By Steve Peha & Margot Carmichael Lester
If we knew we could improve education by buying every learner a laptop, many communities might be so inclined. But it doesn’t appear that this would make a significant difference in student outcomes. We take it for granted that kids with computers at school are better off than those without, but most major longitudinal studies of the effectiveness of technology on student learning have been inconclusive. Why?
Virtually every adult working in school has a computer nowadays. And most are well versed in the basic operation of email, calendars and office software suites. But the benefits of such widespread adoption have yet to translate into better teaching or improved school leadership. Why?
Technology has revolutionized almost every aspect of our lives. Every aspect except school. Why?
Because the technology we use in schools isn’t designed to solve educational problems. Schools have to make do with repurposed business tools whether those tools solve their problems or not.
Take software, for example. The software we use in schools is inappropriate. No teacher should be forced to slog through the complexities of Outlook just to manage her mail and daily schedule. And giving a fifth-grader Microsoft Word to write an essay is like using a Howitzer to kill a mosquito.
Until we get high-quality software, designed specifically for educational users and educational purposes, schools will struggle to make productive use of technology.
Then there’s the problem of training. For the most part, when educators receive technology training, all they get is “click here to do this.†But training that focuses on basic operational information users can read from a “help†file won’t inspire dramatic improvements in effectiveness or the cultural change in schools we’re all looking for. We have to get beyond clicks and keystrokes and begin providing authentic application-oriented training that shows educators how they can use technology to solve meaningful problems in elegant ways.
A similar argument can be made about educational content. While the amount of digital content that could be used to help kids learn is vast, the quality is uneven, the best stuff is hard to find and even when teachers find it it’s still hard to pull together and present to students in ways that translate into learning. Until we increase the quality of learning content and provide practical solutions for its storage, retrieval and presentation, the technologist’s vision of a “library without walls†will exist in theory but not in practice.
This is not to say that the outlook for technology in schools is bleak. Tablet PCs and electronic whiteboards could replace overhead projectors. Blogging could become a standard vehicle for students posting work and receiving responses from teachers and their peers. Digital video could enhance both the teaching and learning experience in a wide range of educational contexts. But these technologies will have to mature, and companies will have to package them in responsible ways that meet the specific needs of education users, before we will see results significant enough to alter the culture of an institution that regards the blackboard as one of the most important technological innovations in its history.
When looking for answers to the often exasperating riddle of why technology hasn’t revolutionized education, it’s tempting to blame the people who work there. But when we spend time in classrooms doing what teachers do, seeing what teachers see and trying to respond appropriately to the needs of students, a more accurate assessment emerges. Teaching, it turns out, is an intensely personal endeavor. We teach who we are, and if who we are doesn’t match up well with technology, then technology doesn’t match up well with us. In a similar way, learning is intensely social. We learn from the company we keep, specifically those people we respect, admire and identify with. And while kids certainly seem to love technology, technology hasn’t yet figured out how to love them back in ways that inspire respect, admiration and identification.
If we want schools to embrace technology more fully so that the children we serve might be better prepared for life in the Information Age, we will have to embrace the truth that the only technology capable of improving the quality of education is technology that positively affects the personal dimension of teaching and the social dimension of learning. Until such technology becomes widely available, we may all serve children better with paper, pencil and chalk.
Steve Peha and Margot Carmichael Lester own Teaching That Makes Sense Inc., an education reform, advocacy and consulting company based in Carrboro.