Why Technology Isn’t Reforming Education — Yet
From Clark and Salomon (1986):
General media comparisons and studies pertaining to their overall instructional impact have yielded little that warrants optimism. Even in the few cases where dramatic changes in achievement or ability were found to result from the introduction of a medium such as television, . . . it was not the medium per se that caused the change, but rather the curricular reform that its introduction enabled.
I am Here for the Learning Revolution by Wesley Fryer
Attribution-ShareAlike License
This is why, in my opinion, the state of education is so sucky today in some parts of the world. Our (educators’) use of technology for learning is hampered by the glass ceiling of curriculum. Only when the curriculum changes will dramatic changes in learning occur. Currently, too many schools are trying to fit square pegs into round holes; that is, teachers are using fabulous technology (IWBs, Tablet PCs, iPod Touch, VoiceThread, and more) to teach curriculum that is still content-based.
These technologies should be reforming curriculum. Why aren’t they?
How can we move this forward? How can we change curricula so that it allows teachers and students “dramatic change”? What is standing in the way, and how can we overcome this obstacle?
Clark, R.E., & Salomon, G. (1986). Media in teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed., pp.464-478). New York: Macmillan.
Cross-posted at connect. create. question.
\New Post:”Why Technology Isn’t Reforming Education — Yet” – http://www.utechtips.com/why-technology-... from Adrienne Michetti\”
@utechtips Hey folks….it’s the classroom, grade-grouping and our school year that stand in the way. We need 24/7 online learning now.
I’m not sure what you are trying to say. A curriculum is a set of courses to meet an educational plan. Of course the courses within the curriculum are content-based. This is the core of material to be learned. In most places today the curriculum contains standards for technology learning. Teachers and teacher-librarians who use Web 2.0 tools and other technologies are using tools to teach content and are also teaching students to use tools for the 21st century. The use of these products enhances education, meeting different learning styles and often promoting greater interest in participating in the learning process. It’s all good stuff! The only ceiling may be access to the tools, knowledge to use them effectively, and the time to plan and integrate them.
Could you give an example of how you would like to see the “technologies reforming curriculum”? Consider the fact that many curricula do now reflect technology and its use.
Hi Janice,
Thanks for the thoughtful response, which made me realize now that my post implied an assumption which isn’t clear. I am advocating – among many other things – curriculum that is not content-based. I believe that using technology and media to teach a curriculum that is largely based on knowledge rather than skills and concepts is really very limiting. Current technology allows for so much more learning than that. One only needs to look at Wolfram Alpha to understand that content is available to us at any time, therefore “knowing stuff” is not really as relevant as knowing how to do stuff or, even better, how to solve problems and how to be creative. (I wrote a post about this here.)
I feel that while using technology and media to teach content is better than not using tech to teach the same content, it still is going to limit the scope of education until we can move curriculum into an area that is based on skills and concepts, ideally situated in authentic contexts. That’s what I mean when I say that our use is currently hampered by the glass ceiling of curriculum.
A while back, Jeff wrote a post addressing this on The Thinking Stick. I can’t find the post at the moment but he wrote about watching the TV program “Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?” While he watched, he sat with his computer and Googled all the answers to the questions that were on this show. Not a single one of them was a question that Google couldn’t find an answer to. Conclusion: we are teaching our students to memorize information (content) that one does not need to be successful in the 21st Century. In a similar vein, Jeff wrote this post about how he occasionally looks to see what skills companies are looking for in today’s workforce.
My point is that curriculum doesn’t help our students or their futures when it is based on mainly content that could be gleaned from Google or Wolfram Alpha, and technology can only do so much when it is limited by curriculum like this.
You mention that many curricula “do now reflect technology and its use.” What I’d like to see is curricula that don’t mention technology, but imply its necessity by having outcomes that can only be achieved in partnership with technology. Technology has the potential to reform curriculum to the point where students are actually thinking differently, because what you know is actually not as important as what you can do. Salomon calls this the “cognitive residue” of the effects with technology (as opposed to the effects of technology).
Sorry, Janice — I’ve got that post of Jeff’s I was talking about (Thanks, Jeff!). It’s title: Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?
Thank you, Adrienne for your response. It did help clarify your point of view. I also enjoyed Jeff’s post. You state “what you actually know is not as important as what you can do.” I think it’s a true statement, but I think we do need a body of knowledge to work with to “do.” You’ve given me plenty to think about! I’m currently in an MLIS program and am learning to use technology and Web 2.0 tools in the library media center and in collaborative lessons with teachers. It will be interesting to see if things evolve the way you propose.
I am glad you found the posts useful. I agree, we do need a body of knowledge to work with. And I’m hoping that body of knowledge is “tailored” for the specific developmental level of the learner, and community-constructed, too. Good luck in your program – it sounds very applicable to much that we share and discuss at U Tech Tips. Thanks for stopping by.
\\\\New Post:\"Why Technology Isn't Reforming Education — Yet\" – http://bit.ly/2r3liH from Adrienne Michetti\\\\\"Quote
Why Technology Isn't Reforming Education — Yet | U Tech Tips http://bit.ly/QfeFqQuote
Why Technology Isn’t Reforming Education — Yet. Article in U Tech Tips. http://bit.ly/7eA7LQuote
RT @alacre: Why Technology Isn’t Reforming Education — Yet. Article in U Tech Tips. http://bit.ly/7eA7LQuote
Why Technology Isn’t Reforming Education — Yet. Article in U Tech Tips. http://bit.ly/7eA7L (via @alacre & @timbuckteeth)Quote
use of technology for learning is glass ceiling of curriculum. curriculum changes l dramatic changes in learning occur. http://is.gd/4fBjOQuote
RT @CathyLAnderson:use of tech for learning glass ceiling of curriculum.curriculum changes=dramatic changes http://is.gd/4fBjO (to read l8r)Quote