The recommendations at the end of the Report to the President on the Use of Technology that I have chosen to write about are 1.) Focus on learning with technology, not about technology; 2.) Emphasize content and pedagogy and not just hardware; and 3.) Give special attention to professional development.
Before I get into my reflection of these three recommendations, however, I would like to say that I was frustrated by the sixth recommendation – to initiate a major program of experimental research. It’s not that I don’t think that research about instructional technology is important – obviously I think it’s important, or I wouldn’t be a part of this doctoral program. I am just bothered by what appears to be the goal of the research proposed in this report: to find that one “silver bullet” that will prove to be the most effective way to implement technology in K-12 settings and, even more importantly, the one way that will be the most cost effective. Most of the report is about the economic implications of hardware, infrastructure, software, and equitable access, and the research that is recommended is based on finding an effective and economical solution. Then the final sentence states that “the Panel does not, however, recommend that the deployment of technology within America’s schools be deferred pending the completion of such research” (19). Really? If the research is a vital part of the process, why wait to do it? I know that doing research in education has its difficulties, especially when you set out to do the kind of empirical research proposed in the report, but I would hope that some kind of preliminary research would be conducted before millions or even billions of dollars was to be spent to deploy computers to every American classroom. As I teacher, I always need some kind of evidence before I try something new in my classroom – even if it is anecdotal evidence from another teacher who has had previous success with the new technology. I worry that many of the decision-makers are focusing on technology for technology’s sake – such as being able to say that every classroom in America is wired for the internet – rather than focusing on content and pedagogy.
Recommendation 1 – Focus on learning with technology, not about technology.
I agree with this recommendation in terms of focusing on learning with technology, but I still think that there should be a place for students who are interested in technology as a subject area to be able to explore that interest. This requires teachers specifically trained in the technical aspects of particular hardware and software. I’m also not sure that all subject-area teachers feel confident enough in their abilities to help their students learn with technology. The added implication here is that teachers themselves must be experts when it comes to providing students with opportunities to learn with technology, and not everyone is able – or willing – to do so. For example, as a department chair at my school, I am in a position where I encourage English teachers to use certain methods, assessments, etc. in their teaching. Many of them have taken the bull by the horns when it comes to technology and have truly transformed their classrooms into student-centered learning environments. However, there are a few teachers who simply refuse to consider using technology just because it’s technology. They see the technology department as an entity that has changed the direction of curricular development at the school, and they aren’t necessarily happy about it. I work with other teachers who are still at the stage where they aren’t able to troubleshoot common problems – like not being able to connect to a wireless projector. At least two or three times a day I am helping other teachers with problems like these. (Keep in mind, I am in no way a part of the technology department at my school.) It is difficult for teachers to provide experiences where students learn with technology when they are still learning about technology themselves. I think that one of the answers here is more useful professional development, and I will comment about that a little later.
Recommendation 2 - Emphasize content and pedagogy and not just hardware
One comment that bothered me in this section was that as useful educational software and resources are developed, there would need to be an “adaption of curricula to make effective use of technology” (17). Isn’t this backwards? Shouldn’t we be developing software that will meet our curricular needs rather than redeveloping curricula to effectively use technology? I do agree that technology has the potential to encourage teachers to emphasize higher order reasoning and problem solving skills, but shouldn’t we be doing that with or without instructional technology? I would also have liked to see more of an emphasis on content in this section. The additional article assigned for this week’s reading on the roles of pedagogy and content came much closer to recognizing the needs in these areas than this report did.
Since my background is in English literature and that is the subject I teach, I am very interested in exploring in more depth the ways that technology can be utilized in my subject area. Much of the research out there has been done in the discipline of science, and I think that content-specific ideas are what needs to be explored going forward.
Recommendation 3 – Give special attention to professional development
I know that I’m preaching to the choir here, but without this step, everything else is worthless. As the Schrum, Thompson, et al, article stated in reference to Clark, “mere exposure to technology confers no particular educational benefits” (457). When I first started teaching in a public school system in Memphis, there was a big push to put a computer in every classroom. Well, that was great, but as a brand new teacher I had no idea what to do with it. It was there and it was connected to the internet, but I didn’t receive any kind of training on how to use it in my classroom. (I’m not even going to tell you what I found my students looking up on the internet.) Even after I submitted a grant to get a “21st century cart” in my classroom – equipped with a computer and a television monitor – there wasn’t much in the way of professional development to go along with it. (As I mentioned in a previous blog, I figured out on my own the best ways to utilize that technology in my classroom.) Oddly enough, this was shortly after the Report to the President on the Use of Technology came out! Now that I think of it, the school where I worked had computer classes, but there was not an emphasis on learning with technology as it was described in Recommendation #1.
Even now that I work at an independent school where we are encouraged to seek out professional development opportunities, much of the in-house professional development is focused on the technical aspects of using particular software, hardware, or web 2.0 resources, and less on how to implement it into the content areas. Our technology department is set up by division – upper, middle, and lower. I wonder if we would be better off if we organized ourselves and our professional development by content areas – perhaps languages and humanities, math and science, and fine arts. I think that one of the biggest hindrances here is time. Teachers often don’t have the time to invest in learning new techniques, and even worse, sometimes they don’t want to learn new things. I think that if we see ourselves as learners just like our students, and if we believe that any possible improvement to our teaching is worth investigating, then we would be more open to experimenting with new technologies. I’m not sure how you go about changing attitudes, but I think that the first step should be offering professional development that is relevant to what we do each day in the classroom. A software program that works well for math and science teachers may not be relevant to English teachers, and we need to make sure that we investigate opportunities based on content-specific needs.
