Technology, Added Value?

Rick and Evans (2014) write an article, “Supporting learning with interactive surfaces and spaces”, that has challenged me to rethink technology and its use in the K-12 classroom in terms of its impact when seen through the lens of the value it brings as opposed to its immediate and long-term cost.

The writers trace the development of several technologies including tangibles such as interactive whiteboards (Evans and Rick, 2014, p. 692); interactive tabletops –touch-based tabletops that accommodate multi-user perspectives and multiple concurrent users, tangible-based tabletops that allow the use of tangible objects and facilitate either collaboration or independent work (p. 693); and interactive spaces that are ecologies of devices and displays (p. 695).  This implies radical changes in classroom environment from physical configurations to the way teachers teach.  All of this comes at great cost; not only the initial and long-term cost of equipment but also costs in terms of time spent re-training teachers, and classroom contact time among other factors.  What if we fail?  What if after the massive expenditure we see no significant impact in terms of student learning?  A New York Times article (Richtel, 2011) titled “In Classroom of Future, Stagnant Scores”, explores this issue through an examination of a school district that has gone totally high tech, and asks critical questions.  Becta, a British charitable company now defunct, conducted several surveys aimed at assessing the impact of technology and value-added classroom practice.  The questions under-pinning their aims are still valid today (Crook, Harrison, Farrington-Flint, Tomas, & Underwood, 2010).

1.    “What are the ways in which innovative and effective schools are using digital technologies to support learning?

2.    Which technologies are being used and how?  

3.    Is there evidence (qualitative and/or quantitative) that these are supporting learning? If so, what?

4.    What is the rationale for use in each context? How does this fit in with current understanding about ICT and teaching and learning?

5.    Are there any identifiable similarities across contexts from which it is possible to generate interpretive hypotheses about how and why digital technologies are beneficial?” (p. 6)

They saw question three as the core of the matter as it relates to the causal relationships between schools, ICT (As used in report), resources and learning (p. 6). 

The Joan Ganz Cooney Center (Pressey, 2013) published a report reviewing national surveys that polled teachers on their attitudes and practices related to technology. These surveys were conducted by The Gates Foundation, The Joan Ganz Cooney Center, Common Sense Media, PBS Learning Media, and Pew Research Center (p. 4).  A cross- survey synthesis showed that while teachers’ desire technology in the classroom, saw personal benefits in terms of professional development, lesson planning and collaboration with other teachers, and saw benefits to students in terms of learning processes and higher level skills, there were no linkages made between technology and students’ academic achievement (p. 16).  Does this imply that education policy makers, education technology providers, course designers, teachers and other education stakeholders should pause and rethink, considering the fact that it is not simply a question of whether or not we use technology, but how and at what cost, and for what value? 

References

Crook, C., Harrison, C. Farrington-Flint, L., Tomás, C., and Underwood, J. (2010). The impact of technology: value-added classroom practice final report. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1771/1/upload-dir/downloads/page_documents/research/reports/the_impact_of_technology.pdf  

Evans, M. A. and Rick, J.  (2014).  Supporting  learning  with  interactive surfaces  and  spaces.  In Spector, M., Merrill, D., Elen, J. & Bishop, M. (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 4^th Ed. New York, NY: Springer.

Pressey, B. (2013). Comparative analysis of national teacher surveys. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop Retrieved from http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/jgcc_teacher_survey_analysis_final.pdf  

Richtel, M. (2011, September 3). In classroom of future, stagnant scores. The New York Times.  Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/technology/technology-in-schools-faces-questions-on-value.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Do Theories Influence What We Think and Do?

Bill Kerr states that “Learning theory, like politics, is full of _isms: constructivism, behaviourism, cognitivism and now a new one, connectivism”, and asks, “What should we do about these _isms? Are they a useful guide to what to think and do?”

Each “-ism” is important in terms of what it brings to the classroom teachers’ toolkit.  Teachers learn so that they can teach and teachers learn how to teach.  The greatest impact of learning theory is in the classroom.  I remember my first teaching practice as a student teacher.  My assessor asked me (after a dismal performance) what had happened.  Wish I knew then what I know now.  It’s not only knowledge of the theory that matters, but how it is operationalized in the classroom to help students learn.  Theories guide teachers’ thoughts and actions.  When practitioners use the methods formulated out of these –isms, do they work?  How often have you read a theory and said “Aha”, or tried a new approach and gotten through to a student?  As long as the methods continue to be effective in the classroom, the –isms will not die.  Dr. Nancy Casey discusses this interaction between learning theory and classroom practice in the video “Learning Theory’s Impact on Teaching”.  

I like Kerr’s description of the interaction of theory and practice as a “continual spiral development” constantly changing, forever evolving.  I would like to add that in that spiral is a place where theory interacts with theory and both change.  A teacher might begin a lesson using cognitive theory and end it with the behaviorists’ repetition/drill and practice.

The cognitivist’ conception of the brain as a computer underlines the fact that we have not yet exhausted research on the brain.  We do not yet know the limits of either.  Theories about the brain and learning will continue to evolve and impact what we learn, how we learn, and what and how we teach.  

The learningdctr effectively captures the importance and value of theories which he describes as windows in a house through which we can look and see the inside from different perspectives.  What a beautiful metaphor.  Individuals have come to hold a pejorative view of words like rote, drill and practice, and repetition that have become attached to behaviorist theories.  Maybe the view is deserved if we think of traditional practice, but maybe practitioners should explore the new methodologies connected with behaviorism and see that methods like drill and practice does have a place in the learning environment.  I am now convinced (tentatively) theories and their methodologies offer teachers a smorgasbord of ideas that will always inform their practice.

References

Kapp, K.  (2007) Out and about: Discussion on educational schools of thought [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.kaplaneduneering.com/kappnotes/index.php/2007/01/out-and=about-discussion-on-educational/

Kerr, B, (2007). _isms as filter, not blinker [Web log post].  Retrieved from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html