing ever when they came out……now there are alot of people freaking out about the affects they are having. We accept things far too quickly I think at times.