Last Friday (12-1-06) I reported in 2¢ Worth about an article in eSchool News, Teachers’ Tech Use on the Rise. Will Richardson commented in his blog, pointing out that…
..not once in the article are the words “learn†or “learning†mentioned in the context of teachers or students.
Weblogg-ed — Teachers Tech Use on the Rise…So?
Richardson is right in making this distinction, though, to be fair, technology can go a long way in helping teachers do their jobs without applying it to learning. Teachers are so tragically constrained by the circumstances of their jobs, that I wouldn’t condemn any use of an appropriate tool, even if it is automating — if it’s helping them do their jobs.
That said, calling attention to the increased use of technology by teachers, and celebrating these findings misses enormous opportunities and overlooks enormous responsibilities as we work to prepare children for their future.
Mr. Sheehy, commented in his blog, Teacher’s Writes, linked back to the Richardson piece, that..
In trying to think through to what the root issue is, I have recently decided that the thing that most plagues conversations about technology and education is the verb “integrating.†It seems every time I hear an administrator or higher ed professor mention technology, this obligatory verb comes attached.
Teacher’s Writes » “Integration†– The term of the enemy
Sheehy continues by describing his experience in the broadcast industry, how MP3 files and harddrives have changed how they do their work and how the are not integrating technology, but that technology is their work. He describes ways that technology is also our work.
I commented on Sheehy’s post with something like this:
I caught your comments on Will Richardson’s blog, and was so taken with your approach, that I clicked over to read your entire article. I agree wholeheartedly with your ideas, which come from first-hand experience in an industry that has truly been revolutionized by technology. In reality, though, and in now small part due to the entertainment and news industries, our entire information landscape has become revolutionized by technology. Practically all information that we use on a daily basis is or has been digital and networked, and the unprecedented propagation of information has overwhelmed us with content.
I often say that a teacher can be a good teacher and not use technology. However, is that teacher doing his or her job? My answer is, “No!” Any teacher who is not using technology in content delivery, information processing, communication, and assessment, is not doing their job.
You see, the affect of all of this networking and digitization, is that the shape of information has changed, and, as a result, what it means to be literate has changed. The BASIC Skills of this new information environment go so far beyond merely being able to read, write, and perform basic math, and without technology, we can not teach these new literacies, nor teach within the context of these new literacies. We’re still preparing children for the 1950s.
I would even go one step further and say that these new literacies should be called Learning Literacies. In a time of rapid change, learning is what we will be spending much of our time doing. It is practically THE reason why we need to be able to read, process information, and communicate — so that we can continue to be relevant to our environment.
What do you think?
Image Citation:
Scissors, Runs With. “Penny on My Desk.” Runs With Scissors’ Photostream. 7 Jan 2006. 7 Dec 2006 <http://flickr.com/photos/kenstein/83314170/>.
technorati tags:warlick, education, technology, literacy, newliteracy, willrichardson
Blogged with Flock
“Teachers are so tragically constrained by the circumstances of their jobs”…
It’s funny you mentioned that because Chris Craft is having a problem with some antivirus software in his classroom.
http://opensource.christophercraft.com/?p=73
I agree that the term “integrating” for technology is the enemy. A better term to use is “transforming.” A teacher has to transform their thinking in order to use technology in a way that makes their jobs easier. And, they often have to overcome educational technology obstacles such as slow networks, blocked websites and out dated computers as they transform their thinking and use technology for instruction and learning. One example is the use of an computer-based gradebook. In the “olden days”, teachers kept their grades in one place – in a print gradebook. Many teachers now keep their grades in their print gradebook and then transfer the print grades to their computer-based gradebook for grade calculation. Other teachers have learned that they can just keep their grades in the computer based gradebook and digitally save their gradebook…and print it if necessary. However, it has taken awhile for teachers to transform their thinking to just enter grades one time – into the computer based gradebook. And, now, of course, some teachers keep their print gradebook, enter grades on their computer-based gradebook, and then transfer these grades to a web based gradebook so parents can view student grades on the web.
I often think of what it must have been like a century ago with the advent of a new “technology”: the automobile. I wonder what it was like for those first adventurers. They built the automobile and learned how it ran. They tweaked it and improved it. They learned to drive it, drove IN it. They dealt with changing infrastructure and roads, with laws and rules often created by trial and error. They adapted as one thing changed and another happened. Each had a relationship of some kind. These were our grandparents.
Today, the automobile is still a technology. But it is “integrated”. So what does that mean? I think it means we still understand it is a technology, but use it is a means toward an end, whether we be the driver, the passenger, the mechanic, the salesperson, or the designer. Everyone has a relationship to the technology, but each for different reasons, often for different ends.
The key idea here.. technology in education is a means toward many different ends. Integration is simply the use of it, beyond the creation or study of it!
I’ve posted this comment here and on my blog – it’s hard to know where to put it to extend the conversation – but just like in person, I suppose we sometimes have to repeat ourselves!
I agree and disagree at the same time.
I agree that literacy has different aspects. I have come to rely in large part upon the literacy research I read today, and I am indebted especially to the scholarship and writing of Cris Tovani (I Read It But I Don’t Get It is a must read for people involved in Language Arts and Do I Really Have to Teach Reading? is for the other disciplines). One of Tovani’s big points is that each discipline has its own characteristics and thus its own techniques that make readers more literate for the discipline. Thus math teachers should not say that English teachers should work harder because their students can’t read the math book; instead, as the experts, they should teach their students how to read the math book. Or take other solid research reporting, like Bransford, who points out how experts develop patterns of thinking in their areas of expertise. Isn’t this kind of what you are getting at when you claim there is a new literacy? That the information-laden web has created a new area where a special expertise exists? And you think every student should become an expert in this kind of literacy?
But somehow I get anxious about separating literacy too much, because it seems like the skills I teach students in reading are very applicable to other areas. If I get too literal about my curriculum – teaching exactly what students will read when they leave school – then I’d have to replace poetry with instructional manuals and tax forms or novels with newspapers and blogs. But I am convinced that if I can teach a student how to read a poem and a novel carefully – to ask questions, to question the speaker, to connect to their own background knowledge, to theorize about the writer’s worldview, and to extend the idea beyond the world of the literature – then I have taught them something useful about reading – even reading on the web in the 21st Century. Plus, I know how to use this technology, and though my teachers didn’t teach me how to use the Internet, I have not felt ill-prepared for this new shape of information. I’d hate to sell short my students’ ability to transfer their knowledge and learn on their own.
I don’t disagree in principle about the need to teach and learn with this technology. If our task is preparing students for the next step, no matter what step that is, then we can’t deny the new glut of media present in our world. But I’m just not convinced that this information and technology changes everything. The tools change, the medium changes, and the participants change (who knew I’d have this discussion with a man from North Carolinas?) but has the brain changed? If we teach kids how they learn, and kids learn how to learn, then I feel like they can figure this out.
Oops – I forgot these two hyperlinks in my copying and pasting:
Cris Tovani’s (I Read It But I Don’t Get It and Do I Really Have to Teach Reading? is for the other disciplines) and Bransford,