My Middle School has experienced the disparity between available technology and training to use the technolgy. In the Race to the Top program we have equipped every classroom with a SmartBoard (US Dept of Ed, 2009), but have failed to give teachers the needed time and training to master the technology. Consequently, the technology is not being used as intended, which is a detriment to the desired outcomes. Classroom teachers have resorted to using the SmartBoards for display of lessons rather than interactivity. Teachers do not have time to learn new technology and there is a lack of funding to provided training to use the technology effeciveley. Unfortunately, this technology has been "oversold and is being underused", Cuban proposes in his book. Even if teachers could use the technology as intended, I do not think the technology would engage the entire class of students. I would call this an attempt at connectivism, which has grossly failed in my school. This brings me to the point Bill Kerr makes about "isms", they come and go.
Bill Kerr makes reference to a statement made by Stephen Downs, who said he did not understand why the education community was still continuing practices of behaviorism when it had been abandoned 30 years ago (Kerr, 2007). Kerr holds that we can take something from each of the "isms", which I concur. The way in which a person learns is a change in what they know and with each theory there is something that can be helpful for the learning process. Learning is dynamic and ever evolving, therefore to be open minded is necessary to open doors for new "ism". Some behaviorist theorist hold that develop and maturity played a role in the learning process. This is true because an infant, as far as I know, cannot be taught to drive a car. However, I will not totally disregard that notion.
The Cognitive Theory is important for learning in today's digital format. The cognitive theory of conecttivism in particular is useful for the collaborative learning environment. However, Educational design is still using the standardized model of the "No Child Left Behind" era, and we are leaving children behind. According to Karl Kapp, schools have not updated the way in which they address the explosive digital world of young people. Schools have the technology but are not utilizing it to educate in a dynamic game based learning environment, which will engage students (Kapp. 2010). Is this a new "ism" evolving, "gamism", which can fall into the Cognitive Learning Theory for today's learning needs?
References
21st Century Organization (2010) 21st Century Skills. Retrieved from: http://www.p21.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=504&Itemid=185#maps
Anderson,
T. (2008). The Theory and Practice of Online Learning, 2nd Ed. Edmonton, AB. Athabasca University
Press
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused., Cambridge, MA.
Harvard University Press.
Kerr, B. (2007, January 1). _isms as filter, not blinker
[Web log post]. Retrieved fromhttp://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
United States Department of Education (2009). Race to the top executive summary. Washington, DC. US Department of Education.
I appreciated reading your post.
ReplyDeleteHello Debbie
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your post, I remembered the initiative The Code Hour. Code.org (http://code.org/) promoted the use of programming in the K-12 schools. If there are not curriculums design with the integration of coding in the classroom; how a teacher initiative will change coding at school. The change should not come from isolated classrooms or schools. The coding programs should be directly from the Department of Education with training and money for equipment. Are gaming and coding future constructivist activities to develop higher thinking skills? Only time and educational research will tell.
Cordially,
Jeanette Delgado
The problem of underutilizing technology is not new. I have seen classroom after classroom that has computers or access to computer labs and they are not used because the teacher is not able to take the commanding position in their use. Teachers have a lot of work they must accomplish and their most important job, educating our students, is often put on a back burner while they fill out forms for the vice-principle, manage various aids that are in their classrooms with special students, keep up a ‘meaningful’ contact with each of their student’s parents, etc. or any number of a dozen other things administrators or educational experts think they have time for or that can enrich the learning experience. Learning to use and then using the technology that is available should be priority number one, just after the teaching of students, but it is often not. There is no excuse for this.
ReplyDeleteI appreciated reading about your point of view of the school systems where educators have a strong understanding of learning theory but limited ability to utilize technology. As an educator at an online university I am experiencing a flipped problem. Technology has been used quite well to connect learners to their online courses. The issue is learning theory has been underutilized within the course materials. It seems that electronic textbooks and talking PowerPoints are abundant. High-tech learning resources that use sound pedagogical approaches are hard to find. The more cognitively demanding the subject matter, the more likely the primary resource will default to an electronic textbook. Game-based environments are a great way to use technology to engage students in meaningful learning. They would also be attractive to our digitally-dependent Millennials. I see development of effective online courseware to be dependent on a strong triad consisting of educational technologists, subject matter experts, and instructional designers. Do you already have ideas on how to increase your schools’ use of dynamic game based learning environments? Do you think this burden lies only on the teachers?
ReplyDeleteBest,
Cheryl