During the pandemic, most schools turned to remote learning as a matter of necessity. Some in the education biz think that the pandemic has created a new market for their products. Actually, most parents and students are eager for real schools with real teachers to open again. Contrary to popular myth, teachers too want schools to reopen, as soon as they are safe for staff and students.
Historian Victoria E.M. Cain of Northeastern University has written an engaging account of the hype associated with new technology in the classroom. It is a tool, it should be used appropriately, but it is not a replacement for teachers.
She writes:
The lessons for today’s enthusiasts are clear. It is wise to be humble about the possibilities of classroom technology. No one would deny that technology can provide invaluable tools to improve learning. (What teacher today would not want to have classroom access to the internet?) Too often, though, instead of being seen as a tool to help schools, new technology has been embraced as a silver-bullet solution to daunting educational crises. In desperate times, desperate leaders have clutched at overblown promises, investing in unproven ideas without demanding reasonable evidence of efficacy.
In the current pandemic, it might be tempting for education leaders to hope that if only we can find the right balance of learning management systems, home Wi-Fi access, and teacher training, we can continue to provide the same education we always have, virus or no virus. But it is not that easy, and it never has been.
If we have learned anything from the past two centuries, it is this: New technologies provide assistance, not solutions. Whether it was Lancasterian school buildings in the 19th century, television in the 20th, or Zoom classrooms today, new technology will not solve our problems on its own. In the past, overhasty investment has wasted millions of dollars. Perhaps more pernicious, it has given well-meaning reformers false confidence that they have taken care of the issue. It is far better to take an approach that might not be popular or simple, one that acknowledges the scope of the crisis and the variety of solutions we will need to address it. We need to avoid the temptation to grasp too quickly at a single technological response.
Wise counsel. Hope and hoax are both four-letter words that start with the same two letters. Hype is also a four-letter word.
My book, Beyond Remote-Controlled Childhood talks about the impact of screens on young children and what we can do to counteract the VP negative and promote the positive.
Years ago, I edited a physics textbook by a brilliant, elderly man who had worked with Fermi to build the first nuclear reactor. In his eighties, he still had a childlike enthusiasm for his science. One day, we were talking about the section of the book on the electromagnetic spectrum. He got really excited and took me into his basement and set up equipment to demonstrate for me how one could decode chemical signatures from spectra.
So, when he found that I was interested in education, he told me a story about how back in the late 1950s, he and a bunch of other scientists were brought to Washington to discuss with officials how to harness the new technology of television for use in schools. “Think of it,” he said. “We would bring the very best teachers into every classroom!” And then a tear came to his eye, and he started shaking, visibly upset. “But look at it now–at television–at what it is used for. Garbage for idiots.”
He was a brilliant man, but he overestimated what that technology could do. From the earliest days of our species, older people and taught younger people, in person, up close and personal, what they felt it was important for them to know. This educational process is a HUMAN INTERACTION.
Years ago, I read a transcript of a speech by Bill Gates. In this, he talked about how the two greatest expenses of schooling were a) facilities (buildings, maintenance, heating and air conditioning, etc) and b) salaries of teachers and administrators and about how both could be vastly reduced by switching to computerized instructional delivery. And that’s why, of course, he invested so heavily in creating the Common [sic] Core [sic]–not because these “standards” would be exponentially better than the ones they replaced but so there would be a single national bullet list to key educational software to.
But here’s the rub: that human interaction is essential to instruction. Instruction is something that happens between people.
I remember reading in Ray Kurzweil’s first big book predicting the coming Singularity his prediction that in the future, people wouldn’t have sex with one another but remotely with machines, using haptic suits and thinking how awful, how ridiculous that was. He was clearly missing the point.
The educational technologists are like that. They are missing the point.
“Instruction is something that happens between people.”
Once again you understand the bigger picture. The most effective learning is social. People like Gates try to present technology as a great solution, but it is really just a tool. Gates’ interest is in reducing costs and selling products. Anything he suggests should be viewed with skepticism. Computers reinforce behaviorism, not real thinking, which you pointed out on your post about standardized testing
Sometimes, when people have been doing something in a particular way for a very, very long time, there’s a reason for it–it emerged in the crucible of experience. Not always the case, but sometimes.
yes, where we are headed with so many things: relying on technology tools rather than looking for actual solutions
Ms. Cain’s piece is awesome. So, so interesting!
Agreed! If you are in education long enough, you will live through several versions of the “next big thing.” You will have broken a leg more than once jumping on or off the bandwagon. What matters most is the depth and quality of the human relationship and interaction.
Wonderfully put!
Back when I started, it was “behavioral objectives” and “learning labs.” LMAO.
I just finished a horrifying week of online standardized testing. It was the interim assessment administered on the same platform on which the now re-mandated SBAC state summative tests will be given in April and May.
There is a f___ing eye tracker on the testing website! If a student or teacher looks away from the screen for a minute, it says there is a problem with the test. I couldn’t tell, but there might have been problems with some of the tests because of audible sounds like siblings or dad watching television in the other room. Not only are they forcing all of us to turn on our cameras and microphones, they are tracking and likely recording us! They are tracking my eyeballs! My students’ eyeballs! I am beyond words upset.
I want to speak to an attorney. Now. I will.
Wait a minute, maybe it wasn’t eye tracking. Maybe it was tracking the time between keystrokes and clicks. That would make more sense. Sorry, I think I was wrong. Maybe I should write that in boldface, like I wrote the accusation of eye tracking. ** Sorry, I think I was wrong.**
Oops! Accidental space (number two). Sorry, I think I was wrong.
That’s funny (but not)! I’m sure it’s definitely possible to track eye movements. When THEY come and tell us, “We’re going to be putting a chip in your head so we can monitor you, ” what will we all say???? “Ok, fine, sure, I’m all for it! It’s technology and it will make our lives better!”
The platform requires cameras and microphones turned on, so it’s definitely tracking something.
That classroom software is tracking every child every minute. One Pearson executive bragged online a few years ago, “we know more about children than their parents do.”
Agree completely. Consider a project like science fair as an assessment replacing a test. A community experience for an essay replacing hours in front of a computer. And building in the arts as communication skills. And on and on
Agree completely. Technology is a piece of the puzzle but only a small piece. Consider a science project as an assessmenty as well as a lesson. Community experiences make learning real. Bringing in the arts as communication skills. Tying reading into everything as well as writing, analyzing, debating research on and on,.
A February 14, 2021 report from EdSurge Biz is all about a deluge of venture capital pouring into the edtech industry and with high hopes of getting a big return on their dollars. In the span of only two days three transactions for US edtech companies totaled over $1 billion. An example of big deals and high hopes is Renaissance’s $650 million acquisition of Nearpod.
Renaissance enables one-click use of ClassLink and Clever. More than 13,000 schools use the Renaissance performance tracking dashboards assembled as “myIGDIs“ (Individual Growth & Development Indicators) for early childhood. The indicators are displayed in colorful dashboards. These displays show at least one “kindergarten readiness score” for early literacy, numeracy, and social-emotional development.
Renaissance also markets “Star” assessments with a claim that these are “highly predictive of performance on state and other high-stakes tests.” There are Star tests for Early Literacy K-3; Literacy growth, K–12; Math for grades 1 to 12; Star elementary school “Curriculum-based tests” in reading and math; Bilingual tests for reading, math, and early literacy for emerging bilingual students… and more (custom tests). https://www.renaissance.com/products/star-assessments.
Renaissance’s acquisition of the Nearpod platform provides a way for teachers to upload and distribute digital lessons in the form of interactive slide decks. The platform also tracks student progress and interactions with the materials.
Nearpod has since expanded this “toolbox” with features that let teachers create quizzes, offer virtual reality content for digital field trips, and embed mini-games into lessons. There is also a library of over 15,000 pre-made lessons from third-party providers including Amplify, Desmos, iCivics and Teaching Tolerance. In 2020, an estimated 19.5 million lessons were taught on Nearpod, marking a six-fold increase from the previous year, according to its CEO Pep Carrera.
“The pandemic really accelerated the need for teachers to find ways to continue doing things that were once easily done in classrooms,” he said in an interview. Today, the platform is used by 75 percent of all U.S. public school districts. Nearpod offers some of its content and tools for free and sells licenses to individual teachers, schools and districts. see https://www.edsurge.com/news/2021-01-13-a-record-year-amid-a-pandemic-us-edtech-raises-2-2-billion-in-2020
“Other deals
HOBSONS SPLIT AND SOLD: Hobsons, a provider of college planning, readiness and enrollment tools since 1974, will be broken up and sold. PowerSchool will be acquiring its college and career-planning tools, Naviance and Intersect; EAB will purchase the student engagement service, Starfish. These two are expected to net Hobson’s owner $410 million.
CODECADEMY COMEBACK: Long before coding boot camps were a thing, there were startups like Codecademy building web-based tools to teach programming. Now, a decade after it launched, the New York-based company continues to grow, selling to colleges and companies and—perhaps most importantly—achieving profitability. That long, steady growth has been rewarded with a $40 million investment led by Owl Ventures”
Other Deals
Kahoot, the Norweigian provider of a game-based learning platform, has acquired Whiteboard.fi, a Finnish developer of digital whiteboard tools for teachers and students, in a deal worth up to $12 million.
Photomath, a San Francisco-based developer of a math problem-solving app, has raised $23 million in a Series B round led by Menlo Ventures, and joined by GSV Ventures, Learn Capital, Cherubic Ventures and Goodwater Capital.
Praxis Labs, a New York-based provider of virtual-reality educational programs for workplaces, has raised $3.2 million in a seed round led by SoftBank’s OB Opportunity Fund, and joined by Norwest Venture Partners, Emerson Collective, Ulu Ventures, Precursor Ventures and Firework VC.”
These ventures dismiss the need for face-to-face deliberations about education and from early childhood to college readiness. Many focus on the required subjects for tests and capitalize on the high stakes attached to test scores. They have contributed to the truncated curriculum in schools. Most substitute “artificial intelligence” and marketing for the work of professionals in education.
Every time these discussions about how technology will totally transform education, and how computer programs will be able to replace teachers, I am reminded of one of my favorite Isaac Asimov stories (from 1951): “The Fun They Had.” In this story, set in the distant future, two children who are taught exclusively by computers think about how wonderful it must have been back in the days when there were real paper books, and real human teachers.
And then there is “The Feeling of Power” (1958) in which everyone has pocket computers, and no one knows how to do any math. Wars are fought by expensive robots and computers, until a person rediscovers how to do math. (And those of you have read this story know the sad ending…)