MeTA musings

Thank you to Dr. Tom Buckmiller for inviting me to share some of my thoughts on the role of technology in education with his class of aspiring principals.

I'd load up with...

"If you are not going to change pedagogy then technology use makes no significant difference" - Punya Mishra

Several days ago, I wrote about the importance of pedagogy, but Punya said it first.
Dr. Punya Mishra's writing (credit to his colleague and often co-author, Matt Koehler as well) has inspired my philosophy of educational technology more than perhaps anyone else. In addition to co-authoring several articles on the increasingly popular TPACK framework, he regularly presents and blogs about his thoughts on all things related to technology, pedagogy and creativity.

Punya recently posted his slides from the 2009 Summer Institute for Superintendents in Michigan. I appreciate his boldness in proclaiming that increased technology use alone does not lead to improving student learning.

Finally, Punya could not have illustrated this point any better when considering both education's storied past and rapidly changing future. Good teaching, regardless of the "tool," involves thoughtful planning in all three areas: technology, pedagogy and content.




If you're not well versed in the TPACK framework yet, what are you waiting for?!

"Too Cool for School? No Way!" in the May 2009 edition of Leading and Learning with Technology is a great practitioner-friendly place to start.

I was not able to attend the 2009 NECC conference, but am slowly working my way through several of the videos and much of the commentary now that it is over. One of the sessions I was particularly interested in was co-presented by Judi Harris and Mark Hofer from the College of William and Mary on the topic of TPACK and their research of pre- and in-service educators as it relates to this framework.

From the NECC program...

"Technology integration" too often emphasizes technology use over effective, learner-centered, content-based instruction....Our approach to helping teachers learn to plan technology-integrated learning activities focuses upon creating awareness of the range of possible learning activity types (e.g. simulation, developing a concept map, creating an exhibit) within their discipline, while helping teachers to know how to select and combine these to help students meet content and process standards in ways that are congruent with their differentiated learning needs and preferences.

The session video seen below gives a nice overview of the TPACK framework. Around the 23 minute mark, Mark lays out a fairly complex set of decisions an educator makes (or should make) when designing instruction. In case you don't have time to watch the 62 minute video I'll highlight a few of the key pedagogical decisions he suggests. Each is theoretically on a continuum rather than an "either/or" choice.

• focus of interactions: student-centered vs. teacher centered
• type of learning: universal vs. create own meaning
• students' prior knowledge: a lot vs. not much
• understanding: surface level vs. deep understanding
• grouping: individual vs. small vs. large
  

The list I've mentioned is not word-for-word or all inclusive by any means, but should raise a red flag for all but the most seasoned educators. Putting all technology tools aside, how often do we think about these pedagogical decisions during the planning phase of our instruction? A paraphrase from the video went something like this:

"If we understand it is what we want students to be able to do...(and how to teach it)...the technology tool decisions become that much easier."

Pedagogy is paramount. Michael Kaechele said it well...

We are learning, not technology, experts

Stepping aside from the "technocentric planning" and back to pedagogical decisions is some sound advice for me as I look forward to the next academic year.

Have you found yourself overwhelmed with the latest and greatest 21st century tools this summer? What are some strategies you've found to plan instruction while keeping pedagogy, content and technology in mind?

"We don't tell kids to use one tool or another-- PowerPoint or iWork or iMovie; part of the assignment is to pick an appropriate tool." - Mike Arsenault, Maine middle school principal (source)

When learning supersedes the technology tools, students win. As I've lobbied for previously, an educator's job is to connect the content, pedagogy and technology in a way that has the best chance of engaging students with diverse learning styles to help them build upon their previous knowledge.

Conference breakouts and professional development sessions devoted to specific technology tools are typically self-serving and eventually undermine students' true ability to choose their own tools.

Here is the typical "show, learn, require" cycle seen in today's educational systems.
1. Educators are shown new tools from colleagues or outside consultants.
2. Time is taken to learn the new tools and develop new lesson plans.
3. Students are required to use the new tool because the educator is comfortable using it, thus killing student's ability to choose tools they might be comfortable with.

I realize that not all educators consider themselves to be tech-savvy, but should this be an "excuse" for limiting the tools our students use in the classroom? Let's give our students the choices they deserve!

Dear "21st Century School" Authorities:

I've been thinking a lot about your ongoing discussion at Dangerously Irrelevant regarding what a "21st century school" might look like. You have kindly suggested that a 1:1 laptop initiative is one possible characteristic of a 21st century school. While I don't disagree, I feel like the student to computer ratio is attracting far too much attention in the current paradigm and may be harming educators' ability to understand how a "21st century school" is different from any other school. Does the hardware and software combination define the "century" of the school? I hope not.

Some recent commentary by Ryan Bretag on Web 2.0 tools illustrates a new train of thought:

"Yes, teachers are using some of the tools or even a lot of the tools. While this is great and provides wonderful new contexts for students, I'm not convinced this will fundamentally shift education if we continue to retrofit these tools instead of embracing the philosophy of participatory and connective learning. In other words, it is time we start seeing these tools as the tip of the ice berg not the identifier of classrooms or schools that have become 21st Century, that have become participatory."

If a given school has a 1:1 computer to student ratio, but is not using them to do "new things" then is it truly a "21st century" school? Simply putting a computer in each student's lap doesn't mean new, innovative, engaging or even effective teaching and learning is going to take place. Contrast this with a school that has a 1:2 or 1:4 computer to student ratio that is using the hardware and software more effectively via student-centered activities, education-friendly networking, rigorous and relevant project-based learning and the like. We often get hung up on the hardware and stuck on the software rather than their connection to teaching and learning.

From hardware/software to pedagogy
I realize that mentioning 1:1 initiatives is merely one possible characteristic of a 21st century school. A "shift" in our educational system is not going to happen due to fancy new websites and hardware tools. It will begin to take place when we take steps away from "retrofitting" these new tools and instead spend our time and effort brainstorming how the tools might match up with pedagogy that "works." To better emphasize this, I would like to suggest that a "21st century school" should not merely be measured by its hardware purchases, but rather by what happens with the tools for educational use. Answering the question, "How are research-based strategies being used in connection with 21st century technology tools?" seems to be an appropriate filter to add to the paradigm. The TPACK framework is a great first step for helping educators connect technology, pedagogy and content.

A simple change in "marketing" 21st century schools as more than a "building with up-to-date hardware" may be a useful first step in helping others begin to identify examples of this "undefined" term. Let's continue the conversation in lieu of how schools are using the technology rather than simply their ability to secure as many laptops as possible.

Sincerely,

Matt

Dr. Mark Stock asked me to guest blog for him recently at the Hope Foundation. The topic was doing "old things in new ways OR new things in new ways?" in the context of technology integration. Many of my thoughts have been influenced by the TPACK framework, an idea derived by Mishra and Koehler at Michigan State University. If you haven't read the landmark article (pdf), I highly recommend it.

Head on over and check out the post by clicking here.

One of the most thought-provoking phrases related to education and technology that's ever crossed my RSS feed is

At a conference last week, Mark Weston from Dell computing stated that asking the question, "Does technology improve student learning?" is the wrong question....

The question should be, "Does technology support the practices that improve student learning?"

-Doug Johnson on Blue Skunk Blog

Since I started my graduate work, I've been on a rollercoaster ride of thinking about the use of techology in my classroom - both the pros and the cons. In a somewhat ironic outcome, I've started to wonder if technology itself can actually hinder learning at times rather then help. I'll come back to this thought.

Any educator whose gone through a pre-service program in the past ten years has surely heard the phrases constructivism, student-centered learning, and best practices - sometimes in the same sentence! I am no exception to this rule. As a seasoned math educator, I can attest to the fact that some learning goals are more suited for this style of learning while others are simply...not. For example, teaching Geometry students that the sum of the interior angles of any n-sided polygon is (n-2)*180 lends itself very well to a student-centered approach. On the flipside, instructing students how to solve multi-step linear equations or how to use the quadratic formula does not lend itself to a constructivist teaching style. James Cangelosi's book Teaching Mathematics in Secondary and Middle School speaks of the need to differentiate between construct-a-concept, discover-a-relationship, and algebraic skills, and developing knowledge objectives. The content/objective should determine the type of pedagogy used to teach the idea.

The same analogy applies to the use of technology in our classrooms. Are using blogs, Moodle, Google Docs, or Twitter the "best practice" for every discipline and for every standard in our curriculum? I've long been an advocate for Mishra and Koehler's TPACK framework.



With all of the talk in the education (technology) blogosphere about "best practices," I would like to propose that "better practices" is a much better term. There really is no "best" technology tool or teaching style to push unless it meets up with the corresponding content to be taught in the middle of the TPACK Venn diagram above. Wikis, for example, might have different uses in a British literature classsroom than they would in a ceramics class. At the same time, wikis may have no place in a particular P.E. unit. When we push things like "iPods" and "cooperative learning" blindly, its no wonder the masses see them as "add-ons."

Venn diagrams are hard to sell our colleagues...but so are "best practices." Are you ready for the era of "better" practices?