Will Fitzhugh, founder and editor of The Concord Review, received the following commentary from a brilliant student who previously received his organization’s Emerson Prize. The Emerson Prize is awarded to the high school students who writes the most outstanding history research paper. The Concord Review publishes history research papers written by high school students, and Will Fitzhugh is tireless in encouraging good writing, historical research, and the expectation that students read at least one complete history book (not a textbook).
BLENDED DELUSIONS
This message is from a highly capable high school senior,
Class of 2015 (name withheld)
Digital Side Effects:
In my opinion, technology’s place is not in the classroom, at least not for the most part. Sometimes it is necessary, but most of the time, it only serves as a distraction and offers activities that inhibit productive, successful learning.
At my school, students are allowed and actually supposed to use laptops to take notes during each class, unless the teacher specifically instructs otherwise, which they rarely do. Sitting in class, I often see other students’ laptops open to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, celebrity gossip websites, even Hulu, a website for watching TV shows. Then, a few days later when we have an assessment, students will anxiously ask a number of questions on the material taught in class while they were surfing the web. The entire class is slowed down, everyone’s time is wasted, teachers are disrespected, students come to value web surfing over learning, students retain less information which then makes for a shakier foundation for learning more in the future, and students learn to prefer cramming, or come to see cramming as the only way to prepare for assessments.
Additionally, technology can help students get out of doing assignments in the way that will most benefit them. For example, students will look up how to solve a chemistry or a math problem, rather than completing it themselves independently. Students will look up summaries of English texts to avoid having to actually read the full work. Students will look up translations of Spanish assignments to avoid having actually to read the full text in Spanish. Perhaps, using technology, students can still temporarily do well on in-school assessments, but in the long term, which truly matters, students will not be prepared for the challenges in their future and their career.
Many middle-school-aged boys, such as those at my younger brother’s school, are addicted to video games. After being introduced to video games, often through their classmates at school, these students cannot stop thinking about the games. Perhaps their parents and teachers will impose restrictions on when and how long they can play the games, but the entire time they are not playing games, they are probably thinking about, and looking forward to playing, the games. In that sense, the video games distract them almost all the time and have a large negative impact on their lives, especially their academic lives.
In the summer of 2013, I attended a math research summer program where instructors created made-up names for math theorems, concepts, and conjectures they were explaining, so that students would not be able to search for them using technology and thereby escape the crucial learning process. Overall, the program was a success largely, or at least partly, because of that practice, and students were able to learn much more, develop their math skills more, and discuss much more as a result.
——————————
I visited several colleges with my senior son last spring and over the summer. Without fail the professors in the classrooms we visited had a close computer policy. The one exception involved students with fine motor issues who had to type to take notes.
At least from what I saw, college ready means closed computers in the classroom.
The problem is not technology, it is that teachers are using the wrong methodology. There should not be direct lecture, rather technology should be implemented to allow students to create knowledge, own their learning and have the most authentic audience ever…the whole world. Teachers must learn to use standards and technology skills and to create a framework for students to fill in. Like building the frame of a house and then allowing student’s to do the work of decorating that house. Stress Legacy, Perspective and Ownership of learning. Technology allows teachers to step away from being the soul provider of facts and base-knowledge. It allows students to create something more than an essay. It also allows collaboration between schools, states and countries. Understanding essential questioning, being given academic freedom and moving away from worthless lecturing is the cure here, not the elimination of technology. This might be a gifted student, but they do not understand the concept of teaching and learning. Blaming the technology for lazy, apathetic students is like blaming a textbook when you fail a test. My guess is that those teachers and students never received professional development or support to move to project-based learning, or any other type of more relevant pedagogy. Learning is a process, not an outcome. Why are our students not engaged in learning as a cognitive function? Why are we not giving kids websites, making learning transparent via technology and encouraging students to collaborate and reflect with each other. My students created amazing pieces of knowledge and learned to connect history with their lives. Technology gave me the ability to stop grading, because kids didn’t need grades and points for motivation; instead they were inspired to Leave Digital Footprints Worth Following.
http://www.dgh.wikispaces.com
http://www.teachersfortomorrow.net
I don’t disagree – I’m a huge fan of project-based learning. But even then you need a small enough class that the teacher can supervise everyone reasonably well. Even the most interesting project may not be enough to overcome the temptation to sneak onto Facebook or whatever kids these days are up to. Small enough classes are a bit problematic when the rephormsters are so busy proclaiming that class size doesn’t matter.
What are you selling Mike??
It’s easy to blame educators for not doing what you do when you teach a subject that is not associated with high-stakes testing and work in a district that permits project-based learning. That was outlawed in my district years ago, including for untested grades and subjects.
Stop scapegoating teachers, many of whom today are given scripted curricula they must follow, which often consists of lectures and drill for skill units, and who do not have anywhere near the kind of autonomy you enjoy in their own classrooms.
You hit the nail on the head Victorino – you have to meet the requirements of incompetent curriculum developers – and it’s scandalous. No body of professionals other than teachers is treated in this fashion. It’s a wonder so many teachers still succeed – not because of their training – but in spite of it.
Mike,
“Teachers must learn to use standards and technology skills and to create a framework for students to fill in.”
There is no evidence that technological approaches are, in general, superior to non-technological approaches. You can do project-based learning without the internet.
I have at least one project a year where students are not allowed to use the Internet.
And that will grow this year, as the entire library and all computer labs in the school are now taken for at least seven weeks for standardized testing. So, I have to check out all books from the library and get them up the stairs, across the campus, and , and up another flight of stairs into my portable trailer where I teach, so that the kids can do the research.
Reblogged this on peakmemory and commented:
A student’s critique of the way we use technology in the classroom:
“students come to value web surfing over learning, students retain less information which then makes for a shakier foundation for learning more in the future, and students learn to prefer cramming, or come to see cramming as the only way to prepare for assessments. ”
A great essay about what I call “Golden Hammer” technology; the purchase of expensive, flashy and fragile ed-tech that does not teach any better than previous “Iron Hammer” versions. We throw so much time, money and resources seeking to be “cutting edge” and boast that our district uses more tech than others, while almost little, to none, of the new ed-tech has been substantiated to actually improve learning (yes, maybe improve test-prep, if test scores alone prove meaningful learning).
Any device, method, technology that allows the student to by-pass the cognitive work is forming concepts, delineating categories, understanding relationships, seeing limitations and applications, etc. may be just a “crutch”, propping up a lazy mind and poor conceptual development and understanding.
Our principal “banned” the use of overhead projectors, because each classroom now has a smart board, or promethean (Miami-Dade Schools received a big bond, which taxpayers will owe), as if a text, or graphic on an overhead acetate is inferior to the same image via a promethean???? Really??? Much of this new tech is just “better” information delivery system”, a Golden Hammer. It is the content that matters, not the specific media in which it is broadcast. So, when all the boards begin to break down and malfunction, did the long term maintenance get considered? Will the district wish if stuck with the Iron Hammers of the previous tech (that was documented to be efficacious)? Will teachers get upset seeing all this money thrown at Golden Hammers, and making the ed-tech companies rich, while all the time their wages are frozen because the district claims there is not enough money for better wages (when in fact there is, but it’s spent on useless Golden Hammers).
My high school chemistry class can be taught effectively using nothing but textbooks and labs (with note taking, some videos, etc.). The basics were being taught very effectively even before calculators were common place; just think about what the students had that became the engineers that put us on the moon; and yet, today’s students complain when the have to click a sequence of the icons in order to do the math and science that took many minutes in the past (and this is educational progress…..I know, it is the student’s fault, not the tech in and of itself….but they can get so conditioned by the tech that it can make them cognitively dysfunctional)
Agreed. I wish politicians would stop selling this so hard. They are just bombarding the public with the sales pitch. I’m sick of it and I resent it. I think public school superintendents are reacting to this sales pitch, not leading it.
If there’s value to adding more and more tech in classrooms, we will FIND THAT OUT in an organic, gradual, bottom-up way. Is it worth the money? Why? Is it worth pulling money from something else that is worthwhile to devote to this?
It is really unseemly for people who are supposedly working on behalf of the public to be pushing product. They should stop. Immediately.
I have full confidence in the ability of the ed tech industry to sell this. They’re pretty good at sales. I don’t think anyone needs politicians selling it too.
Here’s the US Department of Education promoting kids sitting in rows wearing headphones and staring at screens:
http://www.ed.gov/edblogs/progress/2014/11/kit-carson-getting-serious-about-literacy/
I am also a teacher in Miami Dade County and my subject area and grade level have been given tablet computers instead of textbooks this year. Little to no training was given to teachers, but we were told to have them out and in use from day one. I was initially excited about the use of technology in the classroom but after six months of being a guinea pig in this “pilot program” I feel like I have lost all control of my classroom because I cannot keep my students’ attention. We were promised we would have a classroom management system that would enable use to see what was on our students’ screens at any given time and shut down their Internet. This same program would also allow us to restrict their Internet access to only a few relevant sites. It is now January and we still have no way to control our students’ Internet usage. Fourteen year olds do not have the discipline to pay attention to their teachers and work on an assignment when they have the entire Internet at their fingertips and we can’t even confiscate their device. They spend the whole class watching youtube rap videos or playing video games while I run around the room trying to get them on task. They Google everything! I asked them to draw a picture of what happened at the first Thanksgiving and they were Googling how to try hand turkeys!
I still see a place for technology in the classroom, but we must be able to utilize the best of the web while keeping out the worst. I am going to use this student’s opinion piece as well as some of the responses below to prepare my students to right a text based argumentative essay for or against the use of technology in the classroom in order to prepare them for the new writing exam in March. Thanks for publishing it!
Whenever I read a claim that we “need” the latest and greatest technology to teach and learn math and science, I think of Ramanujan and Einstein.
The great Indian mathematician did all his calculations on a chalk-board tablet (for the uninitiated, that was before the iPad)
And, of course, Einstein did most of his work with pencil and paper.
Technology is a great tool, but it can also be a crutch which actually prevents students from really thinking about the important concepts.
Any student who has learned the concepts well in without technology can quickly come up to speed on use of the technology, but the inverse is not true: that anyone who learns to use the technology can quickly come up to speed on the concepts.
Using something (eg, technology) is not the same as understanding (the concepts behind) it.
I am certainly no technophobe (I taught science and worked as a software engineer), but I am really bothered by the current push for technology in the schools because it is clear to me that it is based not on research about what is best for student learning but instead what is best for the bottom line ($$) of the companies pushing it.
Amen!!!!
The reliance on tech has made some students like those who love to eat chocolate cake but could care less about learning how the recipe works.
I had a doctoral statistics class where some students complained about the sequence of GUI use, and the prof told them back in the day they had to write the code and deal with data punch cards….and you all are complaining?
A good example of why the leaders and enablers of the self-proclaimed “education reform” movement and their captive MSM rarely listen to or from public school staff, students, parents and the communities they serve.
Reality is so complicated and difficult but Rheeality is so, well, enriching, especially in a Johnsonally sort of way…
Look at it this way. “Blended learning” as a hallmark of cage busting achievement gap crushing 21st century innovative disruption in public education is like other clichés of the “thought leaders” of the charterite/privatizer crowd. For example, they can boast of a boatload of people that—if honesty and integrity were integral to EduExcellence—should always include quote marks around their academic pretendings, ya know, like “Dr.” John Deasy and “Dr.” Ted Morris Jr. and “Dr.” Terence Carter” and “Dr.” Steve Perry.
😱
This is like Chiara’s explanation that “choice” is the spoken part of an unspoken foursome: “Choice but no voice.”
“Blended learning” as another gimmicky selling point for tired old failures in teaching and learning is accurate as far as it goes but there’s one teensy weensy little problem:
It has one letter too much. The “L.”
😧
$tudent $ucce$$. It makes all the ₵ent¢ in the world to the salespeople and enforcers of the “new civil rights movement of our time.” For the rest of us, not so much…
Never forget: for the “blended earning choice” crowd that forces their choices on us, THEIR OWN CHILDREN are ensured Lakeside School and Sidwell Friends and U of Chicago Lab Schools and Delbarton School and Cranbrook and such. Corporate rheephorm experiments in education are only for OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN aka lab rats.
And for all you downbeat types that won’t parrot the party line, you are reminded once again:
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
😎
P.S. Rebranding is in full swing. Turns out “Dr.” Steve Perry has removed the “America’s Most Trusted Educator” [big bold letters] claim from his website’s home page. Things must be dire indeed in the education establishment when even a fading superstar of the rheephorm firmament has to backtrack even a micromillimeter. After all, this is the same gentle caring individual that states in his bio: “His secrets to success and calls to action are revealed in his new book, ‘Push Has Come To Shove: Getting Our Kids The Education They Deserve – Even If It Means Picking A Fight.’”
And he does mean FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT! Yeah, against those lazy teachers in his own school! And don’t forget to bully and harass them awful students too!
😡
Link: http://www.networkforpubliceducation.org/news/another-former-capital-prep-teacher-speaks-out-wait-what/
Many other links if you google.
“It has one letter too much. The “L.””
So is it Bended Learning or Blended Earning or perhaps both????
Señor Swacker: you pose what only seems to be a difficult, if not impossible to answer, question.
So let’s consult one of the greatest EduMinds of the self-proclaimed “education reform” establishment and drink deep at the font of EduExcellence.
¿? Uh…
Okey dokey. Arne suggests that we follow his lead as set forth in his April 30, 2013 presentation to the AERA [American Educational Research Association] annual meeting where he came, firmly and steadfastly, somewhat for & somewhat against & somewhat for/somewhat against high-stakes standardized testing. Each one and all together.
Link: http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/choosing-right-battles-remarks-and-conversation
I can’t help but notice that confused look on your face.
😕
Let me spell it out.
The grand plan of self-styled “education reform” is all about “blended learning” and all about “blended earning” and all about “blended earning/learning.” Each one is the single most important priority and they are all #1 top priorities simultaneously and all together.
As a most determinedly KrazyTA I am always there to straighten out even the most twisted conundrums.
Any more questions?
😎
From the Dunkster in the link:
“My second challenge would be to remain open to findings that contradict or compel a rethinking of the conventional wisdom.”
Hummm, I wonder if ol Arny is open to Wilson’s work????
Nah, way too difficult for him to read and understand.
Duane, does this mean that Arne is open to rethinking the conventional wisdom about testing and charters? I doubt it. He has stayed on message for 6 years.
“Message in a Bottle”
Like message in a bottle
The message hasn’t changed
It’s incoherent twaddle:
“The deck-chairs rearranged”
SomeDAM Poet:
TAGO!
😎
Screens in the classroom? “the entertainer, the star of the show”
Did everyone who went to school prior to the tech revolution remember hours of mind-deadening lectures and rote repetition? While I will admit I had some teachers who were less than absorbing, I was not bored to death by antique delivery methods. When I went to a highly selective college, the lower level courses were basically lecture. I got out of them what I put into them, and many of my professors were skilled lecturers as well. Yes! Lecture is not a dirty word! As a matter of fact, lecture still seems to be the prevalent method of presenting information to large groups. Using a power point doesn’t make it more pedagogically advanced than the old slide shows. Face it folks, lectures can be quite engaging. On the college level, survey courses were often almost entirely lecture. While there were opportunities for Q&A, most of our input was writing in response to an assigned topic. As we advanced, survey gave way to seminar with a lot more interaction that was dependent on us completing a mountain of assigned reading as well as a continuation of writing assignments. Courses in the sciences all contained a lab component that translated the lectures into hands on reality documented with written reports. At my highly selective high school, lecture was a valued method of instruction as was the seminar approach. Labs supported the main science classes. I don’t remember most of elementary school beyond the controlled interaction of raising your hand in response to teacher questions. (At almost 65, I suppose it is not so surprising that my memory for those days is not vivid.) I do remember enjoying the chance to work with a group on a project. My own children had much more opportunity for project based learning than I did. Each one of them responded in different ways.
Am I suggesting that we return to the good old days? No! I think we are much more conscious of how we present instruction these days and much more concerned with adjusting those methods to the needs of each of our students. Computer technology has allowed us to add new tools to the mix, but technology does not replace good teaching no matter how “personalized” a developer claims their product is. As a substitute teacher, I have experienced being a glorified computer monitor. Even in that situation, computers do not replace a skilled substitute. We are fools if we allow the tech industry to suggest that we can be replaced by computer programs.
Assuming the professor was a good lecturer, the lecture was my favorite class format in college.
AMEN, artificial intelligence (AI) is just that: artificial.
No algorithm can think of all the possibilities, connections and applications that a knowledgeable and dynamic teacher can, nor can it discern the specific need of the learner as a human can.
I hear Pink Floyd singing “welcome my son to the machine”. The Matrix (the Babylonish- whorish metaphor for corporations that want to make us dependent on their technology) thrives when the participants are mindlessly amused (a=not, muse=think) by its bells and whistles.
Software is only as good (at teaching, for example) as what went into it.
Unfortunately, much of the software out there is just junk.
Just because a person is good at writing computer code does not mean they will produce “good” software.
Most people would probably be very frightened if they knew just how ignorant some of the folks writing software are. Some of that software (eg, for brake control in cars and control of radiation in medical equipment) is what might be termed “mission critical”.
Something to think about next time you hear about a recall on a car or medical device.
2old2teach: sometimes I think your moniker should be “2old2forgethowtoteach”!
😃
You have nailed a salient characteristic of the entire self-styled “education reform” movement and their entire panoply of rebranded failed ideas and wishful gimmicky solutions:
They are constantly running away from, and afraid of, human interaction. It scares and baffles and confounds them. Over and over and over again they just want to be left alone to atomize and isolate people.
With one all-important proviso: the above is for OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN and their parents and communities.
For the select few like themselves, THEIR OWN CHILDREN are ensured everything that they decry for the measured masses that come up short on their test scores.
OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN: rigor and grit.
THEIR OWN CHILDREN: mens sana in corpore sano [google, please, shills and trolls].
Can’t solve problems by throwing money, time and effort at them? Let’s see what damage is being wreaked at the school Bill Gates and his children attended/are attending.
Athletics calendar for Monday, Jan. 5, to Sunday, Jan. 11:
Boys basketball, freshmen; boys basketball, JV & Varsity; girls basketball, JV & Varsity; wrestling, coed, Varsity; boys swimming and diving, Varsity; girls basketball, 5th; boys basketball, 5th; girls basketball, 6th, Varsity; girls basketball, 7th, Varsity; boys basketball, 8th, Varsity; boys basketball, 8th, JV; boys basketball, 6th, JV; girls basketball, 7th, JV; and boys basketball, 6th, JV.
A total of 25 home and away events, if I’ve counted accurately.
And all this in just one week.
Link: http://www.lakesideschool.org/athletics/calendar
What happened to all the time needed for test prep?
😎
Thank you for your kind words, KTA. I think I share that with many old teachers. I try not stray into pontificating, but now that no one is threatening me with the loss of a job, it is much easier to say, “Wait a minute!” My hope now is to never be too old to learn.
Relatedly, our tech-savvy schools chancellor here in NYC is talking up the educational benefits of cell phones in classrooms.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/guest-column-cellphones-educational-benefits-article-1.2068383
“Cell Growth”
Cell-phones in classes
Like weeds in the grasses
Will surely take over
Like thistle and clover
But cell phones are handy
And lions are dandy
So cell-phones can win
With Madame Car-men
There’s nothing wrong with technology in schools….technology is a valuable tool. It depends on how – and when, and why – it’s used.
I get uncomfortable, however, when technology enthusiasts start throwing around buzzwords like “21st century skills” and “21st century assignments” and “21st century educator.” It seem to me this is almost a sure sign that they really don’t understand much about education.
In his 2003 book, The Flickering Mind, Todd Oppenheimer wrote that technology was a “false promise.” That is, all too often technology is no panacea to improving learning and often undermines funding that might have gone to reducing class sizes, and improving teacher salaries and facilities.
Based on his many classroom observations, Oppenheimer said that “more often than not” classroom use of computers encouraged “everybody in the room to go off task.” He noted that a UCLA research team investigating results from the Third International Math and Sciences Study (TIMSS) reviewed video from 8th grade math and science classes in seven different countries. One difference stood out: while American teachers use overhead projectors (and increasingly now LCDs), teachers in other countries still use blackboards, which maintain “a complete record of the entire lesson.”
A recent Texas study found that “there was no evidence linking technology immersion with student self-directed learning or their general satisfaction with schoolwork.”
Th New York Times reported recently on classroom use of technology in Arizona, where “The digital push aims to go far beyond gadgets to transform the very nature of the classroom.” As the Times reported, “schools are spending billions on technology,even as they cut budgets and lay off teachers, with little proof that this approach is improving basic learning.”
Are there “good” technology stories? Of course. But there’s also an awful lot of waste.
I’d call it “fraud” rather than “waste”, but I guess I’m just old-fashioned. Bid-rigging like what went on in LA with Apple And Pearson used to be prosecuted as racketeering under the Rico Act.
Like most of the other stuff having to do with school “reform”, the push for technology in the classroom is not based on research but on billions of dollars for companies like Microsoft, Apple and Pearson and the plethora of charter scammers.
The irony and hypocrisy in much of our school purchasing and “upgrades” that are used by teachers (an important stakeholder…duh) is that our opinions about what is needed, what is efficacious, what is best for the students, what the industry expects out of us, etc. etc are rarely, or NEVER, solicited from us.
Constructivism (as we all learn in pedagogy, but never see practiced in our craft by this top-down tyranny) seeks to value and solicit the input and opinions of the stakeholders that will be affected by any decision.
So, where are the focus groups of English, math, science, etc. teachers being asked questions like: 1) do you need a new “improved” curriculum 2) what is the best stuff that has worked in the last 20 years 3) if you were given $10,000 how would you spend it to improve your teaching and student learning.?
So, why is this not the process and method of seeking to improve our craft? Why do those outside the classroom make decisions for us? Why is no district really seeking input and feedback from its most veteran and decorated teachers (those of us that have taught for more then 19 years and have peer-recognized awards).
I feel nauseous every time I sit at a faculty meeting about a new reading curriculum (new in acronym only, not new in approach). Effective pedagogy exists in the group-consensus of our most veteran and resourceful teachers, but districts don’t seem to care, but would much rather throw money (waste money) at the most current “flashly-dressed curriculum-whore”. This Babylonish waste is anathema (for it takes resources out of the classroom and gives it to the corporations…..give me 5,000 dollars and I can do so much to improve my chemistry teaching, as compared to what Pearson, Bill Gates, etc.. thinks). We are the education professionals, but we are treated like we were only the custodians.
We need to rise up and demand that our input gets solicited and respected, and we will only to continue to get endless cycles of misled educational “reform” (aka: pedagogic deform).
The fact that the self-styled reformers are not asking teachers what they need tells you all you need to know about their motivations.
They talk a lot about the business approach, but no business person in their right mind would do things without first finding out what their customers (in this case teachers) wanted — or if they indeed wanted anything.
I used to work as a software engineer in an R&D group that built spectrometers and whenever we were developing a new instrument or changing an existing one, as a first step we always consulted with the customers who had been or would potentially be using the instruments because they were the experts when it came to what was needed/desired.
People like Bill Gates certainly know how this works, so one can only assume that his failure to consult with teachers at the getgo (eg, on Common Core) is quite purposeful and that his motivation is something other than helping teachers do their jobs better.
Reblogged this on VAS Blog and commented:
Frightening.
It matters not if teachers use technology or markers on a board – as long as they create a sense of relevance. If students see WHY what they are learning will be valuable to them then they WANT to learn it. The value can be long term (it will help them make more money – and they truly believe it) or even short term (the class is building a robot that has to determine when its battery is low and find its way, on its own, to its charging nest). Either way, if students see value, they will pay attention and learn. If they see no value (perhaps the subject has value, but the teacher has not prefaced the session with appropriate background) then the will NOT pay attention and they will learn very little.