I am forwarding this article posted on the digitaldivide mail list.
Perhaps this will also give you some resources for debate.
Respectfully submitted,
BJ Berquist
Associate Educator, TAPPED IN
mailto:bjb@tappedin.org
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 14:03:22 -0400
From: Andy Carvin <acarvin@benton.org>
To: "Digitaldivide (E-mail)" <digitaldivide@list.benton.org>
Subject: Alliance for Childhood Misses the Point (fwd)
Message-ID: <377AFDDED85BD3118095009027A8F38D72143A@wx5.benton.org>
> From: Ferdi Serim [mailto:ferdi@LEARNING.CENTRINITY.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 12:38 PM
> Subject: Spinning Gold into Straw: Alliance for Childhood Misses the Point
Hi folks,
Last week's report by the Alliance for Childhood caused quite a stir in
the media and inside the Beltway...I drafted this response on behalf of
the Consortium for School Networking, which I'd like to share with you.
Please feel free to forward to anyone who may benefit from balance in
considering the place of technology in the development of
children....thanks!
Ferdi
-----------------
Spinning Gold into Straw: Alliance for Childhood Misses the Point
By Ferdi Serim
The adage "the older I get, the better I was" now extends from personal
recollection to collective judgement of earlier eras, if one accepts the
Alliance for Childhood's recent report "Fools Gold: A Critical Look At
Computers and Childhood."
Once again, the public is served up conclusions based on research and
quotations from laudable, notable people, all of whom share two
important
characteristics: they are neither children, nor educators who actually
use
technology as a tool to improve learning. The underlying assumption
seems
to be that once an educator embraces technology, the love of children is
replaced by the love for machines. All we have to do to improve
education
is change our attitude about the sanctity of childhood, banish
elementary
school computers and all will be well. I believe that rather than
focusing
on Good Old Days that never were, we can build bright new days that
incorporate the Alliance's goals, without ignoring what the past decade
has taught us about how technology can improve student learning.
Fool's Gold is the perfect snooze alarm for people who are yet to wake
up
to the idea that educational improvement requires change. And change is
about more than velocity, it is also about direction. The debate today
is
about more than technology, choice or vouchers: it centers on whether
your
model for learning is based on transmission or construction of
knowledge.
Instead, the report implies that corporate strategies are leading
educators like lemmings to the abyss, and that we're willing to
sacrifice
our children at the altar of the new economy. These concerns mask a more
fundamental struggle about which model of learning will guide our
classrooms and homes, and who will teach.
Common sense is replaced by attacks on strawmen built from
misconceptions
and distortions that no experienced technology using educator would
endorse or repeat. For example:
"Either/Or" Strawman
"What's wrong with education cannot be fixed with technology. No amount
of
technology will make a dent." - Steve Jobs
Since both technology friends and foes agree that the most important
person in education is the teacher, isn't the most critical goal to
provide the most effective, best prepared teachers possible? Data from
the
1998 Teaching, Learning and Computing (TLC) Survey
(http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc), involving more than 4,000 teachers in
over
1,100 schools across the US, provides substantive insights about what is
required to do so.
One of their dramatic findings is that that teachers who have been
identified as teacher leaders in their schools, in their district and in
their fields were 10 times more likely to be teachers who used computers
themselves and have integrated the use of computers with their classroom
instruction. These teacher leaders, teachers with a high degree of
professional engagement and respect, contrasted with a group of teachers
that Riel and Becker refer to as private practice teachers. This group
of
teachers had much lower investment in their own learning in pre-service
education and in later years. When the private practice teachers did use
computers, they did so in ways that supported drill and practice games.
The evidence shows that teachers who invest highly in their own learning
are discovering how to teach effectively with computers, using them for
problem solving, analysis and presentation.
Becker finds that computers are more likely to be a valuable and
effective instructional tool when certain conditions are met. Teachers
need to be personally comfortable and at least moderately skilled in
using
computers themselves. There needs to be regular and easy student access
to computers "to permit computer activities to flow seamlessly alongside
other learning tasks." And, perhaps most importantly, a teachers'
personal
philosophy needs to be consistent with student-centered, constructivist
pedagogy that incorporates collaborative projects defined partly by
student interest.
"Technology is Dehumanizing" Strawman
The power of the Internet is people, not machines. I've personally
witnessed a group of 5th graders in NJ take on the US Immigration
Service,
to prevent a classmate (who was 2 years old in the Ukraine when
Chernobyl
exploded) from being deported. (see http://oii.org/html/chernobyl.html)
They used the Internet to conduct a public information campaign that
resulted in the state legislature passing a unanimous resolution to
allow
him to say. Being sent back would have represented a death sentence for
this child, who is in remission from leukemia and who would be unable to
find proper medical care should his illness return.
Dizzy Gillespie once told me "it will take you ten years to learn to
play
your instrument, and it will take you twenty to learn what *not* to
play!"
The arguments being made about technology's role in learning might have
held water a decade ago, but we who've been working in this field have
moved beyond infatuation. We know how and when to use technology, but
more
importantly, we know when not to use it. We have experienced in our own
lives that technology and rich human relationships need not be mutually
exclusive. Used in a healthy way, technologies can enrich what happens
in
real life. That's why we use them in the first place.
"They're Too Young to Play" Strawman
While concerns about physical injury to young children are legitimate,
the
risk is a defined domain, similar to sports injuries or the realizations
that led very young children to use quarter-size violins in the Suzuki
method. The research shows that students are lucky if they get to a
school
computer once a week, and that the average number of computers in
classrooms lucky enough to have them is 2. If children are using
computers
4-5 hours a day, they're doing so at home, which argues for better
school/home communication on how to partner in shaping appropriate
computer use.
Perhaps we're not arguing about technology, but common sense. Young
children can benefit when caring, competent teachers use these machines
to
enhance their learning landscape. For example, by using the computer to
track information over time, 1st grade students who were studying a
small
pond discovered that there were fewer ducks each year. This graphing of
observational data inspired them to action and 6 classes of first
graders,
the population of one small school, got the attention of city planners
and
now the pond has been restored and preserved by the actions of
computer-using first graders.
Every Child Deserves a Qualified Teacher
In The Beliefs, Practices, and Computer Use of Teacher Leaders, Margaret
Riel and Hank Becker (University of California, Irvine) describe Teacher
Leaders "who place a high value on sharing their knowledge with their
teaching colleagues. At the opposite end of the continuum are Private
Practice Teachers who report little or no engagement in professional
dialog or activities beyond those mandated...(who) engage in a form of
"private practice" behind closed doors. Closed classroom doors open
concerns about maintaining high standards for both teaching and
learning."
They continue, "The findings are consistent and strong--Teacher Leaders
are better educated teachers, continuous learners, computer users, and
promote constructive problem-based learning over direct instruction.
They
use computers to help their students achieve the same level of respect
and
voice that these teachers have achieved within their professional
educational community."
That's the good news. Although the students of the best educated, most
professionally involved, most skilled educators are ten times more
likely
to use computers in powerful ways, the bad news is the distribution:
Teacher Leaders are 2%, Teacher Professionals are 10%, Interactive
Teachers are 29%, and Private Practice Teachers are 58% of the teaching
population. Literacy has expanded beyond Ozzie and Harriet days, yet we
have allowed acquisition of these new skills remain optional for our
teaching force.
Rather than perpetuate drama, we could choose to dialogue. Those of us
using technology to improve learning have more in common with the
Alliance
for Childhood than either group suspects. How will the next version of
this report look once we engage each other in purposeful, action
oriented
discourse?
(This essay will be published as a column in the November issue of
eSchoolNews. see http://www.eschoolnews.com/ )
