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.