Artichoke

Things you seldom hear discussed at an (e) learning conference.

I have been following up on the great comments and links on the Artichoke happiness post and happened across a link from Lucychili, to a TED talk by technologist, scientist, physicist Clifford Stoll who made claims about computers in schools that were so unlike what I am used to hearing in New Zealand that I laughed aloud ...

“there is a massive and bizarre idea going around that we have to bring more computers into schools ... my idea is to get them out of schools and keep them out of schools.”

 

I am amazed that I haven’t nudged up against Stoll before - his background is enticing - impressive diverse and quirky - a polymath (astronomer, researcher, computer security expert , klein bottle maker ) and with his current determination to “think local act local” - a teacher (Stoll teaches physics to eighth graders). It gives him an domain experience and authority that I have not seen in the commentators we invite to speak at (e)learning conferences in New Zealand.

But all this doesn’t mean that Stoll’s analysis is sound .... he is a compelling presenter but his arguments about computers in school were more rhetorical than research balanced – However as other edu-bloggers have argued many of our arguments for introducing computers/ ICTs/ Web2.0 into school are based on generalisations and rhetoric.

I have ordered his books High Tech Heretic: Why Computers Don't Belong in the Classroom and Other Reflections by a Computer Contrarian  and The Cuckoo's Egg: Tracking a Spy Through the Maze of Computer Espionage  to see what he can do when given longer than an 18 minute sound bite to explain his ideas ..

History, including educational history, is full of ideas that seemed good at the time.

Stoll’s comments challenged me to think about conversation starters I seldom hear/ questions seldom raised at (e) Learning conferences.  I decided to generate a list of questions seldom raised at (e) learning conferences in New Zealand using Postman’s five things as a framework – Neil Postman: Five Things We Need to Know About Technological Change because Postman’s thinking along with others like Ivan Illich, Carolyn Marvin and Larry Cuban provide a useful starting point for any thinking that might provoke analysis of our current “(e) learning is good” position about the integration of ICTs into school.

What follows is still clunky, and I am a little fearful of charges of techno determinism,  but here goes ...

“Five ideas I’d like to discuss at the next (e) learning conference"

In response to Postman's :
“First, that we always pay a price for technology; the greater the technology, the greater the price”

What do ICTs give to teachers and/or students?

What will ICTs do for pedagogy?

How will ICTs advantage the conditions of value in learning?

What does ICTs take away from teachers and/or students?

What will ICTs undo in pedagogy?

How will ICTs disadvantage the conditions of value in learning?

What is the cost of ICTs to education?

 In response to Postman's:
“Second, that there are always winners and losers, and that the winners always try to persuade the losers that they are really winners.”

Who specifically benefits from ICTs in school?

Which groups will be favoured by ICTs in school?

What kind of processes will be enhanced by ICTs in school?

Who specifically is harmed by ICTs in school?

Which groups will be harmed by ICTs in school?

What kind of processes will be harmed by ICTs in school?

Who are the winners when ICTs are introduced to schools?

Who is trying to persuade others of the benefits of ICTs in school?

Who are the losers when ICTs are introduced to schools?

Who is being persuaded by others on the benefits of ICTs in schools?

Are all schools benefited and/ or harmed in the same ways by the introduction of ICTs? 

In response to Postman's:
“Third, that there is embedded in every great technology an epistemological, political or social prejudice. Sometimes that bias is greatly to our advantage. Sometimes it is not. The printing press annihilated the oral tradition; telegraphy annihilated space; television has humiliated the word; the computer, perhaps, will degrade community life. And so on.”  

What bias does ICT bring to thinking?

What bias does ICT bring to managing self?

What bias does ICT bring to participating and contributing?

What bias does ICT bring to relating to others?

What bias does ICT bring to using language, symbols and text?

What bias does ICT bring to communication?

What bias does ICT bring to community?

In response to Postman's:
“Fourth, technological change is not additive; it is ecological, which means, it changes everything and is, therefore, too important to be left entirely in the hands of Bill Gates.”

What are the consequences of the introduction of ICTs for the culture of school (culture = the things we do to belong)? 

What are the consequences of ICTs for the culture of the city, the suburb, small town and rural New Zealand? 

And finally in response to Postman's:
"And fifth, technology tends to become mythic; that is, perceived as part of the natural order of things, and therefore tends to control more of our lives than is good for us. .... When a technology become mythic, it is always dangerous because it is then accepted as it is, and is therefore not easily susceptible to modification or control."  

What are the ICTs that are ubiquitous in school?

What are the ICTs in school that we cannot imagine doing without?

What do these ICTs do for us?

What do these ICTs do to us?

 I want to keep refining these questions, and adding in some more as I read and think more carefully - I don’t hold out much hope that they will be on the formal ULearn08 conference programme BUT I am always hopeful that I will find others who will play with them in the evenings ... 

And as an aside I reckon that Postman’s criteria for speakers on technological change should be stuck to the screen of every (e) learning conference organiser.

One might say, then, that a sophisticated perspective on technological change includes one's being skeptical of Utopian and Messianic visions drawn by those who have no sense of history or of the precarious balances on which culture depends. In fact, if it were up to me, I would forbid anyone from talking about the new information technologies unless the person can demonstrate that he or she knows something about the social and psychic effects of the alphabet, the mechanical clock, the printing press, and telegraphy. In other words, knows something about the costs of great technologies.  Neil Postman: Five Things We Need to Know About Technological Change

Hysteresis: Teachers, technology and red herrings

Even the most ardent advocates, (those paid to proselytise over the integration of  ICTs into New Zealand education), would concede over a Speights at the Springfield pub that the status of ICT use in New Zealand classrooms is variable –

... and after a three or more Speights  most would concede that many primary and secondary teachers remain locked in Cuban’s limited use cycle, Knezek and Christensen’s Stage 2/3  Instruments for Assessing Educator Progress in Technology Integration, or Moersch’s LoTi Level 2 / 3. of the Levels of Technology Implementation (LoTi) Scale.  

However, gaining a Speight’s fuelled concession from the crusading champions of ICTs in school, those digital prophets, (e)visionaries, and techno advocates, doesn’t interest me as much as my gradual realisation that the level of use that exists in any classroom (or across any school) is a system of hysteresis – an event that seems independent of the things we identify as significant inputs.

The craziness of the day job ensures that I have spent too much time focussing through a 100X eyepiece on technology adoption by teachers rather than stepping back and looking at why we would want technologies in school at all.

All of this means that I am so overly rehearsed in all the (e) excuses, in the “long list of barriers to teacher use of ICTs”identified  by researchers across the globe (including our very own Lai, Pratt and Trewern, 2002), that I could rip off a FAQ Troubleshooting page for the “teachers who fails to implement technology” without pausing to draw breath.(except to apologise to Microsoft's XBox Help and Support site)

FAQ: Teachers who fail to implement technology

CAUTION: Before you begin any of the procedures in this section, follow the safety instructions in the Product Information Guide

Notice: To avoid electrostatic discharge, ground yourself by using a wrist grounding strap or by periodically touching an unpainted metal surface (such as a connector on the back of the teacher who is failing to implement).

Step 1.  Determine whether the indicator light on the teacher who is failing to implement technology remains green or whether it blinks.

a. If the indicator light repeatedly blinks green and orange, the teacher is not functioning correctly. If this is the case, follow steps 2 through 4. If these steps do not resolve the issue, continue to step 8.

b. If the indicator light remains green, continue to step 2.

Step 2.  Verify that the teacher can easily and flexibly access ICTs. If this is not the case, contact the person in charge of ICT budgets and remedy any access barriers. If the teacher continues to fail to implement continue to Step 3.

Step 3. If you can connect your teacher directly and flexibly to an ICT, make sure that you have connected the teacher correctly – that is competently and confidently,  (does the teacher know the ICT and understand the value of its use), and check that the teacher has good technical support.

a.  Turn off power to your teacher and to your ICT.

b.  Connect the ICT cable connector to the teacher output of competence/ confidence in ICT use and to the RGB input of understanding the value of ICT use to student learning outcomes.  Make sure that the connections are firmly connected. A dodgy connection means the “teacher who is failing to implement” will not sustain progress past start up.

If the teacher continues to fail to implement continue to Step 4.

Step 4.  If you can connect your “teacher who is failing to implement” directly, flexibly, confidently, competently and understandingly to the ICT, make sure that you have connected the ICT correctly to teacher planning of learning experiences, learning intentions, success criteria, learning outcomes, and assessment for learning rubrics

a. Verify that you are using the same type of RGB cable for the student learning outcomes and for the ICT connection. If this is not case, the student performance may not be as expected. If you connect your teacher to an ICT without them knowing and understanding the goals for student learning, they may not implement well when un-monitored. Note that this does not affect the performance of teachers whose green light never goes off, they will continue to implement technology in the absence of any identifiable student learning outcome.

If the teacher continues to fail to implement continue to Step 5

Step 5. Verify the input selection. Make sure that you have tuned the teacher and the ICT to the correct input curriculum channels. Typically, you can find the Input Curriculum Select menu by using one of the following methods:

a. Look for a hidden panel on the front of the teacher or ICT.

b. Look for a button on the original remote control.

c. Use the on-screen menu option.

If the teacher continues to fail to implement continue to Step 6.

Step 6. Try different connection configurations.

a. If the teacher is connected directly to an ICT, try a different ICT.

b. If you connect your teacher to a planned student learning experience through an ICT, try to connect your teacher directly to a planned student learning experience omitting the ICT.

If the teacher continues to fail to implement continue to Step 7

Step 7. Determine whether the behaviour of the teacher who is failing to implement technology occurs with one ICT, with two ICTs, or with more than two ICTs.

a. If the problem occurs with only one or two ICTs, search the ICTPD Cluster Knowledge Base for known issues for that particular ICT.

b. If no known issues exist, return the ICT to the retailer.

If the teacher continues to fail to implement continue to Step 8

Step 8. The teacher may be malfunctioning.

· I     If  removing the teacher from the ICT does not resolve the issue, you may need to repair the teacher.

Step 8 is the telling step..... it alerts us to the fact that we are looking so closely at the teacher who fails to implement  - that we don’t examine the assumptions inherent in this approach.

We neglect to ask the could we/ should we question/s altogether

The “Just because we could integrate ICTs into classrooms should we?” question.

Perhaps the reason why the level of ICT use that exists in any classroom (or across any school) appears to be a system of hysteresis – (an event that seems independent of any of our “identified as appropriate inputs”)-  and has been like this ever since the 1920’s - is that we have neglected to clarify the outputs we value in education and in doing so misidentified the inputs.

Instead of talking about change management for the teacher who fails to implement we should be clarifying the kinds of learning outcomes we want for children and evaluating whether these are the outcomes that ICTs bring.

Cuban’s “What kinds of learning are most important to children?” is a great place to start the discussion 

“Harriet Cufaro asks what a youngster learns when she presses the keyboard to call up cars and garages on a screen to figure out how to park a car in a garage. Eye hand co-ordination? Perhaps. A sense of control? Not really, since the programmed instructions produce alternate paths from which the child chooses. She directs the car on the screen, unaware of the mysterious programme as she presses the keys. Cuffaro then asks what occurs when the same girll parks a car when playing with blocks. Her eye-hand coordination now must deal with three dimensions, not just the two on the screen. The block that is the car must be manoeuvered physically by hand to fit into a garage made of blocks. Cuffaro says , “The computer version of parking a car is action in a vacuum, motion without context, and with reality twice removed.”

She argues that the unanticipated lessons that children pick up informally when working with microcomputers should give educators pause before plunging ahead with the new technology.

“It is the presence of these collateral learnings – the distance and narrowing of physical reality, the magical quality of pressing keys, the “invisible” sharing of control, the oversimplification of process, the need for precision and timing – that merit great attention when thinking about young children’s learning and the use of microcomputers.”  P95 and 96 Teachers and Machines.  The classroom use of technology since 1920

Cuffaro and others single out the computers power to teach many significant, misleading, and unintentional lessons to children beyond the programmed ones. 

All this means we have to be especially careful about what and how we choose to use ICTs with students of any age …. and that the teacher who fails to implement may well be a red herring.

 

"Education significantly shapes how children will define their happiness"

I have been reading Amy Gutman – and was struck by her analysis that

“Education itself significantly changes how children will define their happiness once they become adults.” p68 in The Problem of Education Utilitarianism and Rights Theories in "Mill's Utilitarianism"

The media reporting on the suicide of a vulnerable student from a local school has seen me thinking a lot about student happiness this week.

The 17-year-old Takapuna Grammar student was found dead at his home 13 days ago - a day after he suffered a severe beating at school, reported to have been watched by 15 students and recorded on a mobile phone video.

He was being treated for depression at the Waitemata District Health board's mental health unit for adolescents.

I am thinking about this from the perspective of a parent with sons of a similar age, and I am thinking about it as an ex secondary teacher, I am thinking about it ... . and it is uncomfortable and desperate thinking from any perspective.   

Gutman argues that encouraging “happiness” per se is not a reasonable utilitarian standard for education ...

How is society to prepare children for the pursuit of their own, self-defined happiness? Children cannot themselves determine the particular ends of education, nor is maximising their present happiness a reasonable utilitarian standard for education, if only because the rest of their life is likely to be much longer than their childhood. Yet what will make children happy in the future is largely indeterminate. To make matters more complicated still, education itself significantly changes how children will define their happiness once they become adults. To guide the education of children, utilitarians need to find a standard that is not tied to a particular conception of the good life and that is not derived from the circular argument that if they become happy adults their prior education must have been good. P68

And society expects schools to worship economic advantage through the knowledge economy and global consumerism, something which University of Waikato academic Martin Thrupp addresses when he looks at school zoning, and the economic, class and ethnic separatism that leads to societal resentments and unhappiness. Education’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’: Part One – Persistent Middle Class Advantage pdf New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work, Volume 4, Issue 2, 77-88, 2007 

And yet listening to parent after parent at student interviews would suggest that “happiness” aligned with some small measure of institutional compliance tops achievement in the forefront of many parents expectations/ needs. 

When I remember some of the children I have known as three and four year olds and then compare the exuberance of their pre-school sandpit social play with their social lives transitioning from school as young adults I am reminded of Sue Vickerman’s Oyster Catcher poem 

The social decline of the oyster-catcher

Back then, you were the swaggering rocker
of wading birds; boldly-coloured, dazzling
in flight, the most conspicuous bird-of-shingle,
the loudest. I remember your effortless landings
on muddy sand-banks; your hot-shot red lenses;
how you eyed up the cockles. You always claimed
the most abundant mussel beds, the ones
on rocky outcrops in down-town estuaries,
the tangiest; always picked the best ridge of sand
for your high-tide roost. You were so cool
with your minimalist nest: no fuss; lay the eggs
on an exposed pebble shoal, let nature do the rest.

It was frequenting estuaries that brought you down.
Your stout, pale pink legs - not your best feature -
wandered too far in the long, dark winter. Increasingly
you nested by rivers, even on farmland, digging bluntly
in mud and soil when you used to be so at home
on rocky shores, on beaches. And thus it was

that your diet deteriorated from coastal molluscs
to earthworms. Now, even a good cockle year
doesn't bring you back. Instead you get into fights
over food. I've seen you poking through the rubbish
at night, spearing litter. I used to love watching you
on the beach, how you waited for a chance to strike
into an open shell, or simply hammered one free
with your powerful chisel-tipped bill.
But that was the coast, and this is now: not Norway,
not Iceland, but a long way up a northern river
with no shellfish. Only your clear, sharp
kleep voice tells me you're the same person.

It all leaves me wondering ..

If “Education significantly shapes how children will define their happiness” then ...

• What can schools do better to help children define happiness?
• What can families do better to help children at school define happiness?
• What can friends do better to help their friends at school define happiness?
• What can school students do better to help other students define happiness?
• What is our responsibility when using media and technology in helping children define happiness?
• What happened to “belonging”?