The past couple of weeks have reminded me how hard it is for teachers to consider change when they don’t have a context for it and, most importantly, when they don’t value it.
Case in point: recently I was working with a group of teachers trying to help them re-envision their curriculum in the light of all this “new†social technology that some of us have been swimming in for the last decade now. And I had one particularly interesting and, I think, compelling exchange with a teacher who was finding it especially difficult to see any value to changing what he was doing in his classroom. Briefly, he shared with the group that one of his most effective lessons was built around helping students understand the political drivers of redistricting by asking them to redraw maps of nearby cities in ways that would make it almost impossible for an incumbent to lose an election. The way he described it, it was a great lesson that challenged kids to research, think, and create in some important ways, ways that the teacher pointed out were necessary to do well on the state assessment.
I tried to move the conversation into what I think can be called “doing both mode,†as in finding a way to engage students in understanding the concepts for the test but doing so in a way that teaches them to think more expansively by using online tools to go beyond the paper and pencil and learn about connecting and creating and collaborating along the way. And some of the other teachers in the room provided some great suggestions, using Google Earth or Maps, and adding multimedia resources that could articulate the reasons for drawing the lines where they were drawn. And with a little prodding, others suggested using Skype to interview people involved in the real process, or maybe even connecting with schools within the districts they were redrawing to get some sense of what the effects of those revisions might be in real life.
Throughout, the teacher was nodding his head in assent, but when I asked him how all of that sounded, he paused, and then he said “Well, you know, sometimes I think technology just adds a lot of bells and whistles, makes stuff look good without really adding to the learning. I mean, they don’t need to do any of that to get the concept.†And he’s right, of course. Students don’t need technology to pass the test; they’ve been doing it for years without it.
But here’s the thing: that teacher didn’t yet see the value of having his students make those connections outside the classroom even though no one was asking or expecting him to do it. In fact, it took about another seven or eight minutes of back and forth before I think he finally came around to the idea that the connections might matter even though no one was testing for them or writing curriculum for them or demanding that kids understand them. That we may want to consider adding the “bells and whistles” because the world our kids need to be prepared for is opening up in ways that go beyond the long-standing goals and objectives we’ve set up for them. That it’s not just about map making any more.
My sense of it is that teacher is still in the majority, and as teachers get incentivized to do even more test prep and one-size-fits all instruction, he’ll remain in the majority for quite a while longer.
Here’s hoping I’m wrong.
I am currently involved, in my capacity as the Tech Director of an international K-12 school, in a conversation with a (very concerned) parent about the impending introduction of iPads into the lower elementary school. He too, like the teacher you are referring to in your post, is not yet convinced that the iPad is going to bring any added value to what his 5 year old son will experience. He argues that kids of that age should be out in the dirt, getting dirty, discovering the ants crawling about in the dirt and getting the sun on their face. While I cannot agree with him more, I am also asking him to consider the idea that when his son comes in from outside and grabs the iPad (after washing his hands of course!), he can get a close up view of an ant, make it bigger and smaller, turn it over and look under it, count its eyes and legs and so on.
I think that as we help teachers and parents move from “the way I learned didn’t do me any harm” type perspective, highlighting where the added value lies helps propel the teacher or parent one more step along in their challenging journey.
Perhaps, as much as you would like it to be otherwise, the incrementalism of “doing both” is really the problem.
Why would you Skype someone involved “in the process?” What process? Who? State legislators? What are they likely to tell a student that can’t be found out in a book or article?
The connections you speak of, now matter how much you yearn for them may be as inauthentic as the task itself. Perhaps they just make a task nobody cares about even more arduous. The “you can use Google ____ or Skype with someone” suggestions have become as automatic and meaningless as when a politician says, “We need to pay teachers more, but hold them accountable.”
One of the lessons I learned from Seymour Papert (http://dailypapert.com) was that you cannot transform school just by changing teaching practices or even the technology used. You must rethink, challenge or reinforce the content of the curriculum. The “what” has a great deal of impact on the how and the why of learning something.
Papert once asked me, “What are you thinking about doing with the students next?” When I replied, “We were thinking of doing some geography…,” he shot back with, “And what can they DO with that?”
“Whatever you ‘teach’ kids should have a high liklihood of leading to the construction of a bigger question or a larger theory (NOW – not later), otherwise, why bother?”
Like so much of schooling, the topic of gerrymandering is really just a vocabulary exercise. Memorize the definition and move on. I’m not sure you can put lipstick on that pig.
Thanks as always for the thoughts, Gary.
I’m not sure what the choice is right now re: “doing both” at least for 80% of the kids in the US going to school. We can’t just scrap the system, as much as we’d like to. But we can move it to a different place. I agree with all of your sentiments regarding the value of the lesson, etc. But I do think that offering up the concept in a more problem-solving way (not perfect, i know) and adding a layer of connections to it can lead to a better outcome for kids. It’s not just the concept, the vocabulary. It’s the politics, the effects, and, now, the ways we can go beyond a text book. Sure, at the end of the day, the information gleaned from those Skype calls or wiki pages may not do much to add relevance or depth (though I would still argue they can, if done well.) But even so, they show kids new ways to connect and help develop some skills around those connections that they may use in even better ways down the road.
So, while agree the “now” is important, I think we can frame “doing both” as something that might bear fruit later on as well.
I’m not calling for “scrapping the system.” I am however suggesting that you can’t speak of transformation/revolution/reform (pick one) or even getting a greater return on investment from computers if the content of the curriculum is not challenged.
Seymour Papert wrestles with the trade-offs between teaching for Monday vs. Someday in this video from Sydney, Australia – http://bit.ly/gEUsoY Papert asserts that progressive education has failed because of its inability to change the content of mathematics education.
No amount of teacher trickery or social media connectivity can rescue a kid from noxious curricular content.
Another one of my friends, Brian Harvey of UC Berkeley suggests that the first step of school reform is to “throw out half of the curriculum, any half!”
I’m also not calling for patience or inaction.
Ok…so…what’s the Stager Plan? (I seem to recall something to this effect earlier, so maybe just provide a link…;0))
You’ll have to pay for “The Stager Plan.”
However, if I wasn’t clear enough above, a substantial aspect of “The Stager Plan” includes expending some serious effort at every school to determine what is worth being taught.
Pedagogical strategies should reflect the content and the learning styles of students.
Will,
I think we sometimes do fall in the trap of “doing technology” for technology’s sake, and not because it truly enhances learning. This year, I’m leading a cohort of teachers in our district. Erik Anderson (@erianderson), a 9th grade Social Studies teacher has really started buying into the shift and making some connections for himself via Twitter. Yesterday, he tweeted a link to this: http://www.redistrictinggame.org/
Now, as Gary said, this may be “lipstick on a pig,” but I would venture to guess that giving kids a map, some data and a pen to draw the lines would not be as engaging for the students as the role playing game. If after playing that game, they write letters to their State Senator, who happens to now be one of the people in charge of drawing the actual lines, offering their opinion, and inviting him in dialog either face to face, or horror of horrors, via Skype, Erik may have a richer learning experience than the one described above.
Will, I had to think a little before answering. I wanted to jump in and defend the need for change in the way we teach our kids, and suggest that until teachers connect and function online like kids do they won’t understand the mindshift. But Gary’s statement “Perhaps they just make a task nobody cares about even more arduous” and my enthusiasm had been swallowed by cynicism. Even if we believe that the way young people learn has changed because of mobile technologies and social media, are our efforts to change teachers futile until we see this generation of young people become teachers themselves? And yet we have to do something because we see kids disengaged in learning at school. Personally I can’t bear to teach what I see as meaningless to a class of students who couldn’t care less. The connections do matter, I think, because our kids don’t have to imagine the reality behind the tiny textbook picture, they have Google Maps and interactive tours of museums, they want to see for themselves, ask questions from those who know most. Only the polite ones will sit dutifully and listen to the teacher monologue.
Hey Tania,
Great to be down your way again.
Sure, we can wait, but at what cost? And I share the same frustrations, obviously, with the slow uptake on the conversation around meaningful change in the practice of teaching. But, as I know you agree, we can’t stand pat. I don’t think this is technology for technology’s sake, although many of these first steps surely fall into that bucket.
I wonder, do we open up possibilities for a teacher like this by taking something that works and trying to fix it, or should we be looking at areas in his repertoire where he struggles and adding to his tool box?
Hey David,
I don’t think the intent was to “fix” as much as it was to “enhance” and, at the same time, expand student’s thinking around the use of social media. I think all too often if we start with the not so great, we do get “fix” more than “enhance.”
I completely agree with you Will… but that doesn’t matter! It doesn’t matter because I’m not the teacher you were talking to. Indulge me and stop for a moment and think like him:
‘I share that I’ve got this great lesson that really teaches my students and here are all these people telling me to add bells and whistles to it. WHY would I want to do that?'”
The project ‘works’ and in the eyes of this teacher, works really well… in his eyes it doesn’t need enhancing. So, in talking to him, I’m wondering if a better approach isn’t to say, ‘Ok, so tell me about something you do that doesn’t work as well as that,’ and then provide some needed enhancement options.
I bet if this teacher were to open the door to possibilities where he believes improvement/fixing/enhancement would be beneficial, then after engaging with tools that allow his students to share and network in meaningful ways, then he more than likely will shift to enhancing his already good project to make it even better.
My long-winded point: ‘How can we speak to him in a voice that he will hear?’
“…we may want to consider adding the “bells and whistles†because the world our kids need to be prepared for is opening up in ways that go beyond the long-standing goals and objectives we’ve set up for them.”
Will, while I hate to categorize things as “bells and whistles”, I do agree that we need to keep pushing forward and work hard to create and broaden learning experiences for our students.
When I am looking at “the glass have empty”, I worry about the number of educators who’s feet are firmly planted in “the way we have always done things.”
More often (thank goodness) I am looking at the “glass half full” and I know we need to keep the critical mass growing until it tips the scale toward more meaningful and thoughtful learning.
Today is a “glass half full” kind of day!
Bottom line, teachers need to see these tools not just as “technology” but as connection and creation opportunities. That in and of itself is a big shift for most traditional teachers to make. The whole idea of “teacher as node” is really foreign to most.
I get it. Kids need to be connected.
Why is it so difficult for folks to say that some “content” isn’t worth teaching?
Lots, most content isn’t worth teaching. Problem is, we can’t pull content out from under kids right now because the have to pass the test and get into the schools that value it. (The other half of “doing both.”
A transformation, I believe, that is helped by the introduction of the newest generation of teachers. As a 20-something teacher, my first instincts in planning tend to revolve around the technology tools that I use in my life, like social networking, blogging, and incorporating interactive maps/videos. With more and more of us coming into schools, I have to believe that the shift is happening.
I ask questions that get at whether the technology truly affords something worthwhile (worthwhile not being limited to state/national objectives or tests) or if it is merely a bell or whistle (not that adding those is all bad all the time).
I like using Puentedura’s SAMR to get at this as well:
http://hippasus.com/resources/sweden2010/SAMR_TPCK_IntroToAdvancedPractice.pdf
http://hippasus.com/resources/sweden2010/FromThePresentIntoTheFuture_FourPlusOnePaths.pdf
Hmmm, the system and the content are so entwined that one cannot change without the other. Our schools are designed, from the ground up, to deliver packages of facts and a certain mid-19th Century skillset, so that students can prove they are “not retarded” (that is, not below grade level) and thus get to continue.
This is the essence of what we do, and, as has been noted, you don’t need contemporary tech to complete 1870 tasks.
But if we changed expectations. If we expected information hunting, information analysis, information sharing, collaboration, imagination, and learning the wheels of invention, then…
Well, we’d need contemporary technologies and we’d need to rethink our schools, so that students learned to manage their own learning, find their own tools, share their tools, create their own environments. You know, the basic skills of today.
But if we’re trying to stick iPads into our traditional school day, hell, you might as well keep the paper. If you are going to insist on all students using your choice of tool, nothing has actually changed. If you are all doing the same assignment with your 1:1 class, nothing has changed either. If you are writing five paragraph essays in Google Docs, nothing has changed.
But if you embrace Universal Design and student-centered school design. If your schedule and your space flexes. If you are a Project-Based School. If you help students learn tech choice. Then you will find technology transformative.
So despite my “pro-tech” role I think the “resistors” are often right. We’re not really doing anything.
Thanks for this post, Will. It helped me to reflect on our work this year, as I’ve watched a handful of my teachers (definitely those in our PLP group) incorporate the use of new technologies, re-examine curriculum demands, create environments for varied learning experiences, redesign schedules, etc.
These teachers are taking risks, making some mistakes, and I’ve never seen their kids so excited about learning. They’re treating the state “curriculum guides” as just that- guides- and not some sort of Bible. Frankly, this is because I told them it was okay to do so. (And they seemed shocked they could veer from “what’s always been done.” They were quite uncomfortable questioning former practices.) I don’t know that they’ve ever experienced that type of freedom before.
Teachers are thinking. Kids are thinking. Kids’ passions are being explored. Their enthusiasm is infectious, which I appreciate. The tech is only a small part of that. If there was no tech use, I’d still be proud of my teachers for simply taking the time to think *differently* about what learning opportunities we bring to children each day.
I have no idea how their students are going to fare on the standardized tests we just completed last week. Honestly, those scores aren’t nearly as important to me as the professional growth I’ve seen from my teachers and the enthusiasm for learning I’ve seen from my students.
Will,
I teach in a “connected classroomâ€, where students connect and learn online, almost daily, with other students at another school. Many of the activities we’ve done throughout the year cannot be found in our curriculum doc (writing a compelling blog comment, collaborative writing in a Google doc with someone living 2 700 km away, backchanneling during a read aloud). As we move through one activity to another, I do feel the pressure to justify where these skills link in the curriculum. Why? Because there are those teachers and parents who don’t understand or value the process, no matter how transparent I am. Common sense tells me there’s value in the skill development, and with some digging, I can always find that curriculum link written in a more “eduspeak†language. Fortunately for me, my administration sees the links clearly, and encourages what we’re doing. Most importantly, my students are excited to come to school. In fact, they’re so excited that if they’re at home on a snow day or sick, they still join into their group activity online. It’s not required, it’s not in the curriculum, but these students are developing learning skills beyond the curriculum doc (commitment, support, initiative) that any employer would value.
So yes, all my curriculum lessons could be taught without connecting with other schools. But I can say without a doubt, that the layers of learning would not be as deep.
Thanks, Heather. And here is the thing, right? We need to use technology to get kids engaged in the curriculum, not just in the technology. The first question, as you suggest, is is this tool effective in helping students construct their own learning around the ideas that we want them to grapple with and, in doing so, connect them in ways that will help them direct their own learning down the road? The worst practice is trying to fit the curriculum to the tool.
Here’s a thought experiment…
What if we DID do everything in our power to engage kids in the technology? (I don’t think you can engage someone else, but I’ll leave that aside)
This might be the first real engagement kids experience.
Learning computer programming might actually lead to different thinking, different thinking about thinking, student agency and provide a window for teachers into the intellectual capabilities of kids.
Gary, I agree with you about the programming thing–since I teach that. 🙂
It reminds me of something I told a parent last night at an event about social networking for kids–where I focus on its positive outcomes. She asked if her girls, who don’t have Facebook pages and aren’t on Twitter, etc., would be left behind. I said, no, but it would be good to have a presence online. They could build their own web pages–a way more difficult task than creating a Facebook page that shows some skill and initiative.
Connecting with other schools is swell as long as there are benefits to doing so. Connecting to schools that reinforce one’s own prejudices, questionable pedagogical practices or irrelevant curricula may make matters worse.
Will,
I wish I had had your words in my head a few weeks ago while presnting at a conference. (2nd to last paragraph – especially) You alway seem to articulate what I think I am thinking.
I had one participant who stopped the whole conversation, and pretty much the whole workshop. (See My post here: http://8thfl.blogspot.com/2011/03/are-we-any-more-or-less-comfortable.html#links) I deal with this sort of negativity or resistance all the time – it’s what I do, teach teachers about technology. So, I am not unused to persuading folks to “just consider the possibilities for a minute,” etc. But this guy was beyond a characature of the teacher who hates technology. I wish I had had more time to help him find value, but I didn’t. I feel badly that I left him frustrated. I can only hope that somehow his mind opened a little.
This is a topic/conversation that has been lifting its head quite a bit lately. I wonder why?
Just thinkin’
Lee Anne
Always glad to see the topic of education reform through technology develop! It is time for our education system to recognize and put to use the world that students live in and embrace.
It seems that most educators today are teaching students in a linear format because that is the way they were taught growing up, to think linear, up and down, straight forward. Today’s students are constantly multi-tasking and seeking relative content that engages them in the “WWW” Wherever, Whenever, Whatever mentality of accessing information to further their education.
The average student consumes an average of 7.5 hours of media content each day, 74% of kids have social networking profiles and 66% of 8-18 year olds own cell phones, yet these same students are only spending 2 hours a day reading a book.
It’s always great to discover “in the cloud” technology curriculum tools such as journ(i)e http://www.thinqed.com/products/journie/index.php – It’s a student-centered learning network, encouraging student collaboration, content creation, and personalization.
I wrote more about this at http://bit.ly/fLbTKT
I find much of what you are saying very interesting and that we need to embrace technology in the classroom and use it to expand the student’s knowledge of the world and the appropriate uses for the technology they ahve access to. I find that using technology to enhance lessons that have been taught over the years as a way to adapt to changing society and make the lesson more meaningful for students. The “bells and whistles” are a way for us to reach students on their level and in a way that they understand and can apply it to their everyday lives.