Tony Talbert was a professor at Baylor when he decided to spend his sabbatical teaching high school so he would be better at preparing teachers.
“My return to high school allowed me to encounter students who considered digital technology not simply a tool for a specific task but instead a context for living and engaging in the world around them. It quickly became clear to me that the high school students I was teaching in 2013 ordered and perceived their world in a significantly different manner than the high school students I once taught more than two decades past.
“The old teaching and learning paradigm where technology is a tool to be used for a singular purpose and then put away until it is needed again had made way for a new paradigm where technology is a context without a beginning and without an end. Simply put, in the lives of my high school students digital technology was an extension of themselves. Therefore, it was with this reality that I as teacher had to find a way to incorporate this new paradigm into my lesson planning and teaching method in order to more meaningfully inform and transform the minds and lives of my students.”
Now the trick will be for teachers and students to use technology thoughtfully and not become part of the technology industry’s bottom line.
Important to consider that this “context” only spans an elite community that can afford it, it’s mandatory upgrades and it’s connectivity. The community grows only incrementally as economic disparity increases. The greatest portion of the challenge of integrating the two worlds falls squarely on the shoulders of public school teachers.
Using technology meaningfully is hard in this high-stakes test prep era. So much of what is out there now is behaviorist in nature, skill/drill with meaningless feedback. In my district, technology is often used as the intervention for struggling kids, which turns them off even more. It is the rare teacher I can find in elementary grades using tech for things beyond IXL, RAZ-Kids, SRI, Reading Counts/AR, Pearson math tests, or as a free time reward of games or Kid Pix. Those few I find that are willing to step beyond the drill and kill are more likely to be in higher income schools with better test scores and are usually mid-career teachers who had experience with project-based learning prior to NCLB. Everything now is all about access, oftentimes with no concern about quality, instructional design, student privacy, or even proper instruction on how to use tech (i.e. Internet safety, basic aspects of computer use, etc.) With ubiquitous computing, we often assume kids know more than they really do. They jump in as users, but many of them just know what to do, not the how or the why they do it.
Following is my latest “letter to the editor:. For me this is THE most important issue concerning “reform”.
School reform; democratic idealism or autocracy? Who decides the validity of “ truths” taught; scholarly research or political hacks? Politicians now make out tests, grade them and teachers, schools are evaluated on how well students assimilate, regurgitate on written tests that which government asserts as truths.
Previous to “A Nation at Risk” scholarly research was assumed to be the best we could know at any given time “truths” which were taught, how they were taught, and evaluated on those scholarly principles.
Our Supreme Court has defined as the basic underlying principle for public schools existence; “promoting government agenda“. Democratic idealism or fascism?
Who decides the primary goals of education? Professional educators, child psychologists, scholarly research? Politically designed test scores now supplant, usurp historical humankind’s best minds stated educational goals.
These issues are rarely if ever evaluated in school reform “debate” but democracy survives or perishes on answers to these questions.
Some of my students have developed computer skills without a good foundation of interpersonal skills. They find it difficult to attend to a task, pick up information by listening, and draw inferences based on tone of voice, gestures, or body language.
Those of us who have been teaching with technology for close to two decades are aware that technology that encourages collaboration between students and teachers actually has been proven to increase learning outcomes. Technology that allows multitasking is the most important factor in teaching with technology, a lesson learned by many who jumped on the ipad wagon, and are now returning to tablets. As for interpersonal skills, today’s student has developed a new level of skill., most have more connection with their friends, home and peers than we ever thought would happen. It is true that current students ave weak auditor memory than out parent, or we do, but their world is so much more visual that we, as teachers, need to respect their learning style and accommodate our lessons to them.
Many of the screen-based “connections” I see are lacking in complexity, context, understanding of language, and — most importantly — empathy. They are also broken up into small time segments or not fully attended to. Dinosaur that I am, I don’t believe that “multi-tasking” is necessarily a good thing. As for learning style, don’t we have to ask what is being learned?
Some of the children in your middle school classroom may, in fact, be auditory learners while most will be stronger visula learners or a combination of both. If you do not understand learning styles, how are you able to create a lesson plan that effectively reaches all the children in your classroom?
A simple search reveals that multitasking is really a euphemism for putting a positive spin on a lack of focus and attention to detail.
OK, try this, “multi-tasking” using technology can be as simple as tiling Internet pages with any text document for note taking, research and authentication.
“OK, try this, “multi-tasking” using technology can be as simple as tiling Internet pages with any text document for note taking, research and authentication.”
Not the common definition of multitasking. There is a central focus to your task. Students are not responding to a text message, finding their favorite song, checking the schedule for band practice while doing research for a class project.
“actually has been proven to increase learning outcomes” This is false. There is no research showing it is more effective than many other non-technological teaching methods.
Also, in regards to the main post, just because high school students are immersing themselves in technology does not mean it is wise or necessary to use technology to reach them.
Please read the research at Vanderbilt University, Southern Methodist,University of Texas and Best Practices at John Hopkins University, you will find that collaborative uses of technology do, indeed, enhance learning outcomes.
I’m willing to bet I have read more research than you. Anyways, that is not what I said. There is no research showing it is MORE effective than non-technological methods. See Hattie’s meta-analysis.
Waldorf schools do just fine without technology in the elementary grades. Montessori schools are of great benefit to a child’s development without technology – and actually promote social activity (I do not see this as a “skill”). A school can “sugar” up the elementary classrooms with all the laptops and so called smart boards and in a word it is a waste. I would rather my 6 year old be working with Montessori materials – hands on – that watching “Brain Pop” – I must agree with 95% of this pieces criticism found above. Sorry –
Actually see the comments on the article itself –
Technology is a trade-off. We have reaped some benefits and lost some humanity in the process. We most certainly lost some privacy. As far as education goes, I view technology as a tool. There are many things trained human beings can do that a computer is inadequate to do.
“These teachers are comfortable hooking up a projector or filmstrip and displaying information far separated from the 24/7 connected, multitasking lives of the students, but they need motivation and support to incorporate technology into their classroom. Veteran teachers can find it difficult to mirror the context of students’ lives in the classroom because, to the teacher, digital technology is not a natural occurrence. ”
Not only has Tony Talbert been teaching in an ivory tower, it looks like they don’t let him go home for dinner! A filmstrip? When I started teaching in 1975 these were already nearly extinct. “Veteran teachers don’t use digital technology?” she inquired, posting on her Mac.
Puhleeze!
Is there some kind of a tesseract in central Texas?
“context’ or “tool”? is a false dichotomy
And actually, the technology context is not nearly as important as some (eg, the tech companies) want us to believe.
The idea that every teacher needs a Smart board and every student needs the latest and greatest laptop/tablet to learn English, science, math etc is simply ridiculous. It’s a lie made up by Apple, Dell, Microsoft and other companies that stand to benefit.
Technology os more than a context– it is an addiction. My students admit being addicted to their iPhones. This presents behavior and motivation issues in my classroom. It requires that I establish and maintain a reputation as She Who Will Confiscate Your Phone.
The same was once said about allowing the masses to have access to “books”. Try putting that energy used for cell phone confiscation into creating ways to efficiently use those phones for learning in your classroom. Why waste the opportunity?
Your comment makes it apparent that you have spent little time in a public high school classroom.
http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/03/why-we-should-read-literature/
It’s great to be enthusiastic about the possibilities of technology, but temper the urge to dismiss the familiar for the sake of novelty.
I would like that reference to books as a dangerous addiction for the masses.
I am speaking as an educator with 33 years experience, teaching in K-12, college, public and private schools. I am a certified special education teacher as well as having a second Master’s in Educational Technology and 15 years as an administrator, so, yes I have spent many years in public school HS. I do not eschew the old for “novelty”, but I do have the expertise to know that technology is not a novelty.
“…I do have the expertise to know that technology is not a novelty.”
I apologize if I offended you. No, technology is not a novelty; it is a highly useful set of tools that can be used to support learning. I am assuming we are talking about computers here. As a special ed teacher, I relied on technology specialists to provide support with different types of assistive technology. Many of these tools allowed students to manipulate information in ways that were unavailable to them in the past. I am not anti-technology; I am against assuming that computers always provide the appropriate and/or best approach. Computers do not replace older methodologies, but they can most definitely enhance learning. However, after many hours as a sub turned into a computer monitor, I am urging caution and careful thought when it comes to applications. And while my former high school students did on occasion use their phones to look up a word, they were more often arranging social engagements. If they were really calling their mothers with vitally important information, I would have the most well informed parents in the U.S. I didn’t.
“Why waste the opportunity?”
Because there are issues of justice involved. Not all my students have equal access to the devices and apps. That is also why I don’t use the text internet function as not all of my students have access, mainly due to the costs involved that accrue to the families. If I am forced to use such I will demand that the district pay for all access for all my students.
December 1931, Wisconsin Journal of Education “Can the Radio Supplant the Classroom Teacher?” with a picture of a radio on the teacher’s desk with the caption “Is this the Teacher of 1950?”.
Need I say more about using technology in the classroom when not all have access? Can you say “separate but equal”?
I it is good to incorporate technology in teaching but it is still a challenge to those who cannot even access a single gadget(computer) for their lessons yet all need to apply technology in their teaching.
There’s no doubt that all the new technology can be wonderful tools to multiply our efforts in many ways, but there are many downsides to introducing it to kids’ lives too early. And that seems to be the trend. The industry is pushing it for profit, and parents don’t want their kid to be the only one who doesn’t have it, and the kids don’t want to be either. But the industry is working all of us like a drug dealer works his users, and encouraging us to believe we can’t live without their products any longer.
There’s no question that people can become addicted to various aspects of this new technology, and what it can do. That happens for the same reason people can become addicted to tobacco, alcohol or drugs can – it gives people relief from inconvenience, and gives them a “high” of sorts that can’t be matched by normal everyday life (literally called virtual reality).
Consider what’s happened as “fast food”, and “convenience stores” and “television” became a regular part of modern life. Consider what’s happened as more devices for physical labor have become “powered”. The obesity rate has climbed dramatically, including in kids where it once was rare, in a relative short period of time, and people have become increasingly sedentary and intolerant of physical labor (except for those who have gone the opposite way in terms of exercise and sport – but they are a minority). Some might simply say people have gotten fat and lazy, but I don’t like those terms. Kids don’t play like they used to and people are inside more than out, either in their homes or malls. Shopping is the main activity, and you don’t even have to go out to do that anymore.
This all correlates with increased risk of many kinds of chronic, degenerative diseases as well. Good for the health care industry, but not for people. Many people literally have little life because they are morbidly obese.
Some of the untoward effects of technology that concern me.
1) The bar for stimulation has been raised so high that very little gets a rise out of kids, or adults anymore. This negatively affects their willingness to engage in activities, and to stay on task. We hear complaints about being bored all the time. Do you ever remember complaining about that when you were a kid? As teachers, we can’t possibly keep up with this rising bar, unless we increasingly buy products from industry. All this virtual reality “jades” our real life experiences, increasing the likelihood that normal experiences will be satisfying. Try getting some kids to go hiking and experience nature.
People develop a tolerance for stimulation, just like they do tobacco, alcohol or drugs and other things. It takes an increasing amount to give them the satisfaction much less once gave them. That progression has many dead ends.
2) The increasing convenience, comfort and pleasure has made people much less tolerant of inconvenience, discomfort and unpleasantness that is so often part of normal life. This makes people more demanding, and they are encouraged to be by those producing, marketing and profiting from products that products that provide convenience, comfort and pleasure. This makes people more likely to “awfulize” or be likely to tell themselves or say out loud they “can’t stand” something they simply don’t like. These three types of thinking are ones that Dr. Albert Ellis said are responsible for people generating a lot of unnecessary and unhelpful emotion in their lives, and being more inclined to behave in ways that aren’t good for them in the long run.
He called this mental and emotional LFT, or Low Frustration Tolerance. (Actually he called it “f—ing whining” many times – he liked colorful words) LFT is not helpful or conducing to the patience and perseverance, or delayed gratification that is often necessary for discovery, learning, and the repetition and rehearsal that is sometimes necessary to become proficient at some mental or physical abilities or skills. It’s a big factor in why people don’t lose weight or exercise, even when they’d like to.
Remember what physical labor saving devices have done for our tolerance of manual labor. Will mental labor saving devices have the same effect on our tolerance for thinking things through. My wife always talked about asking kids to think something through, and having them respond “I’ll just look it up on the internet later”.
3) I seem to remember that Piaget talked about a “concrete operations” phase in cognitive development. I realize some of his work has been called into question, but I always think of that phase when we talk about technology. Most of us went through that stage, but kids are increasingly being denied that experience, first by toys that did everything for them and made it less necessary for them to use imagination, and “game boy” type devices, and now by people trying to give I-pads and laptops to kindergarteners in the classroom. There’s even talk of not teaching printing or cursive anymore in schools.
All this is good for the “drug dealers” of technology, but I suspect it won’t be good for individuals and humanity. I know there are those who say there’s always been a backlash against “new” inventions and technology, and later we reaped many benefits. But I also would suggest we look at the downsides of it, some of which may one day threaten our very existence, I,e. fossil fuel burning and global warming, Steven Hawkings warnings about AI machines being a threat to mankind. And we keep pressing forward in both direction, being encouraged to do so by those profiting from it.
“All the new technology” has been in classrooms since the 1980’s.You are all sitting at your computers or tablets or iPhones questioning the use of technology in your classrooms, if you indeed, do have a classroom.
I started my post by saying technology can be wonderful tools for us. But we were largely educated without it. The question (and my concern) is the end result of including it early in the education of today’s young people. Even adults who were educated without it are becoming less tolerant of discomfort, inconvenience and unpleasantness, and delayed gratification. Even they do more “whining” than they might have in the past. But we still have strong work ethics that we can fall back on if we need to. There’s a reason why we call it “work”. Your comment did nothing to address or dispute the concerns I raised. It seems like your either saying we’re hypocrites for questioning it, or that nothing’s change, or something like that.
I forgot a very important point. By including more and more technology into education, we are probably contributing to our own demise as a profession. It won’t be long before people (administrators, school boards, parents, taxpayers) start asking “Why do we need teachers in classroom anymore?” Class size will become a mute issue as schools (probably charters) start putting large numbers of kids in rooms with remote broadcastings of lessons, which themselves may not be live or interactive. Home schooling in many ways was a step in that direction.
Technology is really a back door in many ways to privatization of education. Like drug users, our whole lives start to revolve around using it, and it makes the drug dealer very wealthy.
Many good points. I think this tech siege begins at the high school level and will work its way down to the lower grades.
“will work its way down to the lower levels”? Really? Are you aware how collaborative technology is working at the elementary and middle school levels?
“. . . that I as teacher had to find a way to incorporate this new paradigm into my lesson planning and teaching method in order to more meaningfully inform and transform the minds and lives of my students.”
The way I handle it is that the students must turn off and put away any and all technological devices upon entering the room. Plain and simple. They are not allowed to use it. Problem basically solved.