Refuting the Educational Technology Critics

Critics of educational technology argue that there is “no significant difference” between face-to-face instruction and computer-mediated instruction. Their criticisms focus on several key points surrounding technology: it takes away from other programs, requires too many financial resources, is not good for students, limits social contact/relationships, there is no increase in student achievement, it is not needed for the future, and changes in practice are necessary before technology can fulfill its promise. Although critics cite research to strengthen their arguments, there are other researchers out there for whom the debate has not yet been decided.

Educational technology requires too many financial resources – Creating a strong infrastructure for technology does require a tremendous amount of funding. However, in the last decade America has spent over $40 billion dollars to upgrade our infrastructure bringing us from only one-third of our schools connected to 99% of our buildings connected in 2003 (Culp, 2003). This cost is great, but now that the majority of the nation is “wired” funding needs to be focused on where it will make the most difference—providing professional development to teachers. Only through ongoing professional development, can teachers use technology in ways that truly effect student learning. As critic Larry Cuban (1993) points out, “It is not policymakers who determine computer use in schools; it is the practitioners.” Practitioners need training in the use of educational technology in order to impact learning. As technology has changed, so has our focus for technology usage (Culp, 2003). Teacher training that focuses on pedagogy combined with using technology to support teaching and learning will make a difference.

There are ways to fund technology without cutting other programs such as music or art. According to Culp (2003), the McKinsey report recommended funding needs for educational technology can be met by “reducing costs, reprogramming existing educational funds, and obtaining funds from new sources,” both from the public and private sectors. Funding for technology from investors would be more easily obtained if there were better research about the necessary conditions to make technology use effective.

Educational technology does not increase student achievement – Critics of educational technology have taken a very different view to what that term means. They look at technology as a teacher instead of as a tool used by a teacher. Even the critics, (Cuban, 1993) state that “what a teacher does with it is more important than what the it is.” The technology is not the teacher, but if used to enhance instruction, student gains can be noted. Schacter (1999) focused on several studies that did show student gains after using computer-based instruction. Kulik found that students who used computer-based instruction scored at the 64th percentile on achievement tests compared the 50th percentile for their peers who did not use computer-based instruction. Additionally, Wenglinsky’s study of over 6,000 4th grade students and 7,000 8th grade students who used simulation and higher order thinking software in math showed gains of 15 weeks above grade level (Schacter, 1999). Teachers who received professional development on the technology had students show increase in gains as well.

Changes in practice are needed before educational technology can fulfill its promise – Critics argue that the classroom has remained virtually unchanged since the early 1900s. This is partly true—the basic age-graded classrooms of yesterday have remained unchanged. However, changes do occur. Students no longer sit in rows chorally reciting from a reader. The teacher no longer spends the day lecturing unendingly. Media such as video and audio are regularly used in the classroom. There is a tendency, however, to “teach as you were taught” especially during times of change. This tendency is very evident when a new teacher finds herself in a classroom full of disengaged students—she immediately regresses to what her own teachers did when she was in school. Carol Twigg states that the biggest obstacle to online learning is that tendency to do things in traditional ways (Swan, 2003). In our efforts to make online learning “as good” as traditional learning, we often just make it the same. Twenty years of analyzing policy recommendations has shown Culp (2003) that “practitioners’ needs and challenges” control how technology becomes a part of educational system. Culp also found that there needs to be better understanding on “the systemic nature of educational change in general and of educational technology in particular.”

Educational technology limits social interactions/relationships – Developmental specialists believe that computers encourage social isolation and that greater learning occurs through the human and physical world. Educational technology does not remove the human component from learning, it simply changes the format of that interaction. In distance learning courses, for instance, the nature of the asynchronous discussions allows every student to have a voice in the ongoing conversation. Those students who traditionally dominate in a face-to-face class have no more control over the conversation than does any other student. The online discussion provides students an opportunity to reflect on one another’s comments before posting their own. This reflection creates a mindfulness in an online course that may be absent in a face-to-face course (Swan, 2003).

Jenkins addresses the social interactions in his paper on “participatory culture.” He discusses the “new media literacies” needed by students today that focuses on social skills developed through collaboration and networking. Jenkins does not see educational technology as a threat to education, but as an enhancement to it. He writes,

“Much writing about twenty-first century literacies seems to assume that communicating through visual, digital, or audiovisual media will displace reading and writing. We fundamentally disagree. Before students can engage with the new participatory culture, they must be able to read and write.”

Jenkins does not limit these skills to reading and writing however. He argues for a greater need for literacy skills with educational technology so that students learn how to “think with and through their tools.” Because social interactions are no longer limited to face-to-face interactions, students need the skills to grasp what kind of information they are being presented with and who is presenting it.

There is still much to be learned about educational technology and its effect on student learning. One thing is certain—technology and our “participatory culture” is not going away but will continue to impact our lives. Although critics believe that teaching children technology tools limits their futures, proponents of educational technology believe to be a meaningful contributor in our participatory culture, students will need broad background knowledge on a large range of topics, but also the skills to work within a social community.

The Digital Divide: Access to Resources

The Internet has profoundly changed how me and my family access information. No more do we have to make a trip to the library or pull out a huge dictionary to get answers to our questions. We have instantaneous access to world libraries, newspapers, and experts 24 hours a day, right at our fingertips. In our house, we don't even have to wait for a turn on the computer to find our answers as we each have our own computer with wireless Internet access. (Just so you don't think we are an affluent family with more money than we know what to do with, both my husband and I work in education and our children had to buy their own laptop so they could appreciate the work that went into earning it.) Despite a lack of six figure salaries, we still have the resources available that allow us to provide opportunities for our children to access information that is now easily and freely available. We have the knowledge, especially with our education backgrounds, to teach them how to evaluate the information that they find. We have the technology skills (and comfort level) to show them how to take what they have access to and construct their own learning using multimedia tools.

Unfortunately, I know other children who are not so fortunate.

Even within my own school in an affluent, suburban area, there are students who stand across the Digital Divide as far from my own children as they can possibly be. Some of them are minority or low income students whose parents are not able to afford what I can for my children or, if they do manage to afford a computer, often they are without the Internet access or software needed to make full use of their computer. Others are children whose culture finds more value in the rote memorization of facts than in creating. These students have parents who will pay for hours of Kumon lessons or who will pay a tutor to help their child "study for" an IQ test to get into the gifted program, but their computer usage is often limited to programs designed to improve their child's skill in a specific area. There are other students whose culture is the complete opposite--education is like an afterthought. These students can have cell phones and iPods and Gameboys, but they are mostly used for entertainment value, not for education.

And, then there is Zimi.

Zimi is part of the One Laptop per Child initiative. Her digital divide was much greater than any of the children in any of the schools in which I've ever taught. Through the efforts of the MIT Media Lab and the One Laptop per Child initiative, children like Zimi all over the world have been given their own laptops designed for the environments in which they live--harsh climates, limited access to electricity, limited access to Internet. After watching some of the other projects to reach out to children in third world countries, I thought how wonderful it would be if these organizations could combine their efforts. The Save the Children program could be so much more effective if they were using the low cost XO laptops instead of the older desktop computers they were using. It would allow the students to use the computers EVERY day instead of once or twice a week. Parents would be able to benefit from their child's learning because the laptops (and the training provided by Save the Children) would be available to their parents every day.

The Digital Divide clearly exists as do many other divides that separate us from others--race, religion, culture, gender. Like other inequities, the first step is recognition of the separation, but we cannot be content to stop there. We must continue, especially as educators, to narrow the divide between the children, like my own, who have nearly unlimited access to information and children, like Zimi, to whom opening up a browser window can open her up to a whole new world of information.

Mobile Computing and Information Access

When looking at new ways of learning using technology, I always try to think how can this benefit or be used with the students at my school.  Being an elementary school administrator, I look at the possibilities for students in Pre-K through 5th grades, students with disabilities and without, students who are academically advanced or developmentally delayed.  I want to impact as many students as possible in the most effective way possible, but in doing so, I need to also consider the teachers and the parents and how the use (or lack of) technology with students affects them as well.

My school is in a rather affluent, suburban area and access to electronic devices is not limited.  Even our students who are bused in from our Choice areas (lower SES) have iPods to listen to on their hour long ride to school.  Our Kindergarten students bring cell phones to school and,  despite our district ban on cell phone usage during the day, our 5th grade students are texting under the tables at lunch.  How then can I use mobile computing with our students?

Our district has recently embraced Podcasts, at least at the district level, with even our Superintendent creating podcasts regarding relevant information for employees.  But, to my knowledge, very few teachers are using podcasts with students.  And that goes back to teacher training.  In the past year, there have been 3584 professional development courses available from our district.  Of those courses, only 20 have been related to technology training--11 in SmartBoard, 7 in Podcasting, 2 specifically for teachers's tools including mine.  No trainings, other than mine, involve wikis, blogs, visual literacy, or any other Web 2.0 technology.  The technology that students are using is not being taught to teachers so that they can use it with their students.  (Don't get me wrong.  SmartBoards are wonderful but I don't know of too many students who have one they regularly use at home.)  The District does provide training in podcasting, but all but two of the trainings is simply how to put a podcast on your website.  So, in the 8th largest school district in the nation, we have two courses to teach our teachers who to use podcasts in the curriculum areas and both courses are aimed at high school teachers.

Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus aside, I think our elementary students could use their iPods for something other than music.  Mobile computing for elementary school students could be as simple as vocabulary lessons in content areas, study guides for tests or reviews of difficult math concepts taught in class that parents could then use to help their students at home.  Podcasts could be put on the teachers' webpages or made available to mobile computing devices so that students (and parents) could access them at any time.  Students who are absent (or on vacation in our case) for extended periods of time could have access to classroom learning despite not being IN the classroom.

Ellen Wagner's questions to think about regarding mobile learning is a great place to start.  It gives teachers an overview of what they will need to think about before beginning a mobile learning project, challenges such as funding and, most importantly, content questions to think about.  Her session is an excellent resource to use when training teachers and one that I intend on using when I train my own teachers on Podcasting this spring.



References

Wagner, E.  (2007).  Mobile Matters: Why Learning Professionals Need to Care (ID: ELIWEB072)

Gaming and Virtual Worlds

My gaming experience is quite limited, I'm afraid to admit, for someone enrolled in an educational technology program. Perhaps that is why, when I visited Second Life, my experience was less than positive. I've never had particularly good hand/eye coordination so maybe that's why I've not been drawn to video games. But I'm also not someone who likes to interact much through electronic means when I can have face to face contact with others (this includes cell phones).

So why, Rhonda, are you here?

Though my experience with gaming and virtual worlds is limited, my son's is not. I'm actually the one who started him on computer games with Oregon Trail, Amazon Trail and Zoombinis. I saw a way during those early years to engage my son in reading behaviors through the games that he was unwilling to engage in real life. The learning that went on during the games (which I also played in order to ensure appropriateness) made me comfortable with this "substitute" reading. And, honestly, despite my best attempts, he really was going to read outside of school no other way. Six years later, my son has expanded his gaming repertoire to include much more realistic games that require knowledge of physics, social studies, and math, as well as logical reasoning and strategical thinking. The vocabulary of my non-reading son is tremendous. When I ask where he learned an unusual word that he uses (for a 14 year old boy) such as "scourge," his response is always from one of his games so I do see the educational value for students.

THAT is why I'm here.

Throughout this program, I've had to struggle with my comfort level with new technologies. I love technology. I spend way too much time on it. I want students at my school to incorporate it into their learning much more than they do now. But, just as I can't change where I was born, I can't change WHEN I was born. I am a digital immigrant and that's where my struggle comes from.

As I watched Janyth Ussery's presentation at Educause, I had a lot of questions come to mind. I didn't see how collaboration and presentation skills differed through Second Life from other online learning. I know that in my group projects through UF there as been much collaborating to complete the projects. Our presentations have used a variety of methods to deliver our learning whether through a wiki, a Google doc, a blog, or a visual presentation. I questioned, as well, how limited hand/eye coordination and the frustration factor may limit learning for students who are not "gamers" and have had limited experience. My experience in Second Life was exceptionally frustrating for me and, if I were expected to learn content while in the environment, my learning would be much less than it would through another mode of delivery. I did, however, find the business simulation to be an excellent opportunity to learn a valuable skill, especially since I was at a business dinner recently and the discussion around our table was centered on whose drink was whose.

So, perhaps there is hope for me yet. Like many immigrants, I will continue to thrust myself into the culture that I am now a part of and hope that eventually I'll become fluent in the language and culture of my new world.

But, for this moment, I think I'll stick to my "first" life for just a little while longer.


References

Bers, Marina Umaschi. “Civic Identities, Online Technologies: From Designing Civic Curriculum to Supporting Civic Experiences." Civic Life Online: Learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth. Edited by W. Lance Bennett. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008. 139–160. doi: 10.1162/dmal.9780262524827.139

Ertmer, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.

Ussery, J. (Feb. 2010). Expanding Educational Realities – Exploring Interactive and Immersive Learning Experiences. Educause Conference.

Our Online Identity

The more I read, the more I reconcile myself to my Digital Immigrant status.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not an unwilling immigrant.  I actively embrace technology.  I love the ability to have information immediately available to me whenever, and wherever, I choose.  I do not need my information relayed linearly, but can hyperlink with the best of the natives.  I write very little and type nearly everything.  I've produced videos, blogs, photo books, webpages (using html and Web 2.0), and wikis.  I'm enrolled in an entire online educational program collaborating on assignments with others that I've only "met" online.  I regularly train my teachers in technology--how to use and integrate it into the curriculum.  Despite all that, I am clearly not a Native.  Not only was I not raised on digital technology, I cannot, no matter how hard I try, fully embrace it where my every thought, my every action becomes part of the digital world.

My online identity aligns pretty closely with my real life identity.  Until I know someone well, I am extremely reserved.  I don't share a lot of personal information and I don't ask a lot of personal questions of others.  I withhold quite a bit until trust is earned and trust is not earned easily with me.  Where I differ online is that I remain reserved.  I don't put much in writing or in photos and make it readily available to others.  Even as a child, I never kept a diary or wrote down things I did not want to share because I had been made painfully aware of the permanence of artifacts and the harm they could cause when used maliciously by others.  Perhaps this experience is what has made me so unwilling to share much of my identity online.

With the ease that digital artifacts can be copied, edited and distributed now, I think a little reticence is not a bad thing.  Heverley (2008) emphasizes the permanence of digital artifacts and how easily they can be used to embarrass or used to victimize someone well into the future.  His concern is with children and how to protect them from the distribution of media artifacts that they either knowingly or unknowingly participated in.  Although I agree with his points, his article actually concerns me more regarding the use of digital artifacts by adults.

As a school administrator, I am acutely aware of how perception can affect your teaching career--either positively or negatively.  Unfortunately, I am afraid that not all adults I know have that same understanding.  Many of the teachers at my school maintain Facebook sites.  I do believe that social networking sites can be used in a very positive way, especially by educators who could use it to collaborate and grow professionally.  This is not what I see at my school, however.  Instead, I see teachers who use their Facebook to post personal details of their lives many times regarding situations that are best not shared with parents or students.  Even more disturbing, I see teachers who "friend" parents or students and then put themselves into a situation of becoming a part of the school gossip mill of disillusioned or disgruntled parents.  Worse, I see parents then allowed to be part of the conversations that used to take place in the teacher's lounge and have now made their way to Facebook.  This not only brings the teacher's professionalism into question, but also their judgment.  This is simply a position I would not readily put myself into.

As a parent, I have even greater concern for my children.  As I am sure most parents do, I regard my children as being bright with good judgment and morals.  Despite my inherent belief in my children, I don't think they have the natural suspicion that I have regarding the permanence of artifacts.  Nor do they seem to understand how easy it is to manipulate artifacts to be used against someone.  I know they "know" that photos can be manipulated through photo editing programs, but I don't believe that they automatically question the authenticity of images the way that their father and I do.   Lankes (2008) discusses this and the importance of teaching children how to question images the way that we may currently question written text as authentic.  Despite my attempts to teach my own children this, I don't know that I have been successful.  I particularly worry about my college aged daughter.  Although exceptionally bright academically and fairly worldly, she unabashedly trusts the "security" measures of Facebook and routinely posts photos of herself to her hundreds of friends.  She does not seem to grasp the fact that these friends then post those photos and their Facebook site may not be as secure as hers.  And she does not consider how easily someone could download one of her photos, edit it, and distribute it worldwide without her knowledge.  In the college world of rapidly changing friendships, this is not an unlikely possibility.

I wish I could understand the adolescent (and many adults) need to be validated through comments from others (Flanagin, 2008).  Perhaps if I could, I would be able to make my concerns more understandable to my children.  For now, I try to understand that as they discover who they are, they are displaying that journey for everyone to see and read about on the Internet.  My hope is that they are savvy enough not to give up too much of themselves so that they are not faced with potential, permanent embarrassment in the future.

References:


Flanagin, Andrew J., and Miriam Metzger. “Digital Media and Youth: Unparalleled Opportunity and Unprecedented Responsibility." Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility. Edited by Miriam J. Metzger and Andrew J. Flanagin. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008. 5–28. doi: 10.1162/dmal.9780262562324.005


Heverly, Robert A. “Growing Up Digital: Control and the Pieces of a Digital Life." Digital Youth, Innovation, and the Unexpected. Edited by Tara McPherson. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008. 199–218. doi: 10.1162/dmal.9780262633598.199


Lankes, R. David. “Trusting the Internet: New Approaches to Credibility Tools." DigitalMedia, Youth, and Credibility. Edited by Miriam J. Metzger and Andrew J. Flanagin. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008. 101–122. doi: 10.1162/dmal.9780262562324.101

How Do We Use Social Networks to Shape or Define Our Identity?

I don't really use SNS--certainly not the way my children do.  I have a Facebook account but only so I can monitor my son's usage of Facebook and I do that very seldom.  For some reason, I associate SNS with writing on bathroom walls in high school or passing notes in class.  I never wrote on desks or bathroom walls because I was always afraid someone would write SUCKS! after my name.  (A very common and unwanted remark in 1980s American high schools).  I didn't pass notes in class because I was afraid the teacher would catch me and read it aloud to the class (like one teacher did to my best friend who just happened to be writing the note not to me but ABOUT me).

I am a fairly guarded and private person with people I don't know extremely well. When I see my children or my neighbors or my siblings with hundreds of "friends" on their pages, I question the authenticity of those friendships. I am certain I have 400+ acquaintances, but I certainly do not have 400+ people I would like to share my thoughts and daily activities with.  My twenty year old daughter, however, does share more than I feel comfortable with her sharing with her many "friends"on a daily basis.  Boyd (2007) believes this online community that my children participate in is a necessity for them--that teenagers time is so regulated and their freedom so limited that SNS allow them the freedom to learn how to interact with society at large.  I see how this potential for interaction and building identities is important for adolescents and young adults.  I just don't feel this same need at this point in my own life.

There is so much of Web 2.0 that I find useful.  Wikis are a great way to collaborate.  Social bookmarking makes many of my searches much easier.  Blogs make sharing news or projects with others extremely easy.  I know that social networking is supposed to make keeping in touch with others easy, but I just don't see the point.  I can keep in touch with friends and family through private blogs, such as Shutterfly, that allow me to post comments and photos of my family and is very controlled in who is allowed to view it. Perhaps it's my age.  At 46, I feel my identity is very defined.  I am not concerned with approval or acceptance of others.  I don't want to post my daily activities for everyone to read like a designer label of activities to one-up everyone.  Boyd states that "social voyeurism passes time while providing insight into society at large."  I find most social networking sites akin to social voyeurism.

I guess when it comes to social networking I am clearly defined as a Digital Immigrant.

References:

boyd, danah. (2007) “Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life.” MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning – Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume (ed. David Buckingham). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Real Self vs. Online Self

My online self is very different than my real self but, perhaps, differently than you would expect. My real self is impulsive, fun-loving, creative, flexible, NEVER a wallflower, usually outspoken, sometimes impatient, many times intolerant, almost always forgiving.

My online self is much more reserved. I spend a lot of time thinking about what I'm going to write, rewriting, rethinking, rewriting. I have difficulty not in expression, but in the public posting of my thoughts. I'm careful in what I write--very careful--and that often means pulling back from discussions. I think much of that reservation goes back to growing up in a small town where anything you did became who you are so I was always careful to not have a "permanent" (written) record of me anywhere. Funny how much you can be shaped by your past for so long after.

I am a constant questioner with a burning need to know as much as I can and my online self fulfills that need--and then some. Like Fran, much of my online life involves my real life job and I spend time learning how I can better help my teachers and our students. My real self is all about family--my husband and children come before everything else. My online self uses technology to keep track of the family that lives elsewhere--my brothers, nieces and nephews as well as distant family that I would otherwise have little contact with.