As I may have mentioned on some post somewhere, I am developing an interest in how educators’ use of information and communication technology (ICT) in their personal/non-school lives influences their curricular and instructional decisions regarding ICT in their classrooms. Particularly where high school educators are concerned. So it made sense that I do a close reading of “Maximizing the Impact: The pivotal role of technology in 21st century education systems”.
A collaboration between ISTE, SETDA, and P21, the report explores the needs and rationales for ICT inclusion in education in three areas: proficiency in 21st century skills, innovative teaching and learning, and robust education support systems.
The executive summary clearly lays out the issue and goes on to note that as a nation, the US simply cannot rely on the global standing, economic prosperity, and technological predominance we have enjoyed as a result of the industrial era. Nations that lead in technology development lead in prosperity. Therefore, we must prepare students to thrive in the 21st century and thereby take the nation into this digital age.
What does this look like? To start, we must focus on what college and business leaders identify as “21st century skills” and what we now commonly refer to as “the 4 C’s” — communication, collaborations, critical thinking, and creativity. These are the how’s of the executive summary — the ways through which we teach content. This aligns with the other literature assigned this week that points to teaching the 4 C’s in addition to the more traditional 3 R’s. Importantly, the authors note that it is less useful now for everyone to know about computers, software, coding, etc. Their ubiquity in our lives means it is more important for everyone to know how to use them as tools for learning, productivity, and creativity. A common analogy is that in order to do the shopping, shuttle the kids, or take a road trip, everyone need not know how to build, conduct maintenance, or even understand the basic workings of an automobile. It is sufficient that we know how to drive in order to complete our errands or enjoy an adventure. It is the same with ICT.
Therefore, students need “more robust education than they are getting today” and this involves a comprehensive inclusion of ICT across the curriculum (p. 2). As mentioned above, this must entail not just learning about technology, but learning with technology.
With a shared vision of a 21st century education system, the authoring agencies of this report succinctly identify needed outcomes and why they are vital for both students and educators.
The report also included a visually colorful and intriguing graphic of a Framework for 21st Century Learning. It is eye-catching, but not easy to interpret without some explanation. Watch the video for an attempted unpacking.
The rest of the paper explores details, gives examples and provides analytical and evaluative questions for educators in a “call to action to integrate technology as a fundamental building block into education” (p.3). That plan for ICT implementation focuses on the three areas mentioned above: Using technology comprehensively to develop proficiency in 21st century skills; using technology comprehensively to support innovative teaching and learning; and using technology comprehensively to create robust education support systems (pp.6, 9, 13).
Overall, “Maximizing the Impact” presents a useful roadmap for schools to implement ICT-based instruction. The report makes a strong case for why it is vital we undertake this tech-based approach to teaching and learning. It presents a thoughtful plan that makes much sense. Indeed, the collaboration between different organizations with different goals and priorities only bolsters its persuasiveness. In addition, the P21 web site offers many resources to support the work.
Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) and Somekh (2008) found that a significant challenge to incorporating ICT into classroom instruction is that it destabilizes classroom routines. And this is, in fact, what we need to happen to transform our classrooms for the digital age. However, they found that teachers who don’t value ICT negatively impact those who do and then point to the destabilizing effects as reasons to shun technology-based learning. In a related study, Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich also found that teachers who see positive student outcomes as a result of using ICT instructional practices are more likely to make technology a part of their practice. Thus, teacher mindsets is a key factor in implementing ICT-based instruction. They also found where ICT is central to learning, schools had six qualities in common:
- They were well equipped for ICT instruction.
- Their focus was on changing the process of learning using ICT.
- Skills were acquired as part of the process of using those skills purposefully.
- The school provided support.
- Teachers had opportunities to discuss, reflect and troubleshoot with peers and facilitators over time.
- The nature of student learning changed along with teachers’ beliefs and knowledge sets
Looking at this list, it is hard not to recognize the outsized role professional development must play in making ICT the how of student learning. Yet in the P21 framework, professional development is sandwiched in between standards and assessment and learning environments. In the bullet list explanation of the framework graphic “21st century professional development” is the 27th bullet out of 28. Indeed, in nearly all our optional readings this week, the various authors address professional development almost parenthetically. And some suggested a mere workshop or two is all that is needed to provide teachers with the understanding necessary to make a seismic pedagogical shift. Such approaches to PD run contrary to much research that finds one-off professional development neither changes teachers’ mindsets nor practices. As the Center for Public Education has found, to bring about sustainable change effectively PD must: be of a significant and ongoing duration; be supported by the administration; allow teachers to actively make meaning of the new material; and not be generalized, but presented for the teacher’s subject and grade-level (Teaching the Teachers: Effective Professional Development in an Era of High Stakes Accountability). When we consider most of our professional learning experiences, how do they hold up to these criteria? Likely, not too well. As Tom Murray noted in the Start^EdUp podcast, we’re not going to fix anything by buying “more stuff”. To make the needed shifts we have to hack educator mindsets.
If we must first “win hearts and minds” of teachers and administrators in order to bring lasting instructional change where ICT is a method of instruction, then I believe delivering focused, sustained professional learning differentiated by educator should be prioritized over the development more standards and assessments, new curriculum and instruction, and rejiggered learning environments. Not that these areas are not important. They are. However, spending money and effort on those will mean very little if educators do not understand or have the pedagogical skills to implement ICT practices throughout their buildings. Once that is in place, the rest will follow, brought about by those who know best how to develop and document them– namely the teachers, students, and administrators who are engaged in their regular practice.