If you build it...will they come?

        Ray Kinsella heard and repeated it (through the person of Kevin Costner in the movie "Field of Dreams"): "If you build it, he will come." He built it, and, sure enough, Shoeless Joe Jackson and a dozen other deceased baseball players showed up to play ball there. The implication is that all it takes is to construct something, and magical things will suddenly happen. With the beginning of another fiscal school year, dozens of teachers and administrators are gearing up to chase the same dream. All they need is "Smart" boards for all their math teachers, two new mobile laptop "labs" for the Language Arts teachers, digital camcorders for Social Studies...and student learning will increase.
       Sometimes it even works. You build a new park, and crime in the surrounding neighborhood drops. You purchase new team uniforms, and the team starts winning. But, statistically, a drop in crime, or a winning season -- all other things being equal -- are no more likely with new things as with old. A team wins because it plays better than its opponents. New uniforms may encourage a team to try harder, but it's their play that'll make them a winner. Besides, any effect realized by the purchase of new things wears off quickly with time. Change simply isn't that easy.
        Beginning with the Apple Classroom of Tomorrow research over 25 years ago, education technology has been pushed as a vehicle, a metaphor for education reform and improvement. After all, online computers can do some very amazing things: they can extend a content discussion between students (and anyone else) across space and time. Real time conferencing tools can bring experts, artists, community members into the classroom, without anyone getting into a car. Students can turn a test into a learning device through machine-delivered instant feedback and hyperlinked support resources. Teachers can incorporate anonymous student responses to questions into an interactive lesson in real time, and in the process, generate data to guide instruction on the fly. It all seems like a no-brainer, like all we need to do it build it, and "he will come" -- the scores will magically rise.
        In fact, our classrooms these days already have a lot of these instructional tools -- almost all have digital displays, teachers invariably have a computer on which they can create materials and resources, and students have access to all kinds of hardware, including digital camcorders and cameras, online information resources, and classroom- and online-delivered interactive assessment tools. "Smart classroom" tools are becoming more common as well. We have, in many cases, already built it. And sometimes it helps. But for most, many of the same challenges remain: students still are disengaged, test scores fail to rise, and classrooms remain dysfunctional and disrupted. What's happening?.More importantly, why should we bother?

        At a recent visit to a district with a heavy commitment to 1-1 computing (all students are issued laptops as they enter high school), the chief information officer advised those present that test scores should not be the reason to commit to such a program. Such a program is important because it prepares students for the environments they will encounter in the world beyond high school. It is about relevance and student engagement, delivering experiences which engage students "where they are." These are all extremely valid points.

       What caught my eye during the presentation was the word "engagement," and its implications for student motivation and commitment. If the promise of technology tools is that students are better engaged and motivated, then increased scores should, in fact, be the result. But "engagement" and "relevance" aren't just tied to tools. They're tied to behaviors. The presence of powerful tools does not correct the disconnect between how students learn outside of school, and how they learn at school. Only teachers can do that. Those "new uniforms" can provide some interest, but that interest simply will not last. Chances are, if a teacher is using the new tools to implement the same lockstep, teacher-driven, low level pedagogical practices they used before the tools arrived, the results will be no increase in engagement, motivation, and test scores. If, alternatively, a teacher truly embraces the ability of these tools to promote and support student-driven and connected learning, extending the classroom across space, time, and knowledge levels, the results can be magical.
       Yes, it is critical that we place the tools students are already using outside of school in their hands while we have them. But as schools chase tech dollars, if they propose nothing else, the results will most likely be disappointing -- either they won't get their money, or the money won't do what they hoped it would. Teachers can't simply "build it," they much change their practice to better realize the promise of powerful tools. Technology implies change, but it isn't change in itself. We can only improve our effectiveness as educators if we change what we, and our students, do, in the classroom and beyond.