So how do we change?   If we can’t wait for the Education system to change, how can the classroom teacher trigger fundamental change?

Technology must be the answer as school divisions across Alberta are providing new technology to classroom teachers.  My school division has provided several innovations grant, which enable teachers to purchase new cutting edge technology.  Now the question becomes what drives technology adoption?

Recognition of teacher beliefs, choice and professionalism is the key to implementation of new directives, including adoption of new technology. Ertmer (2005) emphasizes the connection between how a teacher believes they should teach and how the integration of technology will look in their room. He also notes that beliefs are stronger at predicting a teacher’s actions than knowledge is. Beliefs are very difficult to change due to their ingrained nature and the personal attachments to them, the stronger the belief the harder it will be to adapt or change it to a new way of teaching and learning.

For beliefs to change and teachers to “buy in” to new ways of teaching and learning sufficient time is needed. Mumtaz (2000) discusses the idea that teacher resistance to technology is due to a lack of clarity in the reasons for change and how the change should look. I believe that clearer explanations will improve teacher support of new initiatives, change their beliefs. Teachers want to improve their practice but need to believe they will be supported. How can leaders and systems support teachers’ use of technology to enhance it to the point where the technology is embedded in student learning and a teacher’s role is to support students in filtering through an overwhelming amount of information? Clarity and transparency, leading to changing teacher beliefs, are possible change factors.  What are other possible change agents?

Ertmer (2005) notes that, “Ultimately, the decision regarding whether and how to use technology for instruction rests on the shoulders of classroom teachers” (p. 27). Teacher factors like skills and beliefs, are listed by Mumtaz (2000) as being the most important factors when teachers decide to implement new technology.

Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher Pedagogical Beliefs: The Final Frontier in Our Quest for Technology Integration. ETR&D, 53 (4), 25-39. Retrieved September 23, 2011, from Google Scholar.

Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: a review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9 (3), 319-342. Retrieved September 23, 2011, from Google Scholar.

Having read Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is Changing Your World and recently been given a copy of Don Tapscott’s latest book, Macrowikinomics Rebooting Business and the World, I did a quick internet search about the author.   A few clicks later, I found a CBC radio program entitled ReCivilization host by Don Tapscott..  “ReCivilization is a five-part series that examines some of the biggest challenges facing our world,” reads the official description of the new CBC Radio series.  “It charts a path to the future enabled by the revolutions underway in communications, innovation and learning in this new, post-industrial, digital age.” (CBC, 2012)   The episode that caught my eye was the second; it was entitled ‘Open Source Knowledge’ and featured conservations with John Seely Brown, Shigeru Miyagawa,  The CBC website description was as follows;  “Don looks at the transformation of education and science, and how the sharing of knowledge is moving from the industrial-age model of a one-way broadcast from teacher to student to collaborative, discovery-driven learning, enabled by the web.” (CBC, 2012)

One of the comments of the recivilization blog, posted by Doug Martin, summed up the show.   “Tapscott and the CBC delineate a paradigm shift in education processes, methods and institutions, building on information technology and the enormous opportunity for change in learning, knowledge creation and knowledge sharing.“ (CBC, 2012)  Don and his guest make a compelling argument that education needs to shift into the 21^st century.  From moving to an open souce education, where all education is online and free, and moving away from age based learning are a few of  the proposed changes.  I believe we need to change more.   Walser (2007) notes, “You can’t just sprinkle 21st century skills on the 20^th century donut. It requires a fundamental reconception of what we are doing.”

Angie Tarasoff from Alberta Education was a guest speaker in my Leadership and Technology class and provided the class with some unique insights.   Angie Tarasoff stated that if you are doing ‘A’ and want ‘B’ but continue to reward ‘A’, you will just get more ‘A’.  This is certainly true on a provincial level.  Although there is discussion regarding the potential for education to generate engaged thinkers and ethical citizens with an entrepreneurial spirit, in reality Alberta Education continues to reward traditional education.  Exams that test knowledge rather than skills reward A.  Funding that is attached to specific minutes spent in certain classes, rewards ‘A’.

I feel that technology will push the educational system towards change, but the   provincial education system is what will ultimately deliver fundamental change, or not.

Tapscott, D (2012). About Recivilization. CBC. Retrieved March 16, 2012, from http://www.cbc.ca/recivilization/about.html

Gosmire, D, & Grady, M. (2007). A bumpy road: Principal as technology leader. National Association of Secondary School Principals. Retrieved from http://nassp.org/portals/0/content/55193.pdf

I recently attended a Community of Practice in Edmonton on One-to-One Laptops. Cheryl Lemke, the President and CEO of the Metiri Group, was leading a session on Instructional Leadership in A Digital Age. About 5 min into the session, Cheryl stated, “that today’s children are wired differently.” Sure this is a straightforward comment about today’s youth, but it had me thinking ‘Are they really wired differently, or has their reliance to technology made them different?’ A book I just finished reading may have influenced my view of young adults and their dependence on technology. It was entitled The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don’t Trust Anyone Under 30) by Mark Bauerlein.

Most of the literature I have read to date has proven young people have a natural affinity for technology.  They instinctively turn first to the internet to communicate, understand, learn, find and do many things. (Tapscott 2009) Mark Bauerlein’s viewpoint is very different. His simple but jarring thesis is that technology and the digital culture it has created are not broadening the horizon of the younger generation; they are narrowing it to a self-absorbed social universe that block out virtually everything else. (Bauerlein 200)

Bauerlein states that the educational system has not failed to keep children busy, but that the system fails to accomplish the one thing which rests at the heart of its charter: schools fail to teach. “Trained to make use of the most up-to-date information technologies, many modern students are unable to retain and assimilate such information, and one of the most important elements of an education — the ability to apply past lessons and events to present concerns — is almost entirely outside of their grasp.” (Bauerlein 2009 pg 152)

Sitting and listening to Cheryl Lemke speak, I cannot stop thinking about our perceived importance on technology for our students and our lack of focus on sound teaching pedagogy. Who cares about technology if we are failing to create a generation of life long learners? I feel teachers, when supported by technology leaders, are the change agent. We have the ability to effectively craft technology into our lessons, rather then just use technology to deliver our message. If teachers invest the time learning technology, then technology become invisible and learning becomes front and center. Teachers have the ability to make technology much more then just a check mark on a divisional 21^st century check list.

References

Bauerlein, M. (2008). The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don’t Trust Anyone Under 30). New York, NY: Penguin Group.

Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown Up Digital. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Last week I created a presentation for my Ed Tech class, which focused on technology in education. The television, computer, and iPad were a few of the technologies that had varying degrees of impact on education. On my drive home from class I kept thinking, “does technology impact learning?” A quick search reintroduced the “Clark and Kosma debate”, which questioned ‘media’s (technology) influence on learning.’

“Studies of the influence of media on learning have been a fixed feature of educational research since Thorndike (1912) recommended pictures as a labor saving device in instruction. Most of this research is reinforced by the hope that learning will be enhanced with the proper mix of medium, student, subject” (Clark, 1983, p. 445). In many ways the problem is similar to one that occurs in the pharmaceutical industry. There we find arguments concerning the relative effectiveness of different media (tablets, capsules, liquid suspensions) and different brand names carrying the same generic drug to users (Clark, 1985). In the 1983 winter edition of the Review of Education Research Richard E. Clark wrote an article entitled Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media. It was this meta-analyses of media’s influence on learning, which had a profound effect on the discipline of Education Technology. Clark found “that there are no learning benefits to be gained from employing any specific medium to deliver instruction” (Clark, 1983, p. 445). Clark (1983) stated:
“The best current evidence is that media are mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition. Basically, the choice of vehicle might influence the cost or extent of distributing instruction, but only the content of the vehicle can influence achievement. (p. 445)

Since “media and their attributes have important influences on the cost or speed of learning but only the use of adequate instructional methods will influence learning” (Clark, 1994, p. 7). Instructional designers can spend time designing precise methods that are independent of media.

Alberta Learning’s Career and Technology Studies curriculum has shifted away from specific media for delivery and has now refocused on the methods. The Computer Science curriculum is program language agnostic. No longer are students required to learn a specific language (media) but teachers are able to find the best fit for the classrooms needs.
Schools continue to invest heavily in expensive media hoping they will produce gains in learning. Clark (1994) stated:
“When learning gains are found, we attribute them to the delivery medium, not to the active ingredient in instruction. When learning gains are absent, we assume we have chosen the wrong mix of media. In any event, many educators and business trainers are convinced that they must invest scarce resources in newer media in order to insure learning, performance or motivational gains.” (p. 9)

This has been very evident in several school boards in central Alberta. One such school board equipped each classroom with interactive white board technology. The school board had a desire to have classrooms outfitted with 21st century technology. The effective use of such devices took several years as the designers needed to create a problem from the newly proposed solution.

There will always be a desire to have the latest and greatest media present in our classrooms. Hopefully, we understand that media will always change and that greater emphasis needs to be placed on methods for delivery.

References

Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-59. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media Will Never Influence Learning. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with Media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-211. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

The Cochrane High School that I currently teach at has an enrolment of 525 students. The small school setting has countless benefits from a safe environment to a more personalized educational plan. One glaring disadvantage to our small student base is the limited number of core and option classes we can deliver locally.

Over the past few years, Rockyview Schools has placed a greater emphasis on alternative measures to deliver certain courses. “Due to various student and school circumstances, students are often unable to enroll in a particular course within their home school.   These students now have the opportunity to enroll in courses through our weConnect Partnership program” (Rockyview Schools, n.d.). The weConnect Program utilizes a variety of tools, including D2L and Moodle, to provide curriculum to students. In essence weConnect is a supervised Distance Learning classroom that provides increased course flexibility to students.

There has been a large number of students enrolled in the weConnect program for the current school year. With a large commitment from my high school, I found myself investigating asynchronous course delivery.  Many of the articles referred back to Michael G. Moore’s Theory of transactional distance.  Moore (1997) declared “distance education is not simply a geographic separation of learners and teachers, but, more importantly, is a psychological distance between learners and the teacher” (p. 24). Rumble (1986) found, that in any educational program, even in a traditional classroom, there is some transaction distance.  Moore (1997) stated, that the transactional distance is bridged though a balance of dialogue, course design and learner autonomy.

With advances in technology, such as email and the internet, there are to be great improvements in the interaction and speed of communication between students and the instructors. However, course designers may place an emphasis on this new technology “and develop distance learning programs that are of poor quality, and not well designed pedagogically” (Gerritson, 2005, p. 8).

Most of our students have been trained to be dependent on the school system and are typically not prepared for self directed learning. I am interested to see how our students cope and react to the change in delivery.

References

Gerritsen, J. (2005). Conquering the tyranny of distance. New Zealand Education Review, pp.7-8.

Moore, M. (1997) Theory of transactional distance. Keegan, D., ed. Theoretical Principles of Distance Education (1997), Routledge, pp. 22-38.

Rockyview Schools. (n.d.). What is weConnect? Rockyview Schools. Retrieved October 8, 2011, from http://www.rockyview.ab.ca/programs_services/weconnect-program/what-is-a-weconnect-centre

Rumble , G. (1986) The Planning and Management of Distance Education, New York: St Martins Press.

Reading Heidegger is a lot like trying to navigate a ship through a dense fog. His language is sprinkled with German neologisms, and his lines of thought tend not to be laid out in a straightforward manner (Waddington, 2005).

Philosophers of education have recently exhibited a heightened level of interest in Heidegger’s thought, and it is required reading for EDER 679.05 Technology and Society.  Thus begins the journey of reading and comprehending the question concerning technology…..   I found another 2 resources that assisted in my understanding for Heidegger’s essay and they are as follows:  A field Guide to Heidegger:  Understanding ‘The Question concerning Technology’ (Waddington, 2005), and the University of Hawaii associate professor John Zeurn’s reading guide.

Most essays on technology focus primarily on practical issues surrounding the use of particular technologies. Heidegger’s essay, however, does not—instead, it focuses on the ways of thinking that lie behind technology. Heidegger (1977, p. 3)

Heidegger’s 3 pivotal ideas ….

1. Bringing forth,

2. Challenging –forth — standing-reserve, and

3. Ge-stell.

Bringing Forth:

• Heidegger comments, ‘The four ways of being responsible bring something into appearance. They let it come forth into presencing’ (1977, p. 10).

• Heidegger names this process bringing-forth.

• Bringing-forth is the mode of revealing that corresponds to ancient craft.

• He suggests that the ancient craftsmanship involves the four Aristotelian causes: material, formal, final, and efficient.

• Although the craftsman has an important role in that she unites the four causes by considering each of them carefully, each of the four causes is equally co-responsible for the particular craft-item that is produced. (Waddington, 2005)

Challenging forth and standing -reserve

• Modern technology, however, has its own particular mode of revealing, which Heidegger calls challenging-forth. Thinking in the mode of challenging-forth is very different from thinking in the mode of bringing-forth: when challenging-forth, one sets upon the elements of a situation both in the sense of ordering (i.e. setting a system upon) and in a more rapacious sense (i.e. the wolves set upon the traveler and devoured him)  (Waddington, 2005).

• In bringing-forth, human beings were One important element among others in the productive process; in challenging-forth, humans control the productive process (Waddington, 2005).

• Essentially, challenging-forth changes the way we see the world—as Michael Zimmerman pointedly remarks, ‘To be capable of transforming a forest into packaging for cheeseburgers, man must see the forest not as a display of the miracle of life, but as raw material, pure and simple’  (Waddington, 2005).

• Modern technology, Heidegger has told us, also reveals. But its revealing is different from that of the older crafts. To explain this difference more fully, Heidegger introduces the idea of the “standing reserve.”(1998, Zeurn)

• Objects that have been made standing-reserve have been reduced to disposability in two different senses of the word: (1) They are disposable in the technical sense; they are easily ordered and arranged. Trees that once stood chaotically in the forest are now logs that can be easily counted, weighed, piled, and shipped. (2) They are also disposable in the conventional sense; like diapers and cheap razors, they are endlessly replaceable/interchangeable and have little value. (Waddington, 2005).

Ge-stell

• Challenging things forth into standing-reserve is not a laudable activity, and thus it makes sense to wonder what drives human beings to think in this way. Heidegger’s answer to this motivational question is unconventional— instead of suggesting that the origins of this motivation are indigenous to human beings, he postulates the existence of a phenomenon that ‘sets upon man to order the real as standing-reserve’ (1977, p. 19). Heidegger calls this mysterious phenomenon enframing ( Ge-stell in German).  (Waddington, 2005).

• Humanity’s orientation to the world takes the form of an enframing which views the world only as “standing-reserve,” a source of raw materials. In this enframing, however, lies the potential for another orientation.

• By carefully considering the ways of thinking that lie behind technology, we can grasp the ‘saving power’. We can realize that we, the Shepherds of Being, have a choice : we can bring-forth rather than challenge-forth. Thus, once we understand the thinking behind technology, we become free to choose our fate—‘… we are already sojourning in the open space of destining’.

The above is a brief summary of Heidegger’s main points from his essay The Question Concerning Technology.   I’m am looking forward to our conservation this evening in class to will tie Heidegger’s views to todays technology in education.