In a recent posting on EDTECH, the international discussion list
part of the Humanities Network (H-Net) at Michigan State for which I was a
moderator, several participants voiced the opinion that mobile devices such as
the iPad and smart phone are substantially changing the way we do things. That
is, anytime, anywhere access to information and processing power are a game
changer, a paradigm shift our students have already made. As educators in the
21st Century, we would be foolish not to attend to these devices and
their implications for learning.
Maybe all of these folks who’ve drunk the
iPhone/iPad Kool-Aid are on to something – maybe a piece of hardware really can
have a substantial impact on human history and behavior. I was reminded of an
old BBC program which aired in this country on PBS channels 40 years ago called
“Connections” – a quirky British historian names James Burke, decked out in the
ubiquitous 1970’s polyester leisure suit, traced how significant technological
advances proved to be pivotal in historical events, such as the stirrup’s role
in the rise of horse-borne combat and the Byzantine Empire. Of course, I had no
idea whether these “connections” were being portrayed accurately. I was very
much enamored with the idea of technology-driven change, caring somewhat less
about the facts.
In the context of the broad brush of human history, one can often
easily identify some big technology game-changers. Some of them, like the piano
and the telephone, were (at least from my perspective) almost entirely positive
in their impact. Others, like personal transportation (and its dependence on the
internal combustion engine), were a bit more of a mixed bag. But for the
Twentieth Century, that list must surely include the computer, and, probably
even more so, the Internet – the two providing a one-two punch impacting
everything from creativity to warfare.
So does mobile computing fit into such a grand category? Needless to
say, we don’t have the benefit of historical perspective, since portable devices
which support information access and multiple communications capabilities are a
distinctly new phenomenon. One could argue that the so-called Arab Spring as a
huge historical event owes a substantial debt to mobile computing. But one could
also argue that that impact is really just an extension of connected computing –
that the game-change was already in place before folks began carrying that power
into the streets of Cairo or Tripoli in their jeans pockets.
But when we look at the classroom, the argument gets even more
difficult. Historically, universal education is a little more than a century
old, and that change has been completely tied to that distinctly human cultural
unit, the classroom. The classroom is a closed space with its own information
ecology, its own community and social structure, and its own workflow. There is
no question that the Internet has had a huge impact on information access in the
classroom, but at this point in history, the classroom as a closed space in
which education takes place remains virtually unchanged. In fact, most education
technology approaches (the “flipped” classroom, the “intelligent” classroom are
two) are quite comfortable there, since they reinforce the closed space nature
of instructional practice in the classroom.
So what would happen if mobile devices were the huge game changer
their advocates are promoting? The difference between your parent’s laptop and
your iPhone is not about “apps” (another word for software). It’s also not about
the human-computer interface, since that will most certainly continue to change
(from touch screen to voice recognition to gesture recognition). It’s mostly
about mobility. But in a closed classroom, mobility has limited meaning. It
might very well be that the classroom as a closed space is destined for the
dustbin of history, but a lot of social change will have to happen before that.
Almost everything else we’re doing in education (notably high-stakes testing and
accountability) is dependent on the classroom and school remaining intact.
So why the buzz? There are three reasons why personal devices are
very interesting to policy people and other onlookers …
- As a substitute for school-provided 1-1 computing. Many districts are exploring whether student-supplied devices might help them reach the utopia of every student being able to access and create information from their own device. Under this scenario, the decision to use personal devices is driven by simple economics (the district wants 1-1 computing, but can’t afford to purchase every student a device).
- As a way of leveraging existing student access behaviors and habits. As mentioned above, many of the advocates of personal devices in the classroom are noting that students are already using such devices for learning. They speculate that these behaviors might be leveraged in the classroom.
- As a way to blur the space-time boundaries of the classroom. Advocates of access/use patterns such as “hybrid instruction” have, as their goal, the ability of students to access and create content online, beyond school class time. Personal devices can help that happen.
You might have noticed that only the third
option reflects the fact that a personal device is mobile, thereby implying the
greatest change in school/classroom structure. But what’s interesting is, if
students are, in fact, allowed to bring their personal devices into school and
use them, the results might very well be the same in any case -- the classroom
will be "disrupted," regardless of the teacher's or policy-maker's intent.
So is this a James Burke moment? Are we going to look back at this
decade and say it was the beginning of the end of the traditional classroom? As
I state above, my contention is that connectivity (not device) is the “stirrup”
of this trend, but the smart money is to prepare teachers for #3, regardless of
what else happens. That is, the classroom teacher must be willing to allow their
traditional classroom structure to be disrupted, and, in many cases, learn a
completely new teaching role which better utilizes the coming changes.
But then, I never actually owned a polyester leisure
suit…
No comments:
Post a Comment