Making connections is all the buzz -- connecting students to
authentic learning, experts, even each other. At this point in history, the
technology tools and contexts in which to “connect” are overwhelming in number,
and begging for attention. Today, “connect” doesn’t force technology use, but it
almost certainly can’t avoid it. And many celebrators of the concept of
connection and collaboration are almost indistinguishable from celebrators of
the tools they use for such. That is, “Connect!” and “Use this tool!” are, in
many advocates’ minds, interchangeable ideas. That has actually produced a
couple of interesting disconnects in technology use in education.
The Promise and Practice of Web 2.0: It’s a scary world out
there.
I had just poked into a district office, and the
discussion there was about Facebook. It’s a well-worn trail, and in this context
the remarks are almost invariably negative, with most of those present saying
they never went there, and never would. At the other extreme are the dozens of
my professional acquaintances and colleagues who use it to support their
professional interests. On their "walls," I am as likely to read about what
school they visited or what instructional idea they’ve tried, as I am to hear
about their son/daughter’s exploits on the track or court, or the last
restaurant they visited. All is thrown in together in a pile.
Although the world beyond PK-12 education is pretty much firmly
entrenched in the idea of online connections in support of professional
interests, in the face of Federal child safety legislation and most end user
license agreements of known Web 2.0 tools (including Facebook), most teachers
are still trying to figure out whether these tools are even legal to use in the
classroom, much less safe, or even more important, instructionally valuable.
Both the advocates and the detractors of Facebook, like the blind men and the
elephant, are grabbing onto different parts of the elephant and declaring its
basic character.
Both are right, and both are wrong. But neither note that we’re
trying to evaluate the usefulness of the whole elephant at once by looking at a
single aspect of it. Yes, “it” is important, and yes, “it” is unsafe and
frivolous...if we’re just talking about Facebook. Of course, what we
should be talking about is learning. It’s a
disconnect, and neither side has done a particularly good job of addressing why
it is one.
The Promise and Practice of Technology in Instruction: Who’s
paradigm shift is it anyway?
Everybody has their pet phrase. “Knowledge
construction.” “Collaborative learning.” “Project-based learning.” “Discovery
learning.” “Authentic learning.” Almost everybody agrees that the old
traditional instructional paradigm of teacher-driven lecture and summative
assessment is, if not actually dead, at least seriously outflanked. The charge
against it is being led by something as simply-defined as the Kahn Academy (a website
dedicated to tutorial videos on school subjects), or as currently trendy and
complex as the idea of use of student-owned smart phones and other personal
devices in the classroom.
That, of course, is the implied shift associated
with connected technology use. In fact, most teachers view educational
technology in terms of “Smart” classroom tools, large digital display,
“clickers,” media delivery systems, and laptop carts, all of which are aimed at
preserving the teacher’s tenuous grasp on their primacy as a content presenter.
To make matters worse, many teachers observe, and recent studies are beginning
to show, that direct student control over information delivery (phones,
computers, whatever) doesn’t always lead to higher learning outcomes. Students
usually lack the personal goals and motivation to attend to that which will
improve their learning, if given the choice, so they fall back on their
social-driven habits.
It is clear that the promise and practice of technology-driven shift
represents another serious disconnect.
These disconnects are symptoms of how technology’s role in
the classroom tends to get trivialized and distracted by the popularity of a
specific platform or tool. A good illustration is the battle over texted
communications. Tech advocates and observers are quick to point out that kids
text, and they view email as “old people’s communications.” That’s one piece of
the elephant. And, for kids, almost all student texts are social. On other side
of the elephant, if you go into an actual adult workplace, texting is one of
many communications platforms one will have to use to do work, and email often
figures prominently in that list.
But the debate misses the point. Are we supposed to be teaching our
students to text, or to communicate? The discussion about paradigm shift
shouldn’t be about tool selection, it should be about content and practice. That
is our job as educators.
By the time our students leave us, all of the tools will have
changed anyway. But that doesn't remove us from our responsibilities relative to
the technologies. We need to actually, meaningfully engage in the behaviors the
shift implies. Don't get tied up in the tools, but don't skip them either. They
aren't the paradigm, but they do deliver it. It's a delicate balance, but
implementing connections in the 21st Century classroom requires that we do
so.
