Andreas Schleicher, who is education director for the OECD and oversees the international assessment PISA, spoke recently in Australia. He was especially concerned about the overuse of technology in schools.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported on his comments:
“Private, Catholic and public schools are reducing their reliance on laptops and tablets following a damning international assessment and concerns over the impact of social media on learning.
“The reality is that technology is doing more harm than good in our schools today,” the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s education chief Andreas Schleicher told world leaders at a global education forum this month.
“Last week, John Vallance, the principal of one of Sydney’s most expensive private schools, Sydney Grammar, said that laptops were not necessary in class and that more traditional teaching methods were more effective.
“Schools in the Catholic sector are also moving away from laptop centred learning after an OECD report found that countries which have invested heavily in education technology have seen no noticeable improvement in their performances in results for reading, mathematics or science.
“Australia has spent $2.4 billion putting laptops in the bags of as many schoolchildren as possible through the Digital Education Revolution of the Rudd and Gillard governments.
“Education is a bit like the stock market, it overshoots.” said St Paul’s Catholic College principal Mark Baker. “Computers have been oversold and there is no evidence that it improve outcomes. Giving out laptops was the educational equivalent of putting pink batts in people’s roofs”.
“Mr Baker said every school in NSW has become a Google or an Apple school. “If I put McDonald’s signs all over the school saying McDonald’s was bringing you education, there would be an outcry.”
“The Manly school has banned laptops for one day a week in an effort to get pupils out onto the sporting field and away from LCD screens. “If you say that at an education meeting you are branded as an educational dinosaur,” the principal of 17 years told Fairfax Media….
“While laptops have brought a plethora of resources to the fingertips of students, educators remain concerned about their use as tools of distraction….
A new survey of 1000 young adults has found that 39 per cent obsessively compare their life and achievements to others on social media, according to the Optus Digital Thumbprint program.
Mr Baker believes that removing the centrality of the laptop in the classroom might be the first step in getting that balance back.
“Parents expect schools to have the technology,” he said. “The issue is the appropriateness. Anyone who says we should stop using textbooks is peddling dangerous nonsense.”
“Education leaders agree: “If we want our children to be smarter than a smartphone then we have to think harder,” Mr Schleicher said.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
More Teachers, Less Techers ❢
(I know, it should be Fewer …)
LikeLike
Also from Down Under, the headmaster (principal)
of Australia’s most prestigious private school
shares similar views.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3510104/Top-Australian-private-school-banned-laptops-computers-scandalous-waste-money-distracting-students.html
Now, he doesn’t dismiss all use of laptops, of course.
Students can only use them at home, and
in the computer lab, but any use in the clasrroom
is banned.
Here’s why:
Dr Vallance said multi-billion dollar investment by the
federal government to provide laptops to high school
students had done nothing but benefit American tech-giants
Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and Apple.
He argued that grades are gradually dropping across the
country despite the investment, according to The Australian:
“If you’re lucky enough to have a good teacher and a
motivating group of classmates, it would seem a waste
to introduce anything that’s going to be a distraction
from the benefits that kind of social context will give
you.”
“‘I think when people come to write the history of this
period in education … this investment in classroom
technology is going to be seen as a huge fraud.”
READ HERE:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3510104/Top-Australian-private-school-banned-laptops-computers-scandalous-waste-money-distracting-students.html
———–
Sydney Grammar bans laptops because ‘scandalous waste of money’
Sydney Grammar School headmaster John Vallance has said grades are gradually dropping across the country as bill…
Top Australian private school has banned laptops because computers are ‘scandalous waste of money’ and are distracting students
Laptops have been banned from prestigious Australian school Sydney Grammar head John Vallance says they are ‘waste of money’ Classroom technology ‘a huge fraud’, only benefits American tech-giants. He wants classrooms to revert to old-school teacher-student relations
By David Jeans For Daily Mail Australia
– – – – – – – – – – –
One of Australia’s most prestigious private schools has taken a step back from technology and banned laptops in class because they are ‘distracting’ students.
Sydney Grammar School headmaster John Vallance described the billions of dollars being spent on equipping high school students with laptops as a ‘scandalous waste of money’.
He argued that grades are gradually dropping across the country despite the investment, according to The Australian.
The headmaster has banned all students at the Darlinghurst boys school from bringing laptops to school and said all pupils must submit handwritten assignments until year 10.
The headmaster said the return to old-school teaching was to increase teacher-student relationships as laptops are a distraction in the classroom.
‘(Teaching is) about interaction between people, about discussion, about conversation,’
Dr Vallance said in the report.
‘We find that having laptops or iPads in the classroom inhibit conversation — it’s distracting.
‘If you’re lucky enough to have a good teacher and a motivating group of classmates, it would seem a waste to introduce anything that’s going to be a distraction from the benefits that kind of social context will give you.’
Dr Vallance said multi-billion dollar investment by the federal government to provide laptops to high school students had done nothing but to benefit tech-giants Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and Apple.
‘I think when people come to write the history of this period in education … this investment in classroom technology is going to be seen as a huge fraud.’
Dr Vallance said the school studied classes for students in years three and five and found creative writing tasks were more successful with handwritten submissions, rather than using a keyboard.
Dr Vallance said multi-billion dollar investment by the federal government to provide laptops to high school students had done nothing but to benefit tech-giants Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and Apple.
Sydney Grammar offers access to computers through a lab and students are expected to use laptops at home.
Families are charged $32,644 in annual tuition fees for each student to attend the prestigious Darlinghurst boys school.
LikeLike
The main “benefit” of relying on so much technology is that it diverts so much funding from the act of educating students into corporate driven toys and gadgets. The big winners are corporations, of course!
LikeLike
I recently saw a segment on Dr. Oz about the impact of children sitting in front of screens or using hand held devices. Dr. Delaney Ruston, a guest, recently produced a documentary called “Screenagers.” She cited studies about brain and eye development in young children being impeded by too much time in front of a computer. She also said too much screen time may contribute to ADHD, as youngsters became more distractible and had less impulse control the longer time they spent in front of a screen. She also stated that brain imaging confirms that too much smart phone use taps into the same part of the brain as addiction, and may explain why so many people cannot put down their phones. As a parent and teacher, I believe there is a lot we do not know about the long term impact of too much screen time on the brains of young people, and I do not think we should use a generation of young people as guinea pigs to find out.
LikeLike
“Reform is Over”
Over-sold and over-billed
“Over” is the norm
Over-bold and over-killed
Over is reform
LikeLike
“The Billionaire’s Burden” (based on
“The White Man’s Burden”, by Rudyard
Kipling”)
Take up the Billionaire’s burden, Send
forth the tests ye breed
Go bind your schools to test style, to
serve his markets’ need;
The weight of heavy VAMness, On
captive folk and mild—
Your new-caught, sullen peoples, Half
teacher and half child.
Take up the Billionaire’s burden, In
patience to abide,
To veil the scheme for teach-bots, The
prime intent to hide;
With coded speech of Orwell, you really
must take pains
To make a hefty profit, And see the
major gains.
Take up the Billionaire’s burden, The
public schools to fleece—
Fill full the days with testing And
Common Core disease;
And when your goal is nearest The end
that you have sought,
Dispatch the Opt-out movement Lest
work be all for naught.
Take up the Billionaire’s burden, A
tawdry rule of Kings,
The toil of IT keeper, The sale of
software things.
The data ye shall enter, On privacy to
tread,
To make a “decent” living, Until they all
are dead.
Take up the Billionaire’s burden And
reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better, The hate
of those ye guard—
The cry of hosts ye humour (Ah, slowly!)
toward the light:—
“Why brought he us from bondage, Our
loved Egyptian night?”
Take up the Billionaire’s burden, Ye dare
not stoop to less—
So fulminate ‘gainst Apple To cloak your
Siri-ness;
And strategize in whispers, For all ye
leave or do,
Or silent, sullen peoples Shall weigh
Diane on you!
Take up the Billionaire’s burden, Have
done with childish ways—
The Kindergarten playing, The test-less
former days
Come now, to join Reform-hood, The
pride of Duncan years
Cold, edged with Gates-bought wisdom,
The plan of Billionaires!
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLike
Technology is not the problem. It’s how it’s being used, or in most cases, not being used. Just throwing an electronic device into a classroom does nothing but allow a district to claim it has a technology program. Technology is a very powerful tool and can greatly enhance a student’s learning experience when used correctly. We need to spend as much on professional development as we do on the technology but most districts aren’t willing to do that. To say that technology does more harm that good is misleading and ignorant. Technology is an inanimate object and can’t do harm. Only people can.
LikeLike
As I research the use of edutech, I am becoming less convinced that is has much power for anything except efficiency in administrative tasks. The whole hype is reminiscent of the hype around hands-on learning. Unless the activity is well designed, learning will not improve. In fact it can be a huge distraction from learning. You may be amazed at how students can complete lab activities, appearing to be engaged, but learn nothing. The same can and does happen with tech. I actually do fewer hands-on physics activities now, but my students learn so much more from them.
Yes professional development is sorely needed, but it needs to target the ideas of learning theory and not just using devices. But the devices are fundamentally designed to be distracting and to be used on an individual level. Learning needs complex human interaction so their usefulness may be more limited than we are willing to admit.
LikeLike
I totally agree with you! I think that those that disparage the use of technology in schools don’t really know how to use it. Dianne and the other commentators on this post need to check out http://theinnovativeeducator.blogspot.com/2016/04/is-edtech-really-waste-8-lessons-for.html as a response to John Vallance.
LikeLike
I suspect that the answer lies somewhere between these two positions. She displays the same arrogant certainty that she accuses him of.
LikeLike
Thank you, Alice, for bringing us to a deeper level of discussion. Much education talk is shallow –just a repetition of cliches and buzzwords that have burrowed their way into our brains. Leave it to a scientist (a physics teacher) to bring us back to empiricism –actually paying attention to the observable effects of trendy methodologies. Too bad so few administrators –and even teachers –pay heed to the evidence of their own eyes.
LikeLike
Mark: I think that those that disparage the use of technology in schools don’t really know how to use it. ”
A more realistic description of reality is
“Most people who try to limit the use of technology in the classroom have been tirelessly evaluating what works and what doesn’t work in teaching and learning—because this is part of their job description—, and after careful consideration, they decided, the hype about computers is unjustified. They don’t say, not to use computers in the classroom, they are not fools to claim, computers are not useful, they just say, the use of technology in education is of limited value, since the real value in education has been and will be the relationship between student and teacher. “
LikeLike
“. . . have seen no noticeable improvement in their performances in results for reading, mathematics or science.”
“performance in results” Please allow me to translate that “PISA test scores”. C’mon Schleicher, quit beating around the bush. We know you’re the main pusher (as in drug pusher) of that test. Mental masturbation for mushminds.
LikeLike
We went to a device for each child in my son’s public school and he and his friends tell me they are spending a lot of time evading the teacher to screw around on the Chromebook.
They’re not adults. They don’t always use the best judgment.
Maybe we shouldn’t be taking advice exclusively from 50 year old tech CEO’s who have an OBVIOUS self-interest in pushing this into schools. It doesn’t mean they’re bad people It means they are people who are in the business of selling this stuff. Reasonably prudent adults in government should take that into account.
If I told you a processed food producer was directing school nutrition programs you would reasonably ask me if that was a good idea Are they experts on food? Yes. Should I let them direct nutrition programs? No. That doesn’t mean I’m paranoid, it means I live in the real world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Maybe we shouldn’t be taking advice exclusively from 50 year old tech CEO’s who have an OBVIOUS self-interest in pushing this into schools. It doesn’t mean they’re bad people.”
Depends on who you are asking. Ask Marx, and you get “they are the cause of all evil”.
Independently of Marx, I think it’s safe to say, the reason why we have school boards not resisting the tech push is because they are put there by techies.
LikeLike
This is a perfect review of reality: kids (PEOPLE) have an amazing capacity to AVOID learning. It takes long-term experienced personnel to know how to keep them focused. That’s why we’ve always been able to talk about a “great” teacher we had back in grade school or high school, or even at the college level. Good teachers are able to corral and focus a student attention when it wanders off task.
LikeLike
Good observation, ciedie aech. We will always have those that game the system, like my son who managed to rack up tons of “Accelerated Reader” points without really reading the material.
LikeLike
I thank all of you for your comments.
And I am especially pleased that Marx has not been forgotten. After all, the playbook of the self-styled “education reform” movement is built on his maxims and admonitions.
For example, ponder this updated version of one of corporate education reform’s foundational principles:
“Rheephorm is the art of looking for trouble in every public school, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”
Coupled with this other bit of Marxist wisdom, it’s understandable why they reflexively say “it’s all for the kids!” when $tudent $ucce$$ is their chief goal and aim:
“The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”
¿😳?
Oops! My bad. You were referring to that other Marx, not the one preferred by rheephormistas.
But it turns out that they omit those Marxist aphorisms that don’t justify their $ucce$$ Metrics because he reminds folks that someday the chickens are going to come home to roost:
“Time wounds all heels.”
Groucho. The whole Groucho. The real, not the rheeal, deal. Hoisting them by their own petards.
😎
LikeLike
I’m actually tired of my smartphone and how stupid, time wasting and complex it is. I want an old fashioned dumb mobile phone with no texting ability and no connection to the Internet — in other words a mobile phone that is only good for making and receiving phone calls.
In fact, I have two Kindles that I abandoned years ago because, again, they were too stupid to take care of their own problems that became a nuisance I had no time to deal with. Old fashioned paper printed books are so much easier to use. They don’t come with batteries that have to be recharged and software updates, etc. I also have a laptop I haven’t turned on for several years because it’s keyboard was too small for my big hands and fingers in addition to all the updates and security problems. I have never owned a tablet and probably will never buy one. I prefer my home based desktop as my only link to the Internet. When I’m away from home, I want to be free of the Internet — not its slave.
LikeLike
Did anyone ask students? Maybe they want to read paper. My 12 year is pretty tech savvy and he puts a piece of paper next to his math computer program and works the problem by hand because it’s faster. He’s basically filling in an electronic worksheet. Is this supposed to impress him? Why would it?
LikeLike
“I want an old fashioned dumb mobile phone with no texting ability and no connection to the Internet…”
I have one of those! I am too cheap to pay for texting and, for the life of me, can’t figure out why I might want to. I rarely turn it on since we have a landline. It is there if needed, but I have no desire to be glued to it. My computer is enough distraction. I still use my Kindle (basic model) but it will never replace hard copy, real books. We have an excellent public library that is far easier and more satisfying to peruse than online “catalogues.” If that monster solar flare ever wipes out electronic communication, the U.S. will devolve rapidly. All of those marginalized rural types will all of a sudden be the survivors. They still know how to do things that do not involve plugs.
LikeLike
” I rarely turn it on since we have a landline.”
Well, cellphone bills are smaller. Of course, skype and Google talks are free. Don Knuth, one of greatest computer scientists writes this about constant availability
Email is a wonderful thing for people whose role in life is to be on top of things. But not for me; my role is to be on the bottom of things. What I do takes long hours of studying and uninterruptible concentration. I try to learn certain areas of computer science exhaustively; then I try to digest that knowledge into a form that is accessible to people who don’t have time for such study.
http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/email.html
LikeLike
After I wrote the comment that I wanted a dumb phone, I drove to town and turned in the smart phone and switched. I’m now the happy owner of a dumb phone without all the complicated bells and whistles that come with the stupid smart phone. I was told that the dumb phone never required updates.
LikeLike
“Smart phones and Dumb People”
Phones are smart
But people dumb
Save those who mart
Who bank a $um
LikeLike
“Dumb phones and ‘smart’ people”
“Dumb” phones don’t require
An update every year
But “smart” folks do require
An update for their gear
LikeLike
Thanks, Poet, for reminding me of my knee.
LikeLike
LOL
LikeLike
If you look through the history of formalised schooling one would find many “technologies” that were said to be driving the end of the acquisition of knowledge and enlightenment. Two of these “technologies” include
‘- writing with a writing tool (the belief was the brain should be the sole holder of the knowledge)
‘- using textbooks (removing the scholar (nee teacher) as the source of ALL knowledge)
Today it is portable computers. Like those times, we still are learning HOW computers can effectively and efficiently be used in formal school settings. Buying an iPad and giving it to a student is not effective usage. The training that is required to ensure that the tool (an iPad, etc..) can be incorporated into the learning process means that the tool is not in charge.
We are still believing that our children need to learn the SAME WAY we learned. I can guarantee you that I did not learn, the SAME WAY my parents learned because pedagogy has changed. Pedagogy is once again changing and educators need to be responsive and learn HOW to use the technologies to inform the pedagogy that they deliver…as opposed to blaming an inanimate object for the failures.
LikeLike
Maybe I am splitting hairs, but humans have not significantly evolved in the past 100 years. We still learn the same way, although learning sciences have advanced in understanding that process. Constructivist learning theory tells us that humans construct their knowledge and that construction is heavily influenced by prior experiences Language of all types plays a huge role in learning. This view also explains the huge effects of poverty on learning.
So what does edutech offer? I use electronic data collections and simulations in my science class and have done so for over 20 years. Perhaps a medium for students to collaborate IF we design instruction that needs collaboration and collaboration is needed for that curriculum.
But that is rarely how the tech is presented. Instead we hear how transformative it will be and then we are presented with online preprogrammed lessons and drill software. OR a flashy presentation tool that still encourages transmission of knowledge rather than construction. OR collaboration on low level tasks which is tantamount to copying.
LikeLike
I have been teaching for 23 years, and I have definitely seen a reduction in students’ attention spans. They seem to need constant entertainment. They think that everything needs to be fun. Basic skills like handwriting, punctuation and capitalization have taken a real beating. I still don’t understand how I can say something at least 20 times and still have students ask me what I just said. It’s either that they don’t understand English or they don’t pay attention.
LikeLike
Alice, there are actually studies that show that we (human beings) learning differently. The example I used about how different generations learning, shows that as much as a variety of theories (including constructivists theory) are available, I can guarantee you that they are not being used. Many teachers still use pedagogical strategies where they deliver the content and the student receives the content. Some do use the theories effectively and maybe those are the teachers that should be saying whether it is working or not.
If we can have those who say it is not working provide a full description of HOW they have been using it, then we can be informed.
Remember the technology is great and transformative and all of the great things that you have described – but the question is how was it used and in what context. To me, being descriptive helps the conversation as opposed to the vague statements that it does not work.
LikeLike
Camille, the burden of proof should be on the supporters of technology. For 20 years, I have heard the promises. I see no results. The only tangible result is Silicon Valley profits and increased e-waste in landfills. What I do see is that old-fashioned methods still work great: a lucid, live human explanation of, say, the meaning of the Renaissance works better than having kids read a textbook or a website, or having them scour the World Wide Web to discover this knowledge on their own (I guarantee you, 90% of my kids will emerge from such a search without of a shred of clear knowledge). Group projects WITHOUT tech work as well as, or better than, group projects with it. The belief that tech is important in education is a FAITH. It marks you as a brainwashed member of the cult of technology. Let us be empirical and scientific here. Let us stick with proven methods and adopt new ones only when they prove themselves. Do you care about education, or do you just care about promoting technology regardless of its appropriateness to education?
LikeLike
I see your generational examples as examples of changes in teaching not learning, although the work of Larry Cuban has evidence that teaching in the US has not really changed all that much over the decades.
Tech will not cause a fundamental change in a teacher’s pedagogy and student learning. Decades of research on teacher professional development shows the difficulty in changing pedagogical models. While a few teachers still use only the transmission model, they will continue to do so even with devices. If a teacher is already engaging in different pedagogy, then they will continue to do so with the tech as just another tool. That’s it…another tool. It is not transformative.
Further, student learning is influenced more by socioeconomics than a teacher’s pedagogy.
I am not anti-tech. I see its role as another tool. But I do welcome the voices calling for putting the brakes on this headlong rush to spend millions to outfit classrooms and to have students spend more time with screens when the research shows few positive results.
Let’s talk teaching before we talk tech.
LikeLike
Those of us who have been teaching for over thirty years recall wishing that we could have a cheap,source of high quality written material for digestion by the student. Many of us saw the potential in technological delivery of a poem, film, or explanation. Along came computers and it seemed to us that we could have our wishes. In my geometry class, I can fire off many more examples of problems related to a topic than I used to be able to write on the chalkboard. I do sacrifice having multitudes of drawings across the board for students to inspect and compare. It seems a mixed bag, some great stuff and some mundane stuff.
There is one thing I wonder about. I have this pen I inherited from my grandfather. It is not really old, barely old enough to be one of those pens you dip into ink with a pump. When I want to write something to think about, I use it still. It seems to go at the right speed. When I want to write a series of math steps, I go for the mechanical pencil I like best. I am used to writing with a keyboard as I am doing now. The thing this makes me wonder about is whether one mode or another is better. We now spend hours in school teaching students to use computers because high stakes test are given on them. What if we knew teaching them to write with a stylus on wet clay made their thinking clearer? Would we do it?
In any case, high stakes testing should not drive the way we teach. All of us are smart enough to discern when a method, tech or otherwise, is yielding a good return on investment. Teachers are the ones who should decide and argue over this question, not reformers from places remote from the classroom.
LikeLike
KnowledgeWorks.org is committed to tech for nearly everything. It has issued scenarios for the future “ecology of learning” where teachers do not exist except as relics. Here is the newest venture.
In January of 2016 KnowledgeWorks released VibrantED, a simulation recruiting platform from 2026 that matches job seekers with employment opportunities in the expanding learning ecosystem as a way of bringing the future to life.
VibrantED, along with supporting sites Learning Extravaganza and Amoeba Learning, provides an immersive experience designed to help education stakeholders experience the future, examine their assumptions about what the educator workforce looks like, and imagine how educator roles may change and diversify over the next ten years.
As part of the ongoing simulation and like any recruiting platform, VibrantED has just posted 3 openings for new future educator roles:
Industrial Arts Educator: SFMakeCenter is hiring a full-time Industrial Arts Educator with experience in high-tech manufacturing to design and run sessions for all ages, help our members and partner schools design projects, and assist when our artisan learners are working independently.
Competency Tracker: The Central Basin Association of Governments in Nashville, TN is looking for a qualified individual to help identify learning opportunities that will satisfy competency development and credentialing needs.
Director of Social Good: The Museum of Social Movements is seeking a director of social good to help develop partnerships with other learning ecosystem organizations across the world that connect learners with existing or burgeoning social movements as part of their education.
The first CEO of Knowledgeworks was a banker who received substantial funding from Gates for tech high schools and the failed small high school project that Gates funded. The current CEO is from Great Britain, with experience at the Open University. This non-profit is associated with the ever expanding international network of “computers for learning with no teacher required” community.
Source http://vibranted.org
LikeLike
There were plenty of jobs there for data managers too!
LikeLike
Too many generalizations are made here about technology in the classroom. It’s all about context. We cannot speak in broad strokes about this topic without sounding uninformed.
Try this thought experiment: Replace the word “technology” with “pencil” every time the former word (or a related term) is mentioned. See what I mean? The failure or success of these initiatives rests on the teacher’s ability to change their practice to better personalize student learning and the school leader’s mindset to encourage risk-taking and innovation.
For example, if we are concerned about students’ access to social media and the negative effects, why not teach them how to use these tools within authentic learning experiences in a more positive way and to their advantage? Sticking our head in the sand doesn’t make the problem go away.
LikeLike
The technology “rollout” mimics the mad rush to CCSS and high stakes testing. The PR campaign has been nothing short of an announcement of the second coming. One-to-one initiatives are de rigueur. Now, however, as the negative consequences are being realized, we are chided for not taking the time to learn how to fully “personalize” learning. School leaders are accused of lack of risk-taking and innovation as if they are in charge of a start-up bent on being the next Google. NO! Back off!
LikeLike
You seem to have a lot of passion for this topic. I also am suspicious of some of the initiatives regarding educational technology. My positions are described here: http://www.ascd.org/Publications/Books/Overview/Five-Myths-About-Classroom-Technology.aspx
LikeLike
Let’s just say that I have been in too many in situations where technology has been used poorly. The first hit for me came as teachers gained access to tech resources previously unavailable. All of a sudden I end up in a district that expects teachers to handle all the IEP paperwork and to write IEPs while they are in IEP meetings because they have computers! They initially expected teachers to run the meetings and produce a finished IEP as well although it became clear how impossible that was. In other words, computers were going to be used to push more work onto teachers to be done in less time. More and more formerly administrative tasks seem to become the responsibility of teachers. As for curriculum, the resources continue to improve although the push to continually be innovative is getting ridiculous. Believe it or not, there are some activities worth repeating. Reinventing the wheel every year is time consuming and unnecessary. Word processing was a godsend to my LD students who now had the ability to get their thoughts down with fewer constraints and some unique supports. Assistive computer technology has definitely been worth it for the students who rely on it to allow them to participate in a meaningful way. Then there was the reading program I taught that included an online component that was quite good if you used it to fit the student rather than rigidly following the protocol. Of course administrators were allowed to “oversee” how you used the program and the associated data and second guess your decisions whether they had any experience with your subject or the program. Gotta love those charts that reduce students to numbers and make administrators think they know what is going on in a classroom. I enjoyed subbing at the middle school level before I got turned into a computer monitor. The one-to-one initiative was especially deadly for substitutes where teachers could confine their “plans” to online textbooks and websites that provided rote practice that was presented in an “innovative” game format if they were lucky. I watched more students fumble through practice math exercises who really had little idea what they were doing. Do I want kids to have access to the tools of technology? Without a doubt. But we need to be a lot more thoughtful about how we use it. Will we ever be immune to the razzle dazzle?
LikeLike
You are correct in that sometimes we tend to maximize technology at the expense of learning. Thank you for pointing this out.
LikeLike
Matt, I went to your blog, listened to a short podcast and read a few entries. I’m guessing that you have been thoughtful about your use of technology. My own children are all comfortable with computers and have no difficulty with adopting new applications. The older two have only really gained that comfort in adulthood while the younger two had more access in K-12 and more heavily post secondary. While three out of the four use computers regularly in their careers, they are tools. One of them is in a career that would not exist without the scientific advances that computers have allowed. As far as I know, none of them tweet, and their mother would like them to email more often. 🙂 so my goal would be for all children to have the chance to become digital natives, BUT NOT DIGITAL SLAVES!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Can we agree that having students Tweet a classroom response is using tech simply for the sake of using tech and does not to enhance learning? At at my grade level, I want answers that are more complex than 140 characters. And creating a Fakebook page for a planet or for Newton does not help the students understand how gravity and velocity work together to make stable orbits. A student posting a link on Edmodo to a news story about climate change is not the same as that student understanding the link between climate change and increased disease. BTW, all of these examples have been suggested to me by tech coaches. They are not innovative or risk-taking. They are stupid and alone do not help my students learn.
So now let’s look at context. Perhaps the Fakebook page on Newton will actually have students take on roles as Einstein or Aristotle and they will argue about the nature of gravity. And to prepare for this the students will read/watch various sources. Then perhaps the students will have gained a deeper understanding of gravity. However, that understanding is not due to the technology but rather a carefully designed lesson where tech was only the vehicle for the students to gather information or write their responses. The same lesson could have been done ( and undoubtably has been done) tech free via an oral debate or passing around a paper. Tech is not transformative.
LikeLike
Alice in PA: You make a case for both the promise and the perils of using technology in schools. It’s worth noting that we are able to have this very conversation due to the social media you have listed concerns about. Thoughts?
LikeLike
Yep-promise and perils. The comments on this blog are almost always thoughtful and lead the conversation onward. They push me to think differently and lead me to sources ( your book looks like one to add to my list). I am an adult with a lot of skin in the game as a parent, teacher, ed researcher, teacher PD provider. Unfortunately, these blogs are rare. Read the comments on WaPo and other sites and the comments are,well, less useful. Yes we should model how to use social media, but only if using it improves learning over what we are already doing, taking into account all the promise and peril. That is a teaching and learning conversation.
What I am calling for is a change in the conversation to be more about teaching and learning and less proselytizing. What I am hearing as a teacher is a large discussion about what devices to buy and how to manage the physical movement of the devices. Going with your pencil thought experiment, there are still classroom management issues over forgotten pencils, borrowing pencils, breaking pencils and pencils being a distraction used to write/pass notes. But those issues do not consume the conversation about teaching. I have now been through over 12 hours of inservice solely about deciding what hardware. While I appreciate the inclusion of teachers in this decision, no matter how disingenuous, I see a huge void in the discussion.
What I sincerely do not want is money thrown at these things only to see them misused and then we move onto something else. I have seen this with way too many initiatives where we jump wholeheartedly on a bandwagon and jump off as soon as the difficulties occur. Sometimes the initiative was stupid but other initiative which could have really had positive results were abandoned because instead of the actual foundations in learning being addressed, only the surface features were.
LikeLike
You bring up important points Alice. Best of luck in your future opportunities for advocacy.
LikeLike