The Britannica blog is hosting a conversation about Web 2.0 in education, and Steve Hargadon argues that the technologies will make a huge impact on the future or learning while Daniel Willingham says not so fast. Both posts are very well done and provide a measured starting point for the discussion. What I found really interesting though was Willingham’s take on the potential for project based learning in these environments compared to the potentials that we’ve been trying to realize in traditional classrooms. Importantly, I think, he says:
Hargadon is clear-eyed in his list of challenges to making Web 2.0 an important part of K-12 education, but I think he underestimates the seriousness of his third point, “Teachers will need time and training to use these tools in the classroom.â€
There has been an enormous push to leverage technology in K-12 education in the last decade. The costs in infrastructure, personnel, training, and ongoing access are difficult to pin down, but conservative estimates are in the billions each year.
Why has technology not revolutionized teaching, but rather been a series of “computer fads,†in Hargadon’s term, and an all-around disappointment?
At least part of the reason is that, despite expenditures, support has been inadequate. For example, support personnel tend not to be specialized, although the technology needs of the English teacher are different than those of the Science teacher. If still more money were spent, would that alleviate the problem? It might solve the technology problem, but the inherent difficulty of executing project-based learning well would remain.
Especially when attempting to infuse project-based learning using Web 2.0 tools. As Willingham points out, project based pedagogies are more complex, require more planning, and aren’t as easily aligned to standards as more traditional teaching methods. Throw in some transformative technologies and…
Unless of course you have teachers who “get” the potentials of the technologies and can draw on their own practice to guide their pedagogy, which I still think is the most important answer we need to find in this conversation. How do we help teachers get to that point where using project-based pedagogies (when appropriate and when more effective than other pedagogies) in Web rich environments is as natural as picking up a piece of chalk?
On that note, I have to agree with one of the commentors on the Willingham post, David Zuckerman:
Proceeding from Shirky’s dictum that, “Social tools don’t create collective action – they merely remove the obstacles to it,†I would argue that Ed2.0 needs to concentrate now on the teachers, not the students, and among the corpus of teachers, focus ONLY on those who want to try to make some change, the “early adapters†if you will. The others, some of them, will follow along in due course or they will not; but the enterprise moves forward on the energy of its best players, not on continued, and boring, Soviet-like efforts to lift everyone at once by dint of big meetings where All Teachers are obligated to come so they can receive some hours of poor teaching practice (being talked at, mostly) in the evident expectation (still!?) that somehow, this experience, the lead, will be transmuted into gold.
A bit harsh, maybe, but to the point. Inherent in that statement and in Willingham’s post is the idea that we have to think differently about how we do professional development. The drive by trainings for every teacher are not the answer. We should be investing in those who do show an appetite for learning, for risk-taking, for reflective practice.
Lots more in those posts to mull over…
Is it possible that thrid parties could play a role here? Rather than putting the responsibility on the teacher/school, which in most cases are overburdened to begin with, how about make use of others within their local (or not so local, for that matter) communities to bridge the divide? That way, all you really need to do is teach the children, not the teachers, how to use the technology, and THAT, my friend, is much more likely to work.
As an example of what I’m referring to, I have a website that is a collaborative writing site using Wiki technology. I am attempting to work with schools to be a resource for collaborative projects, whether writing projects or otherwise. I am freely offering my time and expertise (such as it is :D) to encourage their adoption of the concept. I think there are others like me who would be willing to do so as well, knowing that our children have to be equipped with these skills as they progress through school and beyond.
But we need to be talking about this for sure…keep it up.
Cheers! Jeb
Very interesting post.
Web 2.0 tools are potentially revolutionary in terms of accelerating the frequency and depth of cognitive activity on the part of students. Anyone even casually engaged in the social media world is aware of this fact.
The stumbling blocks are cultural and economic.
The priorities of organizations are made visible by what they spend money and time on. Economically, most public school districts are optimized to be custodial day care but with an educational component. Teacher time is maximized over as many students for as many minutes as possible to acheive cost savings, not learning outcomes. Better school districts, financially and philosophically, compromise between the two goals. We have a few – very few – flagship educational instutions that really do try to systematically maximize learning – generally lab schools and places like the Illinois Math & Science Academy. Or at the postsecondary level, Caltech, U. of Chicago, MIT and so on.
If your system strives for cost savings, investing deeply in teacher training is economically counterproductive; with a large enough staff, given exposure to a new technology or skill, some teachers will always master it on their own time. Public education can reap quite a bit of quantifiable benefits from free-riding on it’s employees exploitation in a way we probably wouldn’t risk as a society with the justice or medical systems. Our continuing to do so with education keeps the system from being truly professionalized with genuinely high standards.
The other problem is cultural. Teachers are primarily isolated from one another and risk averse and will remain so as long as schools operate as 20th century bureaucratic and hierarchical institutions. New ideas require room to experiment (freedom), time and incentives. I sat recently with a group of school administrators being introduced to concepts that would help them shape the culture of their school or district. Repeatedly, to the growing exasperation of the presenter, several of them kept twisting the program toward a way to play “gotcha!” with their staff and catch them doing something wrong and administer a punishment (about 180 degrees away from the program’s intent). People like this are part of the problem – can you see them encouraging their techers to have the students blog ? Where parents or the community can see it ? Share ideas on a wiki ? The mere thought would give them anxiety attacks.
As a society we need to think systemically and realistically about education, the inputs and outputs, objectives and costs with the expectation that there are no sacred cows and no free lunches.
Nice analysis, and a familiar narrative in terms of the approach that many school leaders have around this. There is a level of safety net support that is crucial to allowing teachers to expand their pedagogical choices, one that can only be provided by a practical understanding of that pedagogy. Thanks for the comment.
Wow!
This is why my company exists. Personal learning networks, Web 2.0 in education, etc. are not sufficient.
We need to discuss the role of technology in education in the context of the entire IT environment – servers; infrastructure; desktop support; budgeting; professional development; etc.
Thanks for the great post Will!!
Feedback we’ve received at both the school and district level points most dramatically to the need for PD. Yes, infrastructure and user support is necessary to deliver these tools to the classroom, but teachers are also looking for support outside the classroom, and not necessarily requiring an investment in a formal learning environment.
I don’t believe investing, at any depth, in teacher training could ever be counterproductive, economically or otherwise, especially given the number of free or low-cost services available online. Agree with zenpundit that outdated or over-reactive cultural barriers exist preventing educators from finding or using these tools in the classroom. We shouldn’t have to work around these folks, so we need to find a way to solve this problem. We’ll need a new thread on “How to Influence the Adminstrator.”
Personally, I plan to work with my school’s parents club to mobilize the parents in engaging with the more progressive teachers.
I don’t think Zuckerman’s comment is “harsh” at all. We have all sat in on those types of shot-in-the-dark “professional development” opportunities that he describes. We all know those teachers who attend because they are forced to… and they sit there correcting student work or balancing their checkbook. We all know those teachers who attend professional conferences because they love to shop or hang out, eat out, skip the keynotes, and generally have a good time. We all know those teachers who connive their way to getting the new “tech stuff” first just because they want to make sure that they don’t miss out… and then end up doing nothing with it. These are not the teachers that are going to help sustain real change. They are not interested in real change. They need a “tough love” approach and professional development “boot camp” style of approach. I am not saying that my own harsh description is representative of all teachers my any means. But if we are going to invest in teachers, we should first invest in those who are willing to make investments themselves. It must be reciprocal. Otherwise, we end up with out Wall Street economic collapse type of system where too many folks are stealing opportunity from the ones who truly want and need it most.
Sorry if I come across “harsh”, but this coddling of teachers has been going on for far too long.
Thanks for the comment Steve. I agree that we need to identify those that invest in themselves first. And the reality is, they are not that hard to pick out. I could surely have told you who they were when I was a classroom teacher and an administrator at my old school. They took risks, had initiative, and shared widely. They were obvious.
Britannica Blog is tightly censored. Reader comments incompatible with its commercial or ideological proclivities are excluded. Boycott Britannica censorship.
I just wrote a posting on my personal website at http://www.calvin.edu/~dsc8/, entitled, “Up on the soapbox”. In that posting I address some topics that you all are addressing here.
********************
My take on things? It’s not working. The whole educational system is quickly becoming outdated and unable to keep up with the quickening pace of change and the rising bar of students’ expectations. Speaking of expectations, we in the higher ed world have some expectations that are no longer feasible, given the changes that have been and still are occurring.
That is, colleges and universities expect their faculty members to:
— Know their disciplines
— Keep up with the latest news and developments within their disciplines
— Teach classes
— Meet with students to help them along with their learning as well as to advise them
— Create engaging content and exercises
— Adjust their courses for an ever-changing set of students (demographically-speaking)
— Develop fair, challenging and appropriate assessments
— Do their research
— Publish their findings
— Modify their courses along the way as necessary
— Manage TA’s
— Chair departments
— Take part in various committees and projects
but also to
— Keep up with an ever-increasing pace of technological change; often this means trying to find the patience to listen to those pesky folks (like me) from IT knocking on the door again and probably thinking to themselves, “What is it this time?!” or “How long will this one last?!”
— Be interested in learning about, and then using, such technologies
— Find ways to meet rising student expectations while keeping students engaged and motivated to learn. This is not a small task! Students have increasingly grown up around a media-rich environment and are used to extremely well-done –but costly to produce — media.
— Effectively implement teaching with technology into various teaching environments — face-to-face, hybrid, or online classrooms and to do so with command of the various – and every changing – tools and technologies coming down the pike (here’s just one illustration of that).
That is a lot to ask any one faculty member or teacher to do!
Not surprisingly, the majority of faculty members at colleges and universities are not able to do it all by themselves. Granted, there are some exceptions within higher ed as well as within the K-12 environment. For example, take the work being done by Jonathan Bergmann and Aaron Sams. These two chemistry teachers at Woodland Park High School in Colorado have turned the normal ways of teaching and learning on their heads by implementing technologies relating to podcasting. Now their students listen to their lectures at home and come prepared to do their hands-on work and ask questions in their face-to-face classrooms. Students are more in control of their learning this way, as they engage with the materials with a bit more flexibility in terms of control – doing so on their own schedules and terms. They can fast forward through the parts they already know, and replay parts of the lectures that they do not understand. If questions come up, they can ask their teachers in class; thus, maximizing the value of their face-to-face time.
But overall, most teachers and faculty members are not technologically savvy enough to pull this off. It’s not that they couldn’t — they are extremely bright people (and brighter than me that’s for sure)! Yet the way most colleges and universities are set up, the expectations are that they will be able to do all of these things. Resources have been set up to help assist the faculty members, but lack of incentives as well as full job plates (as alluded to above) often keep faculty members on the sidelines here.
Meanwhile, some of the other relevant players — such as those of us folks in the IT/technical areas — are focused on sorting through the vast array of tools and technologies, separating the wheat from the chaff; and then trying to select, implement, train, and support the faculty members on the use of these technologies. We can not know the content of all of the disciplines that we support. So we are forced to become generalists, and generalists not only in technology, but also in areas that we get called into, such as: pedagogy, instructional design, graphic design, web design, systems administration, programming, copyright, interface design, media creation, plagiarism and many more systems-related projects.
So this is why I say that we need teams, as no one can do all the required pieces anymore!
So where does that leave us? It leaves us with change.
It leaves us with developing partnerships. It leaves us with inviting all of the necessary parties to the table (and making room for more parties as need be in the future). There are now many more seats to fill at the teaching and learning table. So some remodeling might be necessary to make room for some bigger tables.
It leaves us with faculty needing to let go of the steering wheels — or at least allowing others to:
— Drive somewhere along the journey
— Relay directions from the passengers’ front seat on which way the road is about to turn
— Bring up a Mapquest- or AAA-type of service to see where the road constructions are ahead
It leaves us with creating better standards for sharing information, so any content management system can access any other system or learning objects repository– worldwide. That content needs to be accessible 24x7x365. It needs to be playable on PCs, Macs, mobile devices and hopefully on the next generation of mobile communication devices most likely to come our way within the next 1-2 years.
It leaves us with figuring out how to pay and protect the people who created the materials — even if it’s just pennies per access/download.
It means that more campuses will need to create collaborative spaces where teams of people can get together and create content that will be standards-based (and will hopefully be playable for more than the next 5 years). I recommend personnel with:
— Subject matter expertise
— Instructional design experience
— Project management experience
— Graphic design backgrounds
— Web design skills
— Expertise in digital audio and/or digital video
— Programming skills
— Business relationship managements skills for working with other teams from publishers
Given the significant investments to create these sorts of teams and engaging content, a couple of key questions come up:
— How can we afford to do this?
I believe via the growth of consortiums and pooling our resources.
— How long will that content be “playable”?
Hmmm…I’m not sure…perhaps there will be groups devoted to converting learning objects from one format to another; sort of like taking media from an 8 track player to a cassette to a CD to a DVD to a…
It also leaves us with constantly scanning the future for what’s coming down the pike — using the tools that Gary Marx (2006) discusses in his book, Future Focused Leadership:
— A modified Delphi Process:
– Use groups of advisors/councils — community leaders, gov’t, business, educators, etc.
– Tap into the genius of people; listen to people; incorporate their ideas (which increases ownership)
— Scenario planning, which includes:
– Looking at what we would like to have happen and then try to figure out how to create that future
– Looking at the plausible pictures of our futures, which makes the “elephants in the room” visible; helps us deal w/ those things we “just don’t talk about”
— Trend analysis
— Environmental scans
— PEST (political, economic, social, and technological factors) Analysis – or some prefer to say STEP Analysis
— STEEPV (social, technological, economic, environmental, political and values) Analysis
— STEEPED (social, technological, economic, environmental, political, educational, and demographic) Analysis
— Gap Analysis: What’s ideal? What’s reality? Where are we now? What do we need to do to get there?
— Root cause, defining moments, historical analysis
Flexibility/innovation analysis
— SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) Analysis
— Stakeholder Analysys
— Competitive Analysis
When will things really change? When a Wal-Mart of education comes along and clobbers everyone else. When the boards convene only to see yet another year of shrinking enrollments, and the question moving more to the forefronts of their thinking, “Where are so many of the current students going to get their educations?!” When the pocketbooks get hit and tough budgetary conversations and decisions need to be made. When layoffs appear on the horizon…and then potentially the closing of one’s doors. (Yeh, I know, we’ve heard it for the last 10 years that 1/2 of the universities and colleges won’t be in existence anymore…well, that hasn’t happened…but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. In my career, which has been heavily involved with disruptive technologies, things just take time. Here at Calvin College, there are many things going for us, and numerous areas are going well here; so I’m not saying that the doors are going to close here. However, this may not be true for all institutions of higher ed out there.)
Ok…I’ll step down from my soapbox now…thanks for listening.
Wow, Dan. Thanks for sharing all of that thinking. Much appreciated. I think more than anything else what this means is being willing as a school and a district to develop a culture of learning, not teaching, and to provide time for teachers to learn. The irony is that we want to change teaching yet we teach our teachers in ways that our teachers teach. (Read it again… ;0)) Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, does it.
At the secondary level, I don’t think every teacher needs to get on the Web 2.0 bus. If a student has 5 teachers and 3 out of 5 are doing this stuff and 2 are not, I would consider that a success.
As a first year tech director, I’m focusing on the willing. That is where my energy is best spent. I also do believe that great teaching can exist without technology. I have to honor the experience, expertise and dedication of my entire faculty.
New Zealand is making their expectations for teachers and e-learning very clear in the new curriculum(2007) currently being implemented in schools:
“E-learning (that is, learning supported by or facilitated by ICT) has considerable potential to support [effective] teaching approaches… E-learning may:
assist the making of connections by enabling students to enter and explore new learning environments, overcoming barriers of distance and time;
facilitate shared learning by enabling students to join or create communities of learners that extend well beyond the classroom;
assist in the creation of supportive learning environments by offering resources that take account of individual, cultural, or developmental differences;
enhance opportunities to learn by offering students virtual experiences and tools that save them time, allowing them to take their learning further.
Schools should explore not only how ICT can supplement traditional ways of teaching but also how it can open up new and different ways of learning”
I deliver PD in ICT and effective pedagogy to teachers in 10 schools over a 3 year period. I had them read this statement of the new curriculum and we had a discussion about how many teachers will either staple these pages shut or run screaming from the expectation.
Do you have a curriculum that states so bluntly that students will be communicating with others outside of their school with ICT? That ICT can open up new and different ways of learning? I think this is quite a progressive document.
Thanks for sharing this, Jane. These two are the key for me:
assist the making of connections by enabling students to enter and explore new learning environments, overcoming barriers of distance and time;
facilitate shared learning by enabling students to join or create communities of learners that extend well beyond the classroom;
We don’t have a curriculum like that, btw. We should.
This is impressive. Thanks for adding this. I love to bombard my principal (a dear friend) with progressive ideas such as these on a daily basis.
Thanks.
Sean
It is my experience, as a classroom teacher in a high school English department, that not enough time is spent (and we all know time is money) on technology in the classroom. Those teachers that try to use technology in the classroom do so largely on their own time and without compensation. It is often appreciated but there is little support. Those that use the technology are self-taught, for the most part, and therefore the product is only as good as the innate skills of those developing the online projects. I agree that more should be spent on technology related professional development for teachers in all disciplines. Considering the current budgetary situation most schools find themselves in this is not likely to happen and that is unfortunate.
I think there is a lot of resistance on the part of some and there may not be much that can be done to get those teachers involved with the technology. But there are many teachers who would like to use the technology and are only waiting for someone to show them how and give them the time to do something with what they have been taught.
Cordially,
J. D. Wilson, Jr.
I love the Shirky quote: “Social tools don’t create collective action – they merely remove the obstacles to it,”
I also believe that the carpet-bombing approach to professional development rarely works… and almost never works for edtech efforts. There is just too much sophistication rolled into one ball there. Look no further than Mishra & Koehler’s TPCK (now TPACK?) to realize that perhaps the best education comes at the confluence of proficiency of CONTENT, PEDAGOGY, & TECHNOLOGY. You just can’t aim a gun that heavy.
I am a third-year generalist instructional coach in my building. My content background is biology. I am currently headlong into my first year of a large technology integration project at my school. We have a cohort of 20 teachers working fairly transparently on a Ning network at: http://virtualsouthside.ning.com
There are 20 folks who signed on for the extra focused attention toward edtech this year. We are exploring the use of emerging web2.0 technologies in moving our building toward a more student-centered environment.
In this approach, we moved quickly from a couple of whole-group meeting to smaller, needs-based groups. My role as an instructional coach also allows me to take our work directly into the classroom for implementation for those who opt into that approach.
So, needless to say, a posting like this one was very nice. It is much appreciated. Thanks. I have meant to post something from that article for my people here, but the well of time is running dry this week.
Thanks again,
Sean
Sorry. Link to me was bad.
Although the conversations around web 2.0 tools in the classroom are interesting and the attempt by innovative educators to infuse this thinking into our educational system is commendable, we are attempting to force a square peg into a round whole. Technologies of the 21st century have revolutionized the way we do business and function in a global economy, they have not however, revolutionized the educational system. Until we begin to transform the educational system and our pedagogical thinking around what constitutes an education (and therefore structured learning) K-12 from the ground up, including all of the stakeholders in the process we are fighting an uphill battle infusing web 2.0 tools. Our educational system does not work for what lies ahead in the 21st century. Maybe the conversation should be around how to use web 2.0 tools to transform the system itself.
Adora,
Overall- I have to disagree from my humble little place in the word.
I agree that from a 30,000ft viewpoint web 2.0 has not revolutionized education in America. However, from the 50ft view of many classrooms in my building (which now have few boundaries) it certainly has. I say that even within the span of early experimentation. There are things going on in our classrooms this year at 10:00pm that have never occurred in the past. We have emerged from the superficial box of our classrooms in a hurry.
I agree that US education is flawed in many ways. NCLB largely kills innovation. Attempts to bring in content experts via alt.-certification have failed. From my vantage point, this often does little more within the realm of science & math education than allow a brief pipeline from graduation to a frighteningly secure job in a very insecure economy.
I agree that our nationwide system does not work for what lies ahead in the 21st Century. However, from a national view… this has likely always been the case. Pockets of dedicated professionals really can, and still do make a difference even in the toughest of situations.
I agree with your overall view. What I do not agree with is the assertion that until then we are fighting a losing battle. As an instructional coach in my building, I teach one period during the day (dual-credit bio) and one in the evening (marine bio). Ask my 17 and 18-year-olds if they think our efforts to bolster their tech skills within the framework of our content is wasted. Ask them if the skills have they have gained int he past year will change their lives for the good. Ask them if they think we should wait for the entire system to transform.
If nothing else, web 2.0 tools are allowing a quiet change from within wherever there are pockets of light. Waiting for the entire system to change from the top is irresponsible in my opinion.
Sean
Sean…would love to know where you teach, because what you describe is not at all what I see at most of the schools that I visit. Glad to hear that these ideas are taking root in some systemic ways somewhere… ;0)
Early roots, I assure you… but real ones nonetheless.
Benton High School: Saint Joseph, Missouri.
Keep in mind that a trip down our hallways today would still likely net for you a superficial vision of 1960.
However, we are taking steps to shine some pockets of innovative light onto the entire school.
Our little plan looks toward a ubiquitous computing environment for all kids in three years. We really can’t afford to have a plan protracted out longer than this. The world is flying by, eh?
Year one: cohort of 20. MacBook Pro distribution. Immersion in emerging technolgies in a forgotten part of the country. Focused training. Moving quickly to needs-based. Encouraged innovation.
Year two: cohort of 20 assists me deeply in bring on the remaining 80 faculty members in a study to bring ourselves into the 21st Century. I really do believe this is the missing puzzle piece: a developmental focus on the paid professional in the room. our district really has, in the past, done a remarkable job of putting edgy technology into the hands of students. This, of course, does very little for pedagogy when we ignore the teacher leading said students.
*Also in this time, we have gutted our library. We ran a query and found that of our 14,000 “pieces”, over 4000 were over 50 years old and never (i repeat: NEVER) been checked out. Since we aren’t in the business of being an archival library- we shipped them to the warehouse (still logged but not taking up space). We then ditched another 2000 that were at least 20 years old and had been checked out once or less. This allowed us to divert funds in two directions: what do our kids want to read & electronic resources that can be accessed via the 60 wireless laptops that were a recent addition.
This library will be open late hours… laptops will be available for student checkout… and in the event we never do move to a 1:1 environment, our children will have the minimal required access.
In year three, we can then expect a far more widespread implementation of the NETS standards and other foundations of edge-education in 2008. Without this focused two-year “study period by immersion” for our staff, we would never be prepared for a move toward a ubiquitous student computing environment.
We need tons of help. We are not experts. But we do have a nucleus of devoted folks who are skilled in content a pedagogy who are ready to take on the third piece of the puzzle: technology as it relates to edge-education in 2008.
We just need more contact with visionaries like yourself to bolster our resolve in the face of solid midwestern conservatism.
Sean
I think that we are missing a significant point in preparing our teachers/students for Web 2.0 in the classroom – preservice teachers. If major reforms are going to come in the way that teachers teach, there must be a push in these directions from the places where our teachers are being trained. This is scary. My student intern who will be graduating in May 2009 has to turn in paper copies of her SMARTBoard slides because her professor doesn’t know how to access/use the software. The technology being taught in many university pre-service programs isn’t even matching what is already being done in the regular ed classrooms. These 20 -somethings are already using social networking tools in a multitude of ways, but they aren’t learning how to use them in their greatest potential sphere of influence.
On a personal note, I’m thrilled I got to spend Saturday at NCTA with you in Raleigh/Durham. Thanks for the great insights and food for thought!