Here’s to the start of the summer term and a new class, TIE 542 – Digital Tools for Teaching, Learning and Assessment! While there is no formal requirement to keep a blog for the class, I’ve found the practice quite useful in clarifying and solidifying my thinking in previous classes. So I will continue the practice and link back to it from the class discussion boards. Here we go!
Technology Use in My School & District
As a consultant working with a handful of CPS high schools, I witness several different kinds of
technology use at different levels. As a district, I believe CPS would like to be “technology forward”. This can be seen in their adoption of Google Apps for Education and installing wireless networks in nearly all schools. But there are obstacles — some of which are out of their hands, such as limited monetary resources for hardware, software, and professional development. Then there are those that are self-inflicted — such as deactivating all GAFE sharing functions with anyone outside the cps.edu domain.
Yet there are disparities at the school level. Some schools, such as the magnets and the selective enrollment campuses, have far more technology on-site with more teachers more willing to use it. Neighborhood schools have far fewer resources.
Finally, I’d say the greatest incongruity lies at the teacher level, which is where the rubber meets the road no matter the school. At this level I’ve seen the SAMR gamut run from teachers who only use overhead projectors and confiscate students’ cellphones to those who use Google Docs for student collaboration to those who require students use multiple apps on their phones to participate in a plethora of class activities in a given period. Still, I’d say that in the schools I visit, more students do not use technology in meaningful, relevant ways than do. Sadly.
School or District’s Adoption of Technology Standards
For the past four years my work is mainly with administrators and instructional leadership teams so it’s difficult for me to say the extent to which CPS teachers hew to a set of standard specifically for technology. However, I have heard teachers and ILT members talk about the technology strands embedded in the Common Core. And strangely enough — especially given how we obsess over standards — when I ask the administrators and curriculum leaders with whom I work what technology standards teachers use to structure their curriculum, they look at me in puzzlement and ask me what I mean.
Update: After two days, one of my principals connected me to the school’s computer science teacher. She in turn sent me the standards she uses in class — the ISTE Standards and the Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) [Interim] CSTA K-12 Computer Science Standards. Still, I wonder why admin and curriculum leaders don’t know what standards are being used even if they don’t know them in detail. I guess I’ve just experienced connectivism in a real world application!
When I took LSE 500 this winter, I was re-acquainted with “the big 3”: behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructionism. It had been a long time since pondering these theories and I have to say, I missed them. I remember my undergrad professors being amazed at how interested I was in these theories. As one said to me, “Doug, this is the stuff most teaching candidates suffer through to get to the good stuff!” But as a global thinker I was fascinated by the theory and still am. As a practitioner, though, I also need to be pragmatic. So I use the elements of theory that work on the ground and let the rest be interesting abstractions for the pondering. Still, back in January, it was great to dive in again with so many more years of experience to see again why and how the practical works as it does. While I find behaviorist and cognitivist theory interesting, I am a constructivist in both my teaching of adolescents and adults. I find I respond far better to constructivist methods as a learner as well.
Siemens was an interesting read. I would agree that there are elements that make sense for the digital world in which we live. Being able to work collaboratively, recognize and access networks to augment individual or group knowhow is a useful human, social analog to the digital/mobile/social media parallel. Indeed, we do live in a time when knowing when and where to access information can be more important, more useful than having a panoply of content and skill sets stored in one’s brain. In a sense, I can see connectivism as a container for the 4 C’s. However, in suggesting that “knowing” in the digital age is a simple matter of accessing information, connectivism (or at least Siemens’s paper) sidesteps the role of understanding. Knowing is not synonymous with accessing information which is how the term is being used — at least in this paper. Possessing information does little good without some cognitive processing about what to do with it, which, whether done individually or with a group, still must occur within the individual on some level. Perhaps this is what Siemens means when he talks about one’s ability to perceive connections?
I would agree, too, that there are some kinds of knowledge that can be offloaded. Knowing state capitals, for instance. However, just because some knowledge or tasks can be offloaded does not mean they should be. For instance, there are benefits to learning one’s multiplication tables or how to write in cursive that go beyond the mere tasks at hand.
In their paper, “Connectivism as a Digital Age Learning Theory”, Duke, Harper, and Johnston state, “If a person with limited core knowledge accesses Internet information beyond his or her ability to understand, then that knowledge is useless. In other words a structured study using the existing learning theories is required in order to acquire the core knowledge for a specific field. While the theory presented by George Siemens and Stephen Downes is important and valid, it is a tool to be used in the learning process for instruction or curriculum rather than a standalone learning theory.” This captures my thinking about connectivism, at least as I’m thinking about it now based on this week’s reading. I look forward to learning more about it as the weeks go on.