More Disrupting Class and Technology Fix

Karen Hamilton June 7, 2010

Perfectly Predictable and Perfectly Wrong

Computers in schools? Yes!

It’s apparent from the readings in The Technology Fix and Disrupting Class that the introduction of computers into K-12 classrooms has been extremely problematic. Computers have as Christensen Horn & Johnson suggest been crammed into classrooms with little thought about how they can facilitate learning. As Pflaum repeats again and again, often there is a lack of an overall plan that ensures that technology will be integrated in meaningful ways. These problems multiply when teachers are either unmotivated or unable to use the technology for their lessons. Teachers become victims of time poverty and rush to prepare students for repeated standardized tests and have little to no time to try to implement change. Dependent upon grants, even when the technology is adopted, there is no guarantee there will be ongoing support. Many schools have not spent the suggested 30% of technology budget for professional development to ensure their teachers are prepared. In some cases schools decided that computers would be the catalyst for change. Unfortunately, a tool is not what creates change. It is easy to see why Christensen, Horn & Johnson in Disrupting class say that schools’ use of computers “has been perfectly predictable, perfectly logical –and perfectly wrong.” (73)

Let’s Keep the Baby

However, just because the implementation has been bad, it doesn’t mean it should be abandoned. Computers are a part of our everyday life and they should become a natural part of the curriculum. Our students have grown up in a digital age. To them a computer is what a paper and pen was to many of us when we went to school-- it’s just a part of the tool kit. For computers to be missing in school, forces students into a time they do not live in, and makes them very unhappy and potentially unmotivated campers. For me, computers are a necessary component of today’s classroom. On the other hand, computers and technology should only be used when they add value to the learning. There needs to be a symbiotic relationship between real life classroom experience and computer mediated experience.

Computers in College - Harness the tools in the room

In colleges today, many students bring laptops into the classroom. Rather than having students shut down their technology, as some would want to do, we need to find ways to harness the power of the tools in the room. With an engaged audience, this is possible. Instead of worrying about whether Jessica is facebooking, we have to worry about ensuring that the classroom experience is meaningful and engaging. In my experience, this has been my most meaningful tool-- to attack the problem with the tools of their engagement--facebook, youtube, and twitter on their playing field.

Computers vs. Handheld- Smart Phones- Mobile Learning

I’m not sure that smart phones or handheld devices face the same problems with integration that computers have. One would hope that the problems with integrating computers into classrooms would provide lessons learned for adopting any new technology; although, I’m certainly not 100% confident of that considering the multiple levels of technology related problems in K-12 schools. One of the big problems with handheld devices in K-12 is that many institutions ban their use outright. In that case there could be no adoption. The only kind of adoption would be devices that provide secure lockdown of content. This then necessitates expenditures on technology with a limited use. A number of schools are experimenting with the use of gaming and augmented reality with handheld devices. Leading researchers like Karen Shrier, Chris Dede, MIT Teacher Education, Education Arcade, and Harvard are working together with K-12 schools to create games that provide students with the opportunity to develop critical thinking skills to solve realistic problems in a natural environment.


Mobile- Hand-Helds in Action

One recent example of this is Qualcomm and San Diego Unified School District’s “School in the Park” which began a pilot in May of 2010 of an augmented reality mobile game with students from Rosa Parks and Hamilton elementary schools. The schools sent grade 3-5 students to the "School in the Park" for 8 weeks. Using smart phones, students visit the San Diego Museum of Art and nearby Botanical Building. Students take on the identity of multiple characters and work in pairs to solve problems as part of a Chinese folk tale. With the help of GPS and AR triggers, the students use text messages, video, and email to collaborate with classmates to research art and flowers. According to Maureen Magee, "Qualcomm partnered with the Balboa Park School, in part, to introduce low-income students to cutting-edge technology.” The goal is to help the students learn to use the tools they will need to compete with their more-affluent peers. Initiatives like this could provide the impetus to motivate other schools to integrate the technology.

The difference between adopting the hand held device as noted above and the previous adoption of computers in schools, is that here one would consider the adoption of the device based on its ability to provide real world experience; whereas, in large part the adoption of computers has been to keep up with or catch up to technology.

In colleges today most students have cell phones and an ever-increasing number have smart phones. More and more, smart devices do not need to be provided. They are in the room; their power just has to be tapped into. Next semester, I will be experimenting with the use of QR codes in my classes. This technology costs nothing except the effort to integrate it into the lesson plan. The wireless in the room can be accessed so there would be no network charges for students on their smart phones. In colleges there is an opportunity for a more natural integration of handheld devices.

Pflaum’s Recommendations? Too Little-Too Late

According to Pflaum computer use in the classroom can be divided into- use as teaching machines, Internet portals, test givers and data processors. He believes that students have spent too little time on computers for them to have had an impact on performance. He finds there is a surplus of materials not being used, and that there are problems related to class size, lack of commitment, integration of technology and a focus on standardized tests.
He makes four recommendations:

1. To focus use on students who would benefit most

2. Use computers to align to standards, instruction and assessment.

3. Use computers for test taking.

4. Teach students to use tools but wait until they are ready (p. 198-207)

To me his recommendations are weak, too little and too late. On page 197, he lists a summary of his observations. His last point #11 states, “Computer technology is too complex to be cost-effective for many school uses.” To me this is a defeatist attitude that is just not acceptable. It’s like saying, well we can’t figure out how to use it, so let’s skip the big picture all together and just use it over here and that is precisely what he suggests in his first recommendation. It makes sense to use what you have to help those who are most needy, but to me it is shortsighted to suggest that, that is the best we can do. His point two to use computers to align instruction with curriculum seems logical but not revolutionary. Did we need to read the book to come to that conclusion?

Point 3 makes obvious sense especially because I have been using online testing with my students for 8 years already, and that is at least a few years before he wrote the book. His point four to teach students how to the use the tools but wait until they are ready might also be off given that kids today from birth are watching and very soon interacting with computers. Certainly, like any subject some things must be taught at certain stages, but how much longer will some of the basic things have to be taught? I’ve ranted before about the Sugata Mitra’s Hole in the Wall experiment, but isn’t it time we give kids a chance to try to learn some of the basic things on their own. Put them in a room, and they’ll surprise us, I’m sure.

For Pflaum it seems we should trudge the same old tired path, try to piece together this and that, fix this bit for now and do what we can. He’s not getting to the root of the problem for me. In his list of conclusions at number eight, he mentions standardized testing as problematic. Number eight, are you kidding me? How about number one! I know that maybe that list was not in order, but really --embedded in the middle? The system is broken and from my point of view the systemic insistence on standardized testing is interfering with learning.
That has just got to change.


Disrupting Class- Yes, Please Do!

I felt in familiar territory when on page 185 of Disrupting Class the authors talk about meetings where every one is talking, everyone is an expert but really everyone is talking past each other. I’ve been in many of those meetings, so it was easy for me to buy into the authors’ idea of the importance of creating a common language and a shared framework. Too often people don’t agree on the two dimensions they mention in their chart 8.1 (p.184) It seems hard enough to get teachers and management to agree on what they want and just as hard to agree on what is the cause and effect. When we all agree on a problem and decide on cause and effect we have a chance to work towards solutions.

Christenson, Horn & Johnson place public schools in the lower left quadrant where there is no consensus on either dimension. If we buy into Pflaum’s many examples, these authors are justified in this placement. Schools and the individuals in them were all over the map in what they should do and how best to do it. Within that structure a sustaining innovation only lives within a chaotic framework, and it is not enough.

To create change Christensen et al. suggest that leaders can use power. In some cases it is possible to rip things apart and start over, but in many cases where there are unions that kind of change is not possible. Their alternate solution- separation sounds harsh, but may be effective. It may be better to start up new schools where those who are hired all agree on a common language and framework than to just stay in a broken system where there may never be agreement.

To me the author’s idea of disruptive innovation to create change makes sense. Pflaum would have us march along on a road to nowhere (better). What Disrupting Class offers is a different way of looking at things. Since the release of the book, the authors have written several articles and given many talks. In a talk in elluminate called “Michael Horn Disrupting Class, Web 2.0 and More”, author Horn acknowledges that they didn’t supply all the answers but that what they wanted to do was start a conversation. He stresses the importance of sometimes taking a counter-intuitive approach. He says too, if he were writing the book today, he would have more emphasis on motivation-especially creating intrinsic motivation for learners, including the fun factor. Interesting to me also was his urging to see technology not as just tools but as a process whereby we transform inputs to outputs. Is it possible that if we begin to think of technology as a process that we will stop just buying tools, and instead focus on what we need to do and how best to do it?

References/Resources

Christensen, C., Horn, M., & Johnson, C. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dede, C. (Jan 2, 2009). Immersive Interfaces for engagement and learning, Science Vol 323 (591)66-69.

Pflaum, W. (2004). The technology fix: The promise and reality of computers in our schools. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Gaming in the fourth dimension, University of Pennsylvania, UnivPennsylvania: YouTube. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PYWFgPpM1o

Hamilton, K. (2010). Augmented Reality in Education. Retrieved from http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/Augmented_Reality_in_Education

Handheld augmented reality project (HARP)Harvard. Retrieved from http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=harp

Horn, M. (April 19, 2009). Michael Horn Disrupting Class, Web 2.0 and More, The Future of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.futureofeducation.com/forum/topics/michael-horn-disrupting-class

Horn, M. (2009) Audio of Elluminate Live, Edtechlive. Retrieved from http://audio.edtechlive.com/foe/michaelhorn5-7-09.mp3(MP3 audio)

Klopfer, E.(June 2008). Augmented learning: Research and design of mobile educational games, MIT Press.

Magee, M.( May 19, 2010). Students get hold of augmented reality: Museum, city schools employ smart phones as interactive teaching aids, Sign On San Diego News. Retrieved from http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/may/19/students-get-hold-of-augmented-reality/

Mayer, K. (2010). The Role of Disruptive technology in the future of higher education, Educause Quarterly Volume 33 No.1 http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/TheRoleofDisruptiveTechnologyi/199378

Schrier, K. (2006). Using augmented reality games to teach 21st Century Skills, International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques. Portal. Retrieved from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1179311

Schrier, K. (2007). Games and simulations in online learning: Research and development frameworks. IGI Global.

Schrier, K. (June 31,2006). Student postmortem: Reliving the Revolution, Games Career Guide. Retrieved from http://www.gamecareerguide.com/features/263/student_postmortem_reliving_the_.php

Sugata Mitra: Can kids teach themselves? (Aug 27, 2008) TedTalksDirector:YouTube. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRb7_ffl2D0

Welcome to the MIT STEP's Handheld Augmented Reality Simulations Site, Augmented Reality Games, MIT. Retrieved from http://education.mit.edu/drupal/ar

The Technology Fix and Disrupting Class

Bring on the Revolution

Karen Hamilton June 1, 2010

According to Pflaum in The Technology Fix (2004), the schools illustrated in the first three parts of his book range from good to average in their use of technology. In the mostly low income Part I schools, he sees schools that have strong leadership and focused use of technology. In his Part II, he sees schools in higher income areas that have leadership and commitment and less focus and finally in his Part III schools, he sees schools that have average use of technology but lack focus and may have haphazard faculty and administration commitment.

Commitment
While Part I schools had the advantage of having committed faculty as illustrated by the St Mary’s teachers who put together their own computer labs and therefore understood them, Part III teachers in some cases had teachers who were uncommitted and uncomfortable with technology like the ones at Carter Elementary who found technology over-rated or a distraction.

Money and Technology and a Focused Plan
Part II schools from a superficial glance might have seemed to be the lucky ones with technology and more money, but according to Pflaum their lack of clear and focused plans put them behind when compared to the poorer Part I schools who had focus. Clearly St John’s High School in Part II had a strong and committed leader who wanted to do what was necessary to move technology forward; however, instead of defining a technology plan he and his faculty believed that the introduction of a laptop program would be the catalyst for change. Certainly a laptop for all could be an advantage but it would have faired better if a plan for its integration with curriculum had been planned before its introduction. So although money would seem to be an advantage, it’s really only an advantage when its use is well thought out as part of a plan.

Computers and Usage
While many of the schools had computers, they were not always being used and sometimes their use was less than effective. In more than one case, students rushed through work so they could be rewarded with computer play. At Springdale High in Part II there were plenty of computers but teachers were not knowledgeable to use them. Their newer teachers just out of teacher’s college were unprepared to integrate technology into their classes. Computers that should have been an advantage became a problem for some. In many cases students did not have enough quality time on computers for them to make a difference. According to Donald Clark who refers to Ebbinghaus’ memory research, “The real solution, to this massive problem of forgetfulness, is spaced practice, little and often, the regular rehearsal and practice of the knowledge/skill over a period of time to elaborate and allow deep processing to fix long-term memories. “

Technology Coordinators/Lack of Support/Tech Failure
A disadvantage for many schools was a lack of support for technology and its integration. While many schools had technology coordinators, some had only part-time support and sometimes their coordinators were like the one at Carter Elementary (Part III) who was off that term and was not a certified teacher. Many schools suffered with outdated and inadequate technology, and many had long periods without Internet access.

Professional Development
A huge disadvantage for many schools was a lack of specific professional development. While many did have professional development, it often didn’t focus on how technology could be integrated into the curriculum and it was given as more of an afterthought than part of a clear plan. Some teachers in Part II and III seemed to use technology to just do the same old things; PowerPoints were glorified overheads, and one teacher sent emails with assignments to students while she sat in front of the class. Professional development that linked the technology to the curriculum could have helped. Clearly most of the schools had not allocated 30% of the technology budget on professional development as many recommend. (Whitehead, p. xiii)

Teaching/Learning Philosophy/Methods
Most of the schools took a traditional look at how they approached teaching and learning; however, one school seemed to have a more visionary approach. Part III’s Academy City took a constructivist approach using project-based learning. As the school’s demographics changed, they were forced to adopt more traditional methods to try to meet state standardized tests. Some schools like Lambert Elementary in Part III made no bones about the fact that tests were their driving force (p. 156) As a high performance school, Lambert teachers like many other school’s teachers didn’t know how technology related to performance but they knew parents liked it. According to Pflaum, this was an example of style over substance. While parents and state might find an advantage in a school like Lambert because of its test results, others might find a school like that a disadvantage.

Parents/Community
Committed and interested parents would certainly be an advantage, and sometimes it seemed that teachers catered to them by having young students create PowerPoint presentations for teacher nights. Again the focus seemed more on the tool than the content and how the parents would react. In many cases schools were not focused on how the technology could facilitate learning.

Standardized Tests
The pressures of state standardized tests seemed to be a disadvantage to all teachers except maybe for Lambert teachers who seemed to be proud of teaching to the test. Most all of the schools had to spend considerable time preparing and drilling students for these tests. Schools like City Academy tried to do something different but were forced to fall in line with reality and at least partly teach to the tests. These pressures lead to problems with “time.”Teachers were forced to stick to strict curriculum guidelines which certainly led to less creative methods of delivery and less time to integrate technology into the curriculum.
Overall advantages are a well thought out plan with vision; an interdisciplinary team approach to planning; committed teachers, management, and community; learning/technology coordinators; adequate funding; appropriate space and facilities suitable for technology integration; a student centered approach; appropriate professional development; integrated use of technology, reliable and appropriate software, hardware and systems and support.

A Collectively Defined Job Description?
Planning for Technology (p.166) includes a chart called a “Collectively Defined Job Description.” The chart includes things you want to do, things you want input on, and things to delegate or coordinate. Stage 1 begins with a team that includes visionaries, people on site, troubleshooters and people to delegate to. When looking at the schools in Part 1-3, it’s hard to see clear examples of this first stage. Perhaps the school in Part II Sunset Hills High that was in a planning process and not yet built might fall into this category. But since it was only in the planning stages it would be hard to say what it would become. Step two and three in stage 1 is to define a technology plan and to communicate priorities to others.Perhaps some of the schools in Part I of the Technology Fix had done this but with the sometimes cursory look that the author takes, it’s hard to tell.
Clearly from my vantage point there is no one school that I can confidently say fits the Collectively Defined Job Description. It’s rather like looking for the ideal spouse and trying to say I’ll take this quality from here and that quality from here and this one here and put them together. In defense of all the schools, I’d say that the first problem isn’t even always them. It’s the larger system that creates a culture dependent on testing. Even if a school were to perfectly fit into the Collectively Defined Job Description, I’m sure it would be good but how great can it be when the focus of the controlling group is numbers and standardized test scores? There is much debate in Canadian schools about standardized testing, but the use of standardized tests is limited compared to the testing in the US. (see Coutts, 2009)

Reform, Evolution, Revolution, Disruptive Innovation
While Pflaum suggests that computers may move schools toward change, he believes that the change will be evolutionary not revolutionary. (p. 86) Others believe that we need more than an evolution.


Sir Ken Robinson in his 2010 Ted Talk, “Bring on the Revolution!” says that reform is not enough. What we need is a revolution. He believes that schools need to create conditions that encourage students’ natural talents and to do this there must be a shift away from standardized schools and towards personalized learning. Christensen, Horn & Johnson in Disrupting Class believe that what is necessary is disruptive innovation. Disruptive innovation shakes the status quo to create a new paradigm; it may initially lack refinement and appeal to a small audience. Opposite of disruptive innovation is sustaining innovation that seeks to improve what exists within a current framework.
Although both Pflaum and Christensen et al. agree that computers haven’t really changed classrooms very much, they take two different perspectives on how change should or will take place. The changes that Pflaum proposes in his final chapter, clearly fit within the current structures and would be considered sustaining innovation. There is no doubt that institutions need to have a focused plan, committed management and faculty and the support necessary to implement change. He recommends focusing computer use on those who would benefit most; using computers to align instruction to standards; using computers for testing; teaching students to use productivity tools when they are ready and coordinate this across grade levels. But is Pflaum’s answer here enough? How much longer, do schools need to teach computer basics when most students have already been using them since early childhood. And if students need instruction, why not do as Sugata Mitra did with his “Hole in the Wall” experiment, put them in a room and let them at it themselves. Pflaum’s suggestions are possibly good, predictable really, but what overall impact will they have if the system they are in is broken? His suggestions sustain the system.

To Christensen, Horn & Johnson, schools’ use of computers “has been perfectly predictable, perfectly logical –and perfectly wrong.” (73) The implementation of technology has not disrupted the “entrenched forces within the organization.” The implementations have fit neatly inside the current system and they do not address the market they need to serve-students. While Pflaum accepts standardization and recommends computers being used as tools and instruction focused on those who need it most, Christensen, Horn & Johnson seek customization and would have computers being used in a personalized way as an instructional delivery method for different intelligence types. They want to move away from the idea of computer use as just another activity centre with games that supplement learning. (p.82) They recommend gradually implementing computer-based learning where there are no teachers “in small, rural, and urban schools that are unable to offer breadth, in remedial courses for students who must retake courses in order to graduate, with homeschooled students and those who can't keep up with the regular schedule of school, and for those who need tutoring”. (Christenson & Horn, Edutopia). They believe this disruption will lead to more student centric classrooms. They even see a time when students will begin to create their own learning software. Their concept is very appealing, but I’m not totally sold on the singular focus on multiple intelligences. Even if we all have these tendencies to learn in certain ways, does it mean that we should only focus on the strong ones? Should we not try to shore up the weak ones too? Won’t we be faced with a “real world.” that has all these things? And doesn’t the online environment already appeal to many ways of learning when it is done well?

As I read the description of a disruptive technology as one that had limited appeal and offers an alternative that is not perfect, and considered online courses, I had an Ah ha moment. Many early and some current examples of online courses certainly seem flawed. Over time though I have seen how many have become engaging and interactive. In my division at my college, I’ve seen the number of offerings in our small general education school division increase from a few to 45 in two years. These courses are disrupting the status quo as those who do not teach them speak out in meetings about how wrong headed the online movement is.At the same time I am hearing quite the opposite from students. In the past, one big complaint has been that the drop out rate from online courses was significantly higher than face-to-face. The gap between the two has now narrowed and the impact of online education is significant. (Learning on Demand, 2009) Could this movement online in higher ed. be the disruption that Christensen, Horn & Johnson predict? Will it happen in k-12?
Maybe.

I’m up for a revolution and a little disruption sounds like a very good thing.
I’m with Sir Ken--Bring on the learning revolution!

P.S. Pflaum certainly suggests that technology is not enough and that commitment and a plan are necessary. But isn't that just the usual thing you would tell any organization to make it better? For me Pflaum's stuff is easy listening kind of Kenny G elevator music, while Christenson, Horn and Johnson are more Sex Pistol's or Hendrix..talkin about a disruptive revolution!

I like revolution.."Hasta la victoria, siempre!"

References
Christensen, C., Horn, M., & Johnson, C. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Christensen, C., Horn, M. (Aug, 2008). Disrupting class: Student-Centric education is the future, Edutopia. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/student-centric-education-technology

Clark, D. (May 28, 2010). 10 Techniques to massively increase retention, Donald Clark Plan B. Retrieved from http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.com/2010/05/10-techniques-to-massively-increase.html

Coutts, M. (Jan 16, 2009). Debate flares over British Columbia’s standardized school testing,

National Post. Retrieved from http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1186580

Creating a new culture of teaching and learning. On Alan November (May 2010) Dialogue Online. Retrieved from http://www.dialogueonline.ca/article.php?id=166

Disruptive Technology, (May 11, 2010). Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology

Learning on Demand: Online Education in the United States. (2009). Sloan Org. Retrieved from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/learning_on_demand_sr2010

Pflaum, W. (2004). The technology fix: The promise and reality of computers in our schools. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Robinson, K. (May 2010). Sir Ken Robinson: Bring on the learning revolution!, Ted.com. Retrievd from http://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_bring_on_the_revolution.html

Sugata Mitra: Can kids teach themselves? (Aug 27, 2008) TedTalksDirector:YouTube. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRb7_ffl2D0

Whitehead, B., Jenson, D., & Boshee, F. (2004) Planning for technology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Technology is Not Enough!

It's Just Not Enough

By Karen Hamilton, May 23, 2010

If I had to summarize what author William Pflaum is saying in Part II of his book The Technology Fix, it would be simply that --technology is not enough. A Google search of the phrase “technology is not enough” yielded 141,000,000 results in 0.10 seconds. It appears that this mantra is a popular one not just in education but in many fields. The fact that those results were retrieved in 0.10 seconds speaks volumes. We (teachers) and our students have access to a surplus of information and many of us have the technology to get it that fast. But how do we as teachers guide our students to use technology? How do we use new technology to promote, enhance and facilitate learning?

According to Pflaum’s Part II: Commitment, Less Focus, the answer is --not that well. The schools in this section had students from families with above average income. They had the resources and the leadership but their efforts fell short because they did not focus their technology on specific goals. (p. 57)

The most glaring example of a lack of focus was St John’s High School who seemed to have everything with laptops for all, an introductory technology course, a media centre, electronic books and online testing. Superficially the set-up sounds great and not dissimilar to what is available at my college (GBC). St John’s was plagued with the usual issues. Even though they had the great technology, teachers still had to focus on materials that would be on state tests, and they seemed to use technology to project the same materials that they would have written on old-fashioned boards. The principal Jim was an enthusiastic leader who believed in change and he asked his staff what an ideal environment would be. When they answered laptops, he obliged. His idea was to use “technology as a catalyst for change.” (p.66) To me this is a lot like throwing stuff at the wall to see which will stick. There was no real plan here about how the technology could enhance the learning; the technology was supposed to be the solution when really it should have been an integrated part of an overall plan. Teachers at the school struggled with how to configure their classes so that students wouldn’t use their laptops during class for other things. One teacher had students face away from him while he talked so he could view their screens and some teachers strained to figure out how to have students use the laptops because they had them.

Technology as a Catalyst?
Several years ago a college I know introduced a new degree program. A new building was about to be built for this program and the leaders wanted to be technologically relevant. Not unlike St John’s, they decided that a Laptop program was “the answer.” The faculty who were about to teach in this new program had varying levels of skills with technology- generally from low to none. It appeared that a building was designed by those who didn't teach and a laptop program was created for teachers uncomfortable with technology. The teachers were “told” that they would now at minimum use the Learning Management System. From what I know, some still only post their outlines while overtime others have begun to use more technology. A lot like St John’s, it seems that technology was being seen as a catalyst for change. A some colleges it doesn't look like the technology is the catalyst; however, I think there often are lessons learned. At my college  there is a new initiative underway to create a centre for Inter-professional Health and with it a new waterfront campus. Reading about the high school under construction Sunset Hills High School in the Western Hills District reminded me of this new undertaking. At Sunset teachers are involved with planning and their attitude is that “technology will be a service to what we do in school not an add-on” (p 93) Like my college's inter-professional health, Sunsets approach would be interdisciplinary and teachers are involved with the planning. Both look hopeful.

As to the question of if I am aware of other schools that operate like the ones in this section, I have to admit I don’t have that much experience in schools other the colleges I know about. I have taken online courses and done evaluations of online courses given at international institutions and do find similarities there. In the online environment there is a wide variety of courses, teachers and technology. In higher education, online courses obviously use technology but in some cases they are merely correspondence courses. When looking for a school for an online Master’s program, I was told about one of the largest in Canada that has a fairly good reputation. However, it didn’t make my short list when I discovered the lack of technology that they used in their program about technology. In online courses the experience varies: One teacher may use a learning management system minimally and may be barely able to turn on her/his computer while another knows everything about everything in technology and knows how to make the technology truly enhance the learning.

Technology Coordinator
All of the schools in Part II had a technology coordinator, and that would seem to be an advancement. I wonder though if there is something in the name “technology coordinator” that separates rather than brings together teaching, learning and technology. In all the schools except one, it was a full time position. I wonder if it isn’t better if a coordinator is also currently teaching. In my job at the college, it’s important for me to stay in the classroom as well as be involved with teacher technology training. To me, that keeps me grounded in learning.

Who Owns the Learning?
In May 2009, Alan November, a leader in education technology, spoke at the CAIS Best Practices conference in Montreal. He recommended that schools “retire the technology committee and establish an information planning committee.” He feels that the benefit of the Internet and computers is finding and sharing information. For him technology should be about relationship building, connection, and shared wisdom. He asks the question who owns the learning and suggests that teachers should relinquish control and instead of pushing information on students allow them to contribute and create. (Creating a New Culture) If we look at the schools in Part II, we see technology being used to push information.

What is New Technology?
A teacher uses PowerPoint, posts notes online, sends emails. Is that technology from a student’s view of view? How different is PowerPoint from the use of an overhead projector? How new is any of that especially if it is just the old stuff posted in a different format?

What Needs to be Taught?
From my point of view, there are things that don’t need to be taught. Maybe they have to be presented in a forum where students will experience them. Sugata Mitra, a proponent of what he calls Minimally Invasive Education, in his now famous “Hole in the Wall” experiment placed a computer with Internet in a hole in the wall in the middle of an Indian slum. He found that kids who had never seen a computer or the Internet learned how to use both on their own. Do we still need to teach students some of these basics?

The Generation Speaks
In my quest to find a wider view of what is going on in other colleges and universities, I stumbled upon a YouTube video by young Dan Brown. In his video An Open Letter to Educators, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P2PGGeTOA4 ( see embed below) he asks why he should spend hundreds of dollars on textbooks when there is better information on the Internet. His classes at the University of the Nebraska consisted of professors in front of class with PowerPoints presenting facts and his grades were based on how many facts he could remember for the tests. He questions:

“What has education done to reinvent itself? In my experience, nothing. Sure you’ve started using email, online databases, services like Blackboard and if this were 1999, I’d be saying-Great, but it’s not 1999 and if institutional education wants to survive in the information age, then institutional education needs to do more than just adopt a few new tools….education isn’t about facts. It’s about stoking creativity and new ideas. It’s not about teaching students how to conform to the world as it is. It’s about empowering students to change the world for the better.”

Two weeks before he made the video he dropped out of school because “school was interfering in his education.”


Technology is not enough


References

An open letter to educators. (Feb 22, 2010). Dan Brown Pogobat:YouTube. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P2PGGeTOA4

Creating a new culture of teaching and learning. On Alan November (May 2010) Dialogue Online. Retrieved from http://www.dialogueonline.ca/article.php?id=166

Dads-space.com: Slumdog Millionaire’ Inspiration Sugata Mitra (Feb 27, 2009). DadsSpace: YouTube. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYfZx6pctQg

Pflaum, W. (2004). The technology fix: The promise and reality of computers in our schools. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Sugata Mitra: Can kids teach themselves? (Aug 27, 2008) TedTalksDirector:YouTube. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRb7_ffl2D0

Who Owns the learning-Alan November http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=929307666112123725#

The Technology Fix

Karen Hamilton May 17, 2010

Reflections on Technology

The five schools in Part 1 of the Technology Fix (2004) from author William Pflaum’s point of view illustrate American schools that have strong leadership and focused use of technological resources. Mostly the K-12 schools’ cultures include students from low income and not necessarily diverse backgrounds. Some of the schools use analysis of performance data.

In many respects the culture of my college, in Toronto Canada is quite different from those presented in Part 1. My college is a large downtown city college spread across five campus locations. Like the city of Toronto, the make-up of the student body is extremely diverse. Post secondary students come from many cultures and economic backgrounds studying in many different faculties to obtain certificates, diplomas and degrees. Because of this diversity of programs, it is difficult to categorize the overall culture of the college. Management and their view and understanding of technology differs within faculties. In this overview, the best I can do is reflect on the culture within my division, a division I am partly seconded to. I'll  use these two to share  my view of how those divisions experience the overall administration of the college.

In the American K-12 system, it is apparent that there is a lot of focus on preparing students for standardized tests. At my college, students take programs that have standards and outcomes. A small number of students after completing programs go on to complete standardized tests in their particular fields. The area I teach is general education so there are no standardized tests but all courses must have approved outcomes. One of the jobs of a college teacher is to develop curriculum and to ensure that students meet outcomes. Within that framework teachers have much more latitude in the ways that they do their jobs compared to prescribed K-12 education. While the college as a whole seeks to be forward leaning in technology, it would be easy to find teachers who are decidedly high tech and those who are low tech within the same division and even teaching the same course.

Like some of the K-12 schools in Part 1, my college does use analysis of performance data. Since 1998, Ontario colleges have used Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to measure the following: graduate satisfaction, student satisfaction, employer satisfaction, employment rate and graduation rate. (http://www.collegesontario.org/outcomes/key-performance-indicators.html )

As well every semester students complete evaluations for every class/teacher. The data is used to make improvements to programs and systems and is used as a basis for college funding.

Overall, I would say that the college has strong leadership and somewhat focused use of technological resources. The reason I say “somewhat” is that there is an intention to be forward in the use of technology, but in some cases as in any organization it can be the perception that the wrong people make decisions on technology. The word technology does not mean the same thing to everyone. At my college almost all classrooms are what we call “smart classrooms”- they have Internet access, desktop computer and /or laptop hookups and multimedia capability. We have dedicated computer rooms for classes that need computers and we have computer-testing labs for online testing on all campuses.

The college supports and encourages the use of Blackboard for all of its Post Secondary programs and we have a division that supports technology. This division is separate from but does have a relation to the Division that looks after overall professional development in the college. The professional development department has a slightly different view of what technology is. For example, on the PD calendar we see an over abundance of workshops on the use of Microsoft Office. It’s just my viewpoint here but really- isn’t that a little old and basic? It seems to me that the colleges sometimes adopt something new that is really old. For example if a college is just now introducing a student email system is that new or old?  Another example is wireless technology. While a college has some rooms with wireless access other rooms and buildings have partial access or none. Sometimes the people who make the decisions about what is necessary are not the users of the technology. I have a colleague who is an IT teacher at a college. He has been in a constant battle to have his classrooms equipped for the wireless network program. Finally, he gave up the fight and just set up his own network in the rooms he teaches in. At my college a new water front campus is being built and many are happy to see that the whole building is being designed with faculty input and will have complete state of the art technology and be wireless throughout. It is really a mixed bag. It seems that the colleges that I know are always running to catch up.

St. Mary’s Elementary school would seem to have little in common with my  large and diverse  College. There are many buildings that make up the college, but the building at 200 King Street is the oldest and probably my favorite. In many respects the description of St Mary’s was not dissimilar to my building. My building is in an historic area of Toronto where the first settlers to Toronto set up. The building was a former Cookie factory. Over the years the building has been renovated again and again but it retains its old world charm even though all the classrooms are so-called “smart “classrooms.

At St. Mary’s the technology is due to the teachers’ dedication in working together to set up a computer lab. The lab was set up with a mix of what was available, so teachers felt real ownership and found ways to get money to do what they needed. In a large college it would be rare to find teachers who would be allowed to do something like that. Teachers can lobby for the acquisition of certain technology but it’s definitely a more complicated and layered process. One example of a group of teachers who lobbied to get a lab created at my college would be the online teaching lab. About eight years ago, I piloted online computer testing with one of my classes. Together with the help of the innovations division we developed an online testing policy and wrote a report on the success of the project. In turn that division sought funds to enlarge their computer-testing lab. The result is a large facility at my campus and testing labs at all the large campuses. There is a core of teachers who believe in technology to facilitate learning who use the testing labs. The common element in these two examples is dedicated teachers willing to try new technology and work beyond their job descriptions.

At St Mary’s every teacher has a laptop. This is similar to my college. Full time faculty have a choice of either a desktop computer or a laptop. Unfortunately, the college mandates a certain brand and kind of computer. In our world it is more likely that teachers have diverse needs and everybody with the same type of computer doesn’t make sense. It seems that in the college environment for anything different to happen, a person has to prove, then beg, and then make deals to get something different. To get my school MacBook Pro, I worked to create podcasts with faculty, promoted my division with a podcast created on a Mac and then made an agreement with two divisions to split the cost of the laptop. St Mary’s teachers have free Internet at home that was arranged by a parent in the computer business. In a small school dedicated teachers can do things like this.

Computers at St Mary’s are demystified because it is the teachers who put them together. At my college you will find a wide range of technological skills among teachers. As a techie, I sometimes don’t realize how little some other teachers use technology. It’s usually the students who tell what goes on or doesn’t go on in other classes, or a walk by of on-going classes or in divisional meetings where the usual arguments pop up. Sadly it seems some of us have to fight to promote the use of technology. In every school there seems to be a Luddite group who will grab onto any negative example to justify their non-use of technology. So it’s definitely not like St. Mary’s where the principal says,” Get on the train or get off.” (Pflaum, 17) Although, I’m sure the chair in my division would like to say that; she can’t. In colleges once someone has a real full time job, it’s rare that he/she would leave. College professors have academic freedom that K-12 teachers don’t have. As much of a proponent of technology that I am, I can’t say that the non-tech using teachers are all bad. Some I know are great teachers. However, when someone is teaching in an area that will require students to use up-to-date technology, it’s my belief that the teacher should model that.

In K-12 schools like St Mary’s it looks like most have dedicated computer rooms and sometimes a select number of computers in rooms. At my college either a class is a room full of desktops, or it’s a smart room where students may or may not have wireless access and laptops that they bring to class. In my classes I often have students with their own laptops. Some of my colleagues are horrified that students have cell phones and laptops in their classes. I welcome technology. My students often point out websites or videos during a lesson that illustrate points I’m making in class. Like the good teachers at St Mary’s, good teachers at my collegeuse technology to complement the learning. For some teachers however a lack of facility with technology makes technology a problem rather than an asset.

I laughed when I read the St Mary’s teachers say, “We want them to understand that just because something is on the Internet doesn’t make it true…We want them to be critical thinkers.” I think all good teachers have this goal in common.

So even though it appears that a small elementary school does not have much in common with a large community college, the struggle to achieve a high standard of learning is similar. Change isn’t easy and making a difference takes work.

In the introduction to The Technology Fix, Pflaum talks about how Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point got him thinking about what would be the tipping point for technology to thrive in classrooms. Coincidentally, Gladwell was in Toronto this past week and Tanya Talaga of the Toronto Star wrote about his talk to a Liberal conference, The Big Think. (To see the full speech see the Vimeo link below)

Thought provoking as usual, Gladwell did not disappoint. Gladwell tells the audience, “I know that from time to time there is a lot of interest in the power and importance of reducing class size but the data shows class size is the biggest dead end in the world,” This was not what the convention wanted to hear.

But the larger point that Gladwell makes is that changing teacher quality is what impacts student outcomes.

“If a child is unlucky enough to have a bad teacher three years in a row they will fall three years behind a child lucky enough to have a good teacher three years in a row.”
The question is how do you improve the quality of teachers, Gladwell said. Raising academic requirements isn't the simple answer. Teaching is complicated in this modern world, he said.
“We are asking them to play six, seven, eight different roles in the classroom. The best thing we can do for teachers is to simply let them teach. That requires a government that is activist ... that is not afraid to try something radically new,” he said.
In the above statement, Gladwell is not talking about technology but he is making a point that is being made in the first five chapters of the Technology Fix. How do we get quality teachers? From my point of view they have to be supported by their management, encouraged to learn about and understand the technology they are to use.

Where teachers use technology to complement their teaching, when teachers are not servants to technology, when teachers really care and are engaged, and when management is supportive, technology’s use is meaningful and successful.

But it does all start with an inspired educator.



References

Colleges Ontario-Key performance indicators, Colleges Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.collegesontario.org/outcomes/key-performance-indicators.html

Keynote Address Part 2- Malcom Gladwell (May 14, 2010) Collingwood Conference 2010. Vimeo. Retrieved from http://vimeo.com/11771860

Pflaum, W. (2004). The technology fix: The promise and reality of computers in our schools. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Talaga, T. (May 16, 2010). ‘Class size is the biggest dead end in the world,’ writer tells provincial Liberal think-tank, Toronto Star, Parent Central. Retrieved from http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/education/article/810122--class-size-is-the-biggest-dead-end-in-the-world-writer-tells-provincial-liberal-think-tank