Praxis Makes Perfect

I’ve been thinking much about how technology does or does not enhance the learning experience for students. My thoughts are triggered by a couple of initiatives we are starting in my school; the first, providing laptops for all faculty and the second, introducing a couple of interactive whiteboards into a few classrooms.

I am all for technology, and truly believe that it can enhance the teaching & learning process, but I am increasingly searching for concrete examples of real uses to which I can point. If anyone has any examples, please comment!

I’m digging for ways in which computers let us do something we couldn’t normally do, or introduces a real, novel way of learning. So I guess I’m searching for both the pedagogical philosophy that informs using a specific technology and how it actually enhances the situation. For example:

• PowerPoint does and can enhance a lecture (a specific form of teaching). But I am hesitant to think that PowerPoint provides any real enhancement to say… groups of students creating a presentation, as supposed to writing a well-written paper.
• The Internet provides a wealth of resources and information for research, and is a clear enhancement over paper-bound sources, specifically concerning accessibility. Of course using Internet sources introduces other issues (citing, plagiarism, trustworthiness of sources etc.) and teachable moments.
• Using an interactive whiteboard, what is a real enhancement and what can be done much more cheaply on a blackboard? For example, yes it would be fun to have a Jeopardy game on the interactive whiteboard but how is this any enhancement to running the game on the blackboard (which I have done in my classes before). On the other hand, doing virtual dissections on the interactive whiteboard may provide clear capabilities normally unavailable.

Anyway, I think these are subtle distinctions between the real value of computer technology and mundane uses (that are not really worth the $$$ investment), that Ed. Tech. leaders must continually push their colleagues to address. Otherwise I fear, that I at least, will be lost in the muddle and cycle of promoting technology but wondering what we are really doing with them.

My hunch is that, while there is a dizzying array of technology-based projects out there, if we turned a critical eye on each of them we could probably compile a set of core projects that really allow educators and students to do something different than what they normally do on pencil & paper.

So the L.A. Times the other day posted this article about teachers at Carson High School, a struggling school, who voted to reject a $1.5 million gant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation that would implement a new school design model called Talent Development.

From the article Talent Development focuses on two key designs:

1. Focus on 9th grade success (I guess because researchers who created the model learned that making it through 9th grade was a strong precursor to graduating).
2. Block schedules of 4, 90-minute classes, and a 4 quarter system where students take 16 “courses” per year.

Ok, as with any model that is loosely based on some statistical correlation, I don’t feel I can comment unless I know more details about the program. It seems like a promising program just from first glance; Shouldn’t all schools strive to give kids personal attention and help them make it through, while offering intensive, engaging courses? My initial questions are: Why are 9th graders failing and what does Talent Development do to support them? Why do those who make it to 10th grade graduate at a better rate, and what does Talent Development do to support students in grades 10-12? Block scheduling can be great, but does Talent Development have any philosophies in terms of pedagogy, classroom management, and utilizing those longer time periods effectively? What about teacher support and development?

Anyhow, the article focuses more on the “sensational” development of the Carson teachers utilizing their union power and voting down the school reform initiative. The administrators see the teachers as averse to change and comfortable in their mediocrity. There may be some truth to that… The teachers see yet another top-down reform that will be supported for a short period of time with a small amount of money (1.5 mil is really not that much if you’re running a school), and are threatened by outsiders coming to their school and “telling them” how to do their jobs… There may be some validity to that.

For me, I can observe as an outsider the ways in which the system breaks down. Administrators want to look at the input(money and reform ideas)/output (graduation/test results) and try anything that may improve their results. Teachers are concerned with how their daily routine and work will be affected, and naturally are averse to changing what they’re comfortable with…. Nowhere in this discussion, or in this article, do I see a concern for what is best for the children. Arvind, want to take a crack at a Senge model for this?

Still thinking about high schools at the moment. Thanks to RandyZ for sending me some links. After looking through these links, I wonder what are the best ways to help alleviate the high school dropout issue. The resources from the Gates Foundation I looked through sound great, it says some things that make sense to me, but what do they really mean? I have more questions than answers right now:

Statement: Schools are designed for the industrial age, and are not relevant to students today.

What does this mean for school design? How are schools not “designed” for the information age? And what are some concrete examples of school design that does make sense? I’m currently helping with an article that describes “early college” as a model of high school design. It’s a model where students are expected to take a college prep load in high school, and complete the equivalent of the 1st two years of college while in high school (including courses that model what college-level courses demand of students). The benefits are clear: a guided path to college, easier transition into college level work, and hopefully more rigorous and engaging coursework. However, I have questions for this and any model of school design: 1) HOW does it engage students any better? 2) How does it address the needs of students who are not already up to level and prepared for college-level work? 3) How is this a school model for the “information age” (if we are using this as a criteria)?

Anyway, I wonder how we can work to create systemic change that addresses the unique needs of independent communities. That last sentence seems like an oxymoron, but I think is the core of making positive change. We can look at model schools like High Tech High (profiled on Oprah), but how generalizable and relevant are model schools to other communities? We can mobilize the public to get outraged by doing segments on Oprah and starting organizations like StandUp.org and sell lots of medalions (StandUp) like the yellow wristbands phenomena (a strategy made popular by Lance Armstrong). I think these are positive… but how do we make large scale change?

I feel all over the place on this issue of school reform because there are so many complex, interweaving, variables. Everyone has an idea, there are so many different ideas, and what do we focus on? Right now I am very interested in the idea that students need at least one individual who will motivate, educate, and most importantly advocate for them as they go through the school system. If we can provide a system that does this single goal, we might be able to address unique needs while creating systemic policies that nurture success… What do people think?

While I will always be passionate about computer technology and its use and affects on schooling, I’m increasingly interested in the larger context of public education in the United States. Some of the work I will be doing in my PhD program is researching high school, and the issue of increasing drop out rates is becoming a bigger topic. Here it is, featured in Time and on CNN.com. I think much of the research I have come across has focused on the negative life outcomes correlated to dropping out of high school, and it’s heartening to see that we may start focusing on “why” kids are dropping out. I think the reasons will be very context/community specific, even with some general trends that may appear in all high schools… what do other people think are reasons for kids dropping out in their communities?

I hope that this research will yield some concrete strategies for helping kids make it through high school. We can talk in generalities and probably conclude that our schooling system is just “not reaching individual students”, but how are we not reaching them? And how can we remedy this problem? Technology is one piece of the puzzle, but we educational technologists often talk in generalities too. Technology engages students. Technology makes learning more relevant. Technology democratizes the educational process. Etc. Etc. Etc. What does this mean really? Does technology really accomplish these goals? At least for me, I’m feeling the need to understand the larger context of schooling in order to better communicate how technology can help address our issues….. I think the underlying question is, where and how are we losing our students as they progress through the educational system?  If anyone can point me to any resources, articles, or research on the subject, I’d love to read it.

So the buzz this morning was Apple’s announcement that users can install Windows XP on the Intel Macs. They’ve released Boot Camp beta for now, and will work this feature into their next release of OS X. Very cool.

I wonder how, if at all, this will affect schools’ hardware strategies? My school at least is struggling with being a dual platform school, and the PC users have been becoming more vocal of late. Our faculty interestingly is just about 50/50 Mac/PC.

This announcement could give our school a great compromise.. our laptop carts could house MacBook Pro’s and we could install both Windows XP and OS X on them (of course this would cost the school a bit more of coinage to get MacBooks). My initial reaction is kudos to Apple, and what a great possibility for schools to expose children to working on both platforms.