Why don’t teachers buy in?

A number of bloggers attempting to promote the educational potential of specific web applications have recently become frustrated by the lack of response to their message and have voiced their frustration in their blogs. Gary Stager offers links to these “rants” and offers a historical account of another failed good idea (LOGO). (BTW – I was also fascinated with LOGO for some time, helped some teachers learn to use it, wrote about it in earlier books, and then realized that the classroom use had achieved mixed results (my summary)). At the end of his post, Stager, after explaining his own commitment to the value of LOGO, outlines the limitations he presently sees with Web 2.0 applications.

I think Stager’s list of limitations (of reform based on Web 2.0 not necessarily of the tools themselves) and the comments his post generated is interesting reading.

The present situation reminds of the more general literature concerning educational technology and educational reform. In other writing, I identified several positions (supposedly with data) on the connection between exposure to technology and reform that appear to align themselves along a continuum. The general question is whether teacher beliefs and practices can be changed. A simple summary of these positions follows.

1. Becker, H. & Ravitz, J. (1999) (see summary). The influence of computer and Internet use on teachers’ pedagogical practices and perceptions. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(4), 356–384.
– This is the most optimistic of the studies and claims a link between using technology and changes in teaching practice. The opportunities provided by the technology cause teachers to change how they teach.

2. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

– These are the most pessimistic of the studies and probably the most well known. The author(s) claim factors endemic to educational practice (e.g., departmentalization by discipline, 50 minute periods) make it unlikely student experiences will change. If change does occur, it will likely be that technology will be used to replicate existing teaching practices.

3. Windschitl, M. & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205.

– This is an intermediate position. The presence of adequate technological resources leads to change, but only among teachers with specific belief systems about teaching and learning. Technology provides certain teachers the opportunity to act on personally held beliefs.

If one were to wait another year or so, one could possible substitute Web 2.0 apps (say blogs, wikis & podcasts) for “technology”, repeat the studies described above, and probably achieve about the same range of results.

I find Cuban’s position frustrating, but he has pretty much made a career out of explaining why technological change comes so hard in educational institutions. Betting on “nothing much will change” is probably the smart money choice. I am guessing we all somehow see a solution in what we are doing. I keep think helping future techers experience the potential of technology in contributing to their own learning will change the way they eventually will think about how they should attempt to engage their own students.

Loading

Net Neutrality

A Sept 6 Wired article claims that the Justice Department has come out against the concept of Net Neutrality. Without an assumption that providers would be neutral to the content they deliver, providers would have the opportunity to control the rate/cost at which you receive categories of content.

to charge some users more money for loading certain content or Web sites faster than others.

Why and when is this an issue? As I understand the argument, this could be an issue because allowing differential pricing presents the opportunity for providers to shape content delivery to advantage their total business model. For example, DSL providers could slow or charge for VOIP content and cable providers could slow or charge for video content. Phone companies would degrade an alternative to their phone business and cable providers to their video business. This is not the way providers describe their motives – they claim they need to raise more money to upgrade services. The rejoinder is – if this general concern is true, why not simply raise prices and why request the opportunity to be specific about which packets cost what.

The failure of the argument that the “market” will not allow abuse because people will move to services that meet their needs is that not all users have access to multiple providers.

The Justice Department claimed:

However, the agency said it will continue to monitor and enforce any anticompetitive conduct to ensure a competitive broadband marketplace.

I would be more comfortable if the Justice Department would be more specific in describing at least the beginning of a list of practices that would be regarded as anticompetitive.

Previous posts on this topic:

Mar. 4

Sept. 6. 2006

July 16, 2006

Loading

Myths – Once they take hold

The Washington Post has an interesting article considering the durability of myths (may require free registration to view) (I discovered in a Slashdot post). Don’t be put off by the word myth – most of the examples in the article concern disputed political positions.

The research also highlights the disturbing reality that once an idea has been implanted in people’s minds, it can be difficult to dislodge. Denials inherently require repeating the bad information, which may be one reason they can paradoxically reinforce it.

It turns out that people are not good at learning what information comes from credible sources and that we tend to forget labels/tags we attach to memories indicating that the information is not credible.

What are the implications of such findings in the Internet age and the related issue of information credibility? I am guessing the concerns expressed in this article are not relevant to biased information one might encounter on occasion. The capacity to critically evaluate such information as received might be productive. The situation described in these studies seems to concern information that we encounter repeatedly and followed by an explanation of why the repeated position is false/biased. For example, what might be the consequences of viewing/listening to a station/program with a consistent bias even if we also receive and accept an explanation of the bias that is present?

Does this mean it is pointless to address myths? The article claims silence is not the best course of action. However, dwelling on the falsehood may be counter-productive.

… it is better to make a completely new assertion that makes no reference to the original myth.

Loading

UND on YouTube

I spend little time on YouTube, but an event in which I participated recently ended up as a YouTube video. Amazing they could talk 1/3 of us into doing this.

YouTube finds related posts and offers them to viewers. In this case, the next UND video on the list is something about a drunk student participating in a campus parade. I guess this is the reality of the participatory web in action.

Oh, I’m the guy in the green shirt about half way up just to the right of the D.

Loading

Who talks to their kids about the Internet?

A recently completed Harris poll offers some information on the question of do parents take a role in introducing their children to the Internet. Mothers, particularly mothers who grew up with the Internet, seem to take a much more active role. The survey itself appears to have been focused on who introduces children to the Internet and at what age. What was missing in the data provided, which seem to indicate many children are involved at a young age, was information regarding what advice/direction young Internet users were given. 1-800-905-Geek, the sponsor for the study, offers some summary data and related suggestions for keeping children safe online (see pdf).

Loading

Postmodern Students

Most higher education is based on modernism, with its roots in the Enlightenment and the values of optimism, discoverable truth, reason, and science. Postmodernism tends to be more pessimistic, sees “truth” as individually created, to value opinion and preference over truth, experience over science or reason, and to foster a delegitimation of authority. (Taylor, 2006 pdf)

It is interesting how thinking patterns can fall into a rut. I seem to recall an expression to this effect – “if the tool you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail”. Clearly, technology is my hammer.

I am involved in a graduate class focused on developing the teaching skills of future college professors. No, I am not there because of personal skills, but I do have plenty of stories to tell. The course has involved me with a different literature than I normally follow. The introduction to the book the group is reading made reference to studies on college freshman (e.g., the annual American Freshman survey) and the expectations and attitudes of this group. A great deal of the descriptive information sounded familiar and seemed to match the “engage me or enrage me” challenge (Prensky) I have somehow connected to digital natives. This is a literature with a broader view of education and learning than classroom educators (professors) tend to adopt. It has more of a “Dean of Students” and “Student Affairs” perspective. Technology is there among the influences, but it is important to note that greater use of technology covaries with other factors.

I think I prefer thinking of myself as a modern (rather than a postmodern) in comparison to an immigrant (rather than a native). Beyond that, this new material raises similar concerns and similar challenging and sometimes confusing suggestions.

Students can only connect the course’s content to their own lives, in application and meaning, if they are given the opportunity to actively work with the material. The time pressures on many students obviate this happening outside of class, so it must happen in class.

Class time is too valuable to spend transmitting information. ….. If students must pass a content-based quiz at the beginning of each class to participate in that day’s learning activities, ….. they might be more likely to come to class prepared to learn. (from page 2:52 of the pdf linked above).

The use of class time has become one my new preoccupations. Whatever happened to “study” or self regulated learning. My poor pragmatic mind just has difficulty making the pieces fit. I do encourage your reading of this material – I guess I assume you also fall into the modern category. 😉

Loading