Thursday - Oct 27, 2011
It’s easy to see how reading the daily headlines would lead someone to believe that incorporating technology into education is a vital maneuver in modern education reform. “Technology in the classroom aids in learning,” “Technology sparks learning,” and “Technology changing how students learn” are some of the resounding refrains heard across the news wires, praising the adoption of education technology.
But not everyone is buying into the idea, with some likening the infiltration of computers, tablets, and other mobile devices into the education sphere to a colorful Band-Aid on an unduly large problem.
Take for example the authors of a recently released National Education Policy Center report, one that paints a picture of the failings of online schools due to lack of oversight, lax accreditation, and greedy commercial and corporate interests. With “nearly one in every 50 students in the U.S.” obtaining all or some of their education from online sources in 2007, and 27 U.S. states hosting online schools (which get most of their content and services from five private companies), the report’s authors claim that more must be done to ensure the quality of online education, especially in the face of rapid ongoing change.
At the end of the report the authors make four key recommendations to state legislatures:
1. Authenticate the source of students’ work using in-person exams or more rigorous credentials.
2. Apply fiscal and instructional regulations to K-12 virtual schools, focusing for example on teacher certification status and adjusted accounting practices.
3. Conduct audits to ensure actual costs are reported, providing a more accurate funding system by the state.
4. Create and maintain a list of agencies that give accreditations to K-12 virtual schools, ensuring the accreditation process is vigorous.
The National Education Policy Center’s recommendations are welcomed by many in the education industry, including those who question whether the traditional classroom setting should be hastily abandoned for the virtual school.
“We are concerned that in their eagerness to embrace the virtual school model, policymakers and some educational leaders are overstating its success and ignoring the tremendous advantages a classroom environment provides for students,” said David R. Colburn, director of the Reubin Askew Institute, and Brian Dassler, KIPP Renaissance High School principal, in an opinion piece for the St. Petersburg Times.
“There is no question that technology can be a great asset to students with learning deficiencies and an excellent supplement to classroom learning for all students,” they said. “As the technology is refined and expanded, virtual learning may offer more substantial advantages to students and teachers.”
Despite their optimism, they went on to caution state legislatures and school policymakers about buying too deeply into the hyped promise of the online learning environment.
This line of thinking falls in stark contrast to the methodology of a school in the United States’ Silicon Valley, which is home to numerous technology corporations. Last week the New York Times highlighted the Waldorf School of the Peninsula, one of many such schools that questions the idea that technology will save the modern classroom.
Far from taking online classes, the Waldorf schools don’t even incorporate technology, focusing instead on more traditional low-tech instructional methods. The fundamental belief stated by the school is that kids will easily learn how to use technology later in life, so why not focus on the more human and engaging elements of personal teaching.
Granted, this sort of take on technology in education seems almost as extreme as one that endorses stuffing every bit of tech possible into a class. Like most things in our lives, approaching some sort of balance seems like a more reasonable approach. The authors of the NEPC report subtly preach this balance by offering realistic suggestions on how to better a growing online education industry, despite believing that same industry has “zero high-quality research evidence” of being an “adequate replacement for traditional face-to-face teaching and learning.”
Even higher education students like Kinsey Streib at Purdue University are being realistic about the role of technology in education.
“Admittedly, some technology inhibits the learning experience,” Streib recently told the Exponent. “However, it is a pertinent teaching tool in modern education.”
In the end, diving head-first into technological classroom solutions — or shunning them completely — doesn’t seem like an appropriate education solution. State legislatures should make some conservative reforms, while at the same time scientists should do more quality research on learning methodologies that include technology. From there we can evaluate in what ways educators can best integrate technology into the classroom and better gauge the effectiveness of privatized online education, all without tripping over ourselves in a mad dash to educational uncertainty.
Photo via popofatticus, Flickr Creative Commons
Monday - May 31, 2010
I read an interesting article a few days ago on the Campus Technology Web site about the basic infrastructure of learning facilities and how they’ll likely have to change for full adoption of technology.
“What I think we are confronting now is that the core infrastructure of higher education, that’s been built over the past several hundred years, is really becoming a barrier to innovation in terms of what technology potentially can do to improve teaching and learning,” said Josh Baron, Director of Academic Technology and eLearning at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, New York.
Baron went on to say that without dedicated education technology leadership, many education facilities aren’t going to be able to adapt their infrastructures. Without solid leadership and direction, tech in schools may simply lead to “pure automation of teaching and learning to the point where it’s just people on computers memorizing facts,” he added.
I hinted at this failing while talking about the technology facade a few weeks ago. Operators of learning centers must consider having some sort of education tech leadership, whether it’s an internal or external candidate. Without that, deployment plans, curriculums, and training may be lacking or absent, causing the implemented tech to fail in purpose.
But are there consistent methodologies to be adopted to meet the tech challenge? Robert McLaughlin, who works for the New Hampshire Department of Education, has pondered the same question.
“Many people talk about how schools and preparation programs need to change dramatically to meet the needs of 21st century students, but there isn’t any consensus about what that really means,” McLaughlin, who was also the committee chair for the recently held New Hampshire invitation summit for educators, told the Examiner.
Teachers from all over New Hampshire participated in the summit with the hope of gaining a clearer picture of the problems they face. This large-scale, statewide approach is at least a first step in the right direction. But for every New Hampshire, there are plenty of other U.S. states and schools that aren’t as keyed in to the issues.
Do you find that the educators in your area are ready to deal with change? Do they seem to understand the driving factors that may very well change the basic infrastructure?
(Photo used under Creative Commons attribution license: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nesri/ / CC BY 2.0)
Monday - May 3, 2010
Michael Leiboff, a writer for Campus Technology, recently wrote a thought-provoking article about how advanced technology classrooms fail. Leiboff believes that while most have a measurable level of success, they also have flaws which originate during the planning stages.
“Unfortunately, many of the seeds of future problems are inadvertently planted during the early planning stages of the classroom design process and in large measure could have been avoided,” said Leiboff.
He expounded on a number of problems like focusing too much on flexibility or having insufficient support staff to address technical problems quickly and efficiently. However, one of the most important issues he addressed is how schools and universities build a technological classroom merely for the sake of doing it.
“[T]here seems to be the implicit assumption that building a smart classroom can be a goal unto itself,” said Leiboff. “If you build it, it will be used and add value. It will add a competitive advantage to our institution.”
Leiboff reasons that such thought often leads to underutilized and unsupported equipment that fails to become integrated into a teacher’s curriculum. Throw in a general complacency that many teachers have experimenting with and adapting their teaching style to modern tech, and you have the recipe for a true technology facade in the classroom.
Such facades are everywhere and are often perpetuated by teachers who use tech in the classroom without having a good reason to do so. Sure, students are increasingly savvy with their Web-ready mobile devices, but does using them during a classroom activity advance the topic under discussion? Do the installed projectors and Internet devices contribute to the curriculum or are they being used for the sake of being used?
As Leiboff mentions in his article, there are many ways to protect against such technology facades. One important method is ensuring that teachers are given support with the creation and modification of classroom curriculum that intertwines traditional methodologies with tech-based approaches to learning. The award-winning Technology Across the Curriculum program utilized at George Mason University is one early example of teachers and university staff working together to form a robust curriculum that incorporates technology and its utilization. Others like teacher Lisa Stevens go it alone, creating their own curriculum that is tailored specifically to them and their students’ needs.
Another way to combat against tech facades is to integrate aggressive training and reliable tech support with any technology rollout. If teachers aren’t given a minimum level of mandatory training in the use of classroom technology, the tech is often ignored or underutilized. And if teachers aren’t quickly supported when something unexpected occurs, opinion will often turn sour. Often all it takes is one bad experience with a malfunctioning projector or a complex program to turn a teacher — and the technology — off.
Does your school or university have technology merely for the sake of it? What else can you or education staff do to kill the dreaded tech facade?
