Stuck in the past?

What changes has technology made in schools? In 1970, sociologist Alvin Toffler predicted: 'Within thirty years, the educational systems of the United States, and several Western European countries as well, will have broken decisively with the mass production pedagogy of the past, and will have advanced into an era of educational diversity based on the liberating power of the new machines.' (Toffler, 1970, p 251) By new machines, Toffler was clearly referring to computers and their associated tool sets. By mass pedagogy, he referred to the factory production model of education that schools have been caught in for over a century. More than four decades after Toffler's book was published, there is conflicting evidence that technology has actually delivered any significant change to the pedagogy practiced in school classrooms. The answer to the question for many schools, is that technology brings very little change to the way teachers educate. The mass production pedagogy model stubbornly persists, and personalised learning seems far from the reach of many young people.

Technology (in the form of mobile telephones) has changed the way we communicate with each other, and social networking services such as Facebook have made similar advances in the way we relate to our friends and family. Broadcast media are ubiquitous, with television in every living room, on our hand held devices, even on large screens in the public areas of major cities around the world. Our leisure, economy and social lives have been transformed by the impact of the World Wide Web, and arguably, we are a lot better of because of it. In fact advances in interactive, personalised technologies are so prominent that hardly a day goes by without some new innovation being trumpeted by the media. So why has technology wrought so few changes in the school classroom? Why was Toffler's prediction so far off the mark, when many of his other, contemporary predictions were clearly realised?

One reason there has been little change in schools is that many continue to operate on a factory production system that belongs in last century's industrial age, and new technology is not permitted to disrupt it. Schools continue to jealously protect a conservatism that resides in few similarly large-scale institutions. Even when new technologies are introduced into classrooms, they are often used in a similar manner to the older technologies they replace. Disruption of old practices is unwelcome in school. A classic example of this is the Interactive Whiteboard (IWB). Over the last few years IWBs have been installed into many classrooms in the UK with little impact. Teachers continued to use IWBs as though they were standard dry-wipe or chalk boards - as presentational tools or slide projection screens. 

The pedagogical opportunities the new tools afforded (such as interactive touch surfaces on which children could experiment, create and manipulate images and text) were largely ignored because a) teachers were concerned about damage or b) disruption or c) lack of knowledge and fear of exposure to new ideas. Often the failure to adopt new practices arising from new technology provision can be blamed on a lack of good leadership. Sometimes it can be the result of lack of knowledge, but more often than not, teachers fail to develop new pedagogies due to a lack of time or resources to be able to do so. This is where good leadership intervention could benefit the entire school. One of the greatest barriers to innovative practice in schools arises from the ban many place on the use of mobile phones in their classrooms. Place this in the context of local education authorities concertedly blocking social media services due to 'safety' concerns, and there is little wonder that schools struggle to capitalise on the technological benefits being enjoyed by the rest of society. It is an abysmal situation.

And yet there are pockets of inspiration and innovation in the schools sectors. What kind of new pedagogies are emerging as a result of technology provision in classrooms? Firstly, we are seeing children being encouraged to improve their writing and reading through the use of social media such as blogs and wikis. They are being encouraged to communicate more effectively through podcasts, videos and on social networking sites. A great deal of creativity is being unleashed through the use of image sharing sites, touch screen tools and new dimensions to learning are being realised through game playing. Mobile learning takes the experience of discovery outside the classroom into the community the children will eventually work within. IWBs, when used effectively can enhance and enrich the entire learning encounter, with students as actively involved in knowledge production as their teachers. None of this has been achieved without some self-sacrifice by educators, some visionary leadership, and a large amount of disruption. If these three elements are present, innovative pedagogical practices will begin to spread, and we will see a realisation of Toffler's prediction. If not, we will be stuck with the mass production pedagogy of the past.

Reference
Toffler, A. (1970) Future Shock. London: Pan Books.

Image by David Wright

Stuck in the past? by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Shock of the new

Teachers in many schools will tell you they are running hard just to stand still as they attempt to adopt new technologies for learning.  It is a real struggle to keep up with the rapid pace of change that defines the digital age. Often, this is a bewildering process, and one which many teachers try to avoid. And yet, with a clear framework or roadmap for adoption, many of the challenges of adopting new technology can be met, and many of the fears teachers have can be assuaged.

Mandinach and Cline (1994) identified four distinct phases of adoption of new technology in schools. In the first phase, known as survival, teachers struggle to define what they wish to achieve with the new technology, and attempt to learn how to use it effectively to support pedagogy. Often, schools make the mistake of purchasing new technology before they have fully considered the reasons they need it. This suggests that the survival phase could be shortened if forethought went into the design of learning, before technology was procured.

The second phase of adoption is known as mastery, and involves teachers moving beyond the survival phase and into a phase where they start to apply the technology to meaningful and authentic learning contexts. During this phase, the technology should become transparent to the users - that is, it should begin to be used without significant cognitive energy.

The third phase, impact, is evaluative, and requires users to apraise the extent to which the technology is being effective . It also involves an assessment of how well teachers and learners are coping with any new issues or challenges that may have arisen during the implementation of the new tools.

The final phase, referred to as innovation, is where teachers have developed enough expertise to begin experimenting with new and innovative ways to use the technology. This can be a particularly creative phase, and often gives rise to the incorporation of even newer technologies, or the development of new pedagogical techniques. Venezky (2004) suggested that this final phase is recognisable by the number of restructured learning activities that occur within the classroom and the extent to which these enhance or extend best practice. Schools that are in the fourth phase of adoption are generally staffed by teachers who feel free to adapt technology to their own particular styles of teaching.

[Adpated from John, P. D. and Wheeler, S. (2009) The Digital Classroom: Harnessing technology for the future. Abingdon: Routledge/David Fulton. (p 99).]

References
Venezky, R. L. (2004) Technology in the classroom: Steps toward a new vision. Education, Communication and Information, 4 (1), 3-21.
Mandanach, E. B. and Cline, H. F. (1994) Classroom dynamics: Implementing a technology based learning environment. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Image by David Wright


Shock of the new by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

New ideas in a digital age

How are new ideas spread through society? Before the digital age, we had mass media to do the job - TV, radio and newspapers and prior to that, more primitive technologies were employed to spread news. But these media were used to spread ideas, news, and views that were often sanctioned by the broadcasting channel or publisher. We can go right back to the oral cultures where stories were told to preserve cultural values and tribal history from generation to generation. This kind of transmission of ideas was less filtered and more closely aligned to the culture it was aimed at. Today we are more and more reliant on social media channels to access ideas and news. Because this content is often crowd sourced and relatively unfiltered, it is arguably closer to the oral culture of ideas transmission than the mass media that dominated during the last century. One of the best explanatory models I have ever seen about the diffusion of ideas was devised by American sociologist Everett Rogers. In his famous 1962 model (in the figure below) Rogers synthesised the work of over 500 published innovation studies, and identified five phases of innovation diffusion, which are represented in the model as adoption types.

An interesting feature of the model is a gap or chasm between the early adopters and the early majority, which has been referred to as the 'bowling alley'. This concept was elaborated further by Geoffrey A. Moore in his 1991 book 'Crossing the Chasm'. For some ideas, this chasm can be difficult to bridge but must be if the idea is to achieve critical mass and penetrate sufficiently into the collective consciousness of the target society or community. This means that enough people have to subscribe to the idea before it becomes acceptable and desirable for the majority of that society. In most cases, 16 per cent is simply not enough. This model is a useful explanatory framework not only for ideas, but also for new technologies.

If we apply Rogers' model to technology in schools it follows that newer technologies such as tablets, games consoles or 3D televisions need to be purchased by enough schools for manufacturers to earn enough income to establish scalability of production, hopefully lowering their prices in the process. Another social effect is the self-help user groups that spring up to support the product and its application.

Image source 

In the digital age however, many have questioned whether Rogers' model still has any traction. One critic of the model is Rudi Dornbusch, who argues that change does not always occur along the trajectory that Rogers describes. Why might this be? In a time where the power and reach of mass media is beginning to ebb, and instantaneous global communication is now possible; and where individuals have the power to engage immense audiences through handheld tools, does the model still hold any significance?

Several years ago I published an edited volume entitled Transforming Primary ICT (Wheeler, Ed: 2005). In the opening chapter I attempted to provide a 21st Century contextualisation of Rogers' model. Essentially, I reasoned that the categories of Rogers' innovation adoption model could be reframed to enable a better understanding of how people adopt new technologies in the fast moving and hype-ridden age of disposable devices.

We know that the innovators identified in Rogers' model are those who generally adopt new ideas with little difficulty. Some may stand waiting outside a store for hours before the doors open, so they can be the first to own a new device the moment it is released for sale. For the digital age, I thought of this group as 'techno-romantics' because many who fall into the innovator zone tend to see technology as 'the answer'.

The next group - the early adopters - are often opinion leaders within a community, and in this position of respect, they can influence behaviour. They are a little more pragmatic in their outlook, and tend to buy into a new idea or technology when they see its momentum growing. They may also be 'technophiles', in that they have an affinity with new technology and perceive no particular threat to their way of working, but rather embrace it as a means to enhance or extend their practice.

The early majority are the 'techno-realists' - people who deliberate their decisions about purchase of technology and who carefully watch what the technophiles do, before eventually buying into the trend. By the time this section of society adopts the new idea, prices have already begun to fall due to manufaturing economies of scale, and at this point in the lifecycle, version two has probably been released. At this time, the new technology is no longer seen as a fad, or a gimmick, and probably has earned a certain amount of kudos as a desirable device or tool to use.

By the time the late majority have adopted the technology it is no longer new. The late majority are the 'techno-sceptics' who prefer to remain at the periphery of innovation, and only buy into a new device when it has been long established, and there is evidence of good use, and a large enough support network.

The final group, which Rogers calls the 'laggards' are those who never, or only rarely adopt a new idea or technology. They are in digital terms 'techno-luddites', and in Rogers' terms, this group tend to have no opinions leaders within their ranks, but if provoked or threatened by the new tools, may actually take some form of negative action. According to Venezky (2004) this model can explain the adoption of ICT in schools, and holds true in many countries. Although Rogers' model of diffusion of ideas is now more thanfive decades old, I believe it still has a place in our understanding of how technology is adopted.

References

Moore, G. A. (1991) Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and selling high-tech products to mainstream customers. New York: Harper Business Essentials.
Rogers, E. (1962) Diffusion of Innovations. Glencoe: Free Press.
Venezky, R. L. (2004) Introductory Paper: Technology in the classroom: Steps toward a new vision. Education, Communication and Information, 4(1), 2-22.
Wheeler, S. (Ed: 2005) Transforming Primary ICT. Exeter: Learning Matters.

Main image source


New ideas in a digital age by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Positive deviance and the IPD

We all know that organisations and institutions impose barriers to innovation. The larger they are, the more rules they tend to generate. This is because by nature large organisations are conservative and there is a perceived need to protect the status quo and maintain order. But this isn't always good news for creativity and innovation. James Clay once called such enforcing agencies 'Innovation Prevention Departments', and claimed that every institution has one. I think he's right. Trying to innovate in such circumstances, especially when there is an IPD saying 'that's against the rules', 'it can't be done' or 'it's too expensive' can be hard going, but innovation is never impossible. I was interviewed at the Learning Technologies conference, about my views on innovation, organisational constraints and positive deviance. The interview was actually recorded downstairs in the Learning without Frontiers dome zone, which explains the theatrical lighting. Above is the video of the interview in full (duration 90 seconds).

Interview by Martin Couzins


Positive deviance and the IPD by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Ingenuity, creativity and time

Creativity is such an elusive thing. For some, waiting for inspiration is a familiar past-time. It's more than just staring at a blank page, or waiting for that tune to arrive out of thin air. If the muse has deserted you, it can be quite a time of anguish, particularly if your living depends upon being creative. At that moment there is simply nothing you can do. Creativity, said Margaret Boden, is the ability to come up with new ideas that are surprising yet intelligible, and also valuable in some way. Creativity is what many of us yearn for, in the classroom, in our homes, in our lives. It's a problem when it appears to be in short supply. Sometimes, it seems, the answer is to just give it time.

When Thomas Edison (allegedly!) came up with the idea of the light bulb (the archetypical symbol of genius and creativity) he didn't do so in an instant. It took him some time, through periods of trial and error, and many shades of failure and near success, before the idea had incubated enough to crystallise in an intelligible form, and then, as if by magic - the idea was finally born. Tim Berners-Lee's wonderful, revolutionary idea of the World Wide Web actually took more than ten years to reach full realisation. The psychologist Graham Wallas suggested that there is a gestation period - an incubation process that leads to transformation - and the creative transformation that brings imagination alive on paper, or on tape, or on canvas, or in the laboratory, is where the genius resides. Watch the video below, a TED talk given by the writer Elizabeth Gilbert, who explains where our concept of genius and creativity comes from.



In his book Where good ideas come from Steven Johnson supports this argument, seeing recurring patterns that foster creativity and innovation. He recognises what he calls the 'slow hunch' which he describes as a long period of evolution of an idea, before it matures to become accessible and useful. Creativity is almost never instant. It takes time. But it sometimes takes on this guise, when apparently from nowhere, a musician or poet can conjure up a haunting melody or a killer line. No, creativity takes practice, and this is why, when we see creativity in the classroom, it is almost always the product of a long period of immersion in study, and an intimate familiarity with the subject. Musicians and poets take time to master their crafts, and then the tunes and words visit them. Give your learners time to practice their art, their thinking, their craft, and you will be providing them with the tools to become creative in their own right.

Image source


Ingenuity, creativity and time by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

What's so innovative about ICT?

I was recently invited to write a post for the Dell Education blog. Below is my article, which first appeared on the Dell website on 22 April, 2010.

In my role as an academic researcher in learning, I am often asked the same question: What is so innovative about ICT in schools? I assume that people ask this question because they are so used to seeing computers they have forgotten what the world was like before they arrived. I usually respond by starting off with an examination of what ‘ICT’ actually means. ICT - Information and Communication Technology - is more than just computers. In education, it’s really better referred to as ‘learning technology’ and I made my views clear about this recently in a blog post entitled ‘Stop calling it ICT!’. Whatever we call it, it’s a term that embraces an entire spectrum of tools, including the Internet and World Wide Web, telecommunications, cameras and audio, mobile phones, computer games, and other interactive devices in the classroom, such as Interactive Whiteboards, turtles and pixies (small programmable floor robots) and voting systems. We limit our vision if we simply see learning technology as ‘computers’, but I concede that computers are often the gateway into many of the above tools.


So just what is so innovative about this spectrum of tools? There are three key points I want to make to answer this question, and they all relate to what I term ‘affordances’ – the attributes of the technology that we perceive are useful to us. I wrote about this recently in a post on my own personal blog which I called ‘Angels in the Architecture’.

The first innovative quality of learning technology is that it has a flexibility and provisionally that supports learning across the sectors, from reception classes through to higher education and lifelong learning. Remember the time when you had to retype something, or use Tippex, if you made a mistake? You probably won’t if you are under 35 years old. When word processors were first introduced into education, they were an absolute Godsend to many people, particularly students who were writing long essays or teachers who had to create a large amount of content. The provisionally of the computer, not only in terms of text manipulation, but also images, sounds and video, means that the computer and learning technology in general have become indispensable for most people who find themselves studying or teaching.

Secondly, learning technology can be a platform for creativity. Creativity is often overlooked in learning – especially if it’s not art or music. We need to acknowledge that creativity is an important aspect of learning across the curriculum. We need to think laterally when trying to solve some mathematics or science problems for example. When we write essays, read literature, or learn a new language, we need to call upon our imagination and creative skills to make sense of the learning resources. Learning technology supports, and often extends our creative skills, and can act as a ‘mindtool’ for us to develop our thinking skills too. We can store all our thoughts, useful collections of knowledge and questions in the memory of our device, and then leave it there until we next need it, thereby freeing up thinking space for the immediate problems at hand.

Thirdly, and probably most importantly, learning technology is very effective in connecting people together, and enabling them to share their ideas, resources and comments online. Social networking tools, blogs and wikis are just a few of the tools that are in common use in education, where students and teachers can create content, share, discuss, vote, and otherwise participate in a community that extends beyond the boundaries of the traditional classroom. We are only at the start of the innovation curve of learning technology. The provisionally and flexibility of the tool, its capability to harness and amplify creativity, and its ability to connect people together wherever and whenever they are in the world, will ensure that learning technologies will continue to be innovative in education.

There are many more things I could say about the innovative nature of the tools that we call ICT – the learning technologies – but space and time do not permit. In conclusion, I will give this word of advice to any teacher in any sector of education: Don’t be afraid to take some risks with technology – if you can think of an idea to use in your classroom, it is very likely that there is a learning technology tool out there that can help you realise it.


Image source


Learning with 'e's by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

No-one is anonymous

I forget sometimes just how connected we all are. At today's ALT-C plenary Martin Bean took a question from the floor after ending his superb keynote speech. The delegate said his name and then asked his question. While Martin Bean answered, I noticed one or two people in the auditorium checking out the questioner's website to see who he was and what his research profile was. I wonder how many more times that's been done during this conference? People are surrepticiously checking each other out all the time here it seems, using their iPhones, laptops, searching on Google, and so on. It will be QR tags and facial recognition software next. No-one is anonymous anymore.

I thought that Martin Bean nailed it on the question of how we can engage our learners. He told the story of a 14 year old boy who was heard to remark that going to school was like getting on a plane. 'You sit in rows, place your trust in someone you don't know, and you have to turn off all electronic devices,' he said. It raised one of the biggest laughs of Martin's talk, but there was also a very serious underlying message. Why should we cut young people off from their connections just when they need them the most? In many cases, formal education simply does not offer enough encouragement for flexible learning through technology.

Bean talked about massification, privatisation and other moves to bring education to the masses. One of the questions from the floor was whether massification ran counter to personalisation of learning, but Bean believes that the two are not contradictory. Massification brings learning to populations who were previously disenfrachised, whilst the personal element can still be achieved through innovative use of Web 2.0 technologies. He clearly sees e-learning as a major component in the future success of higher education, and advocates using any tools that have a cultural relevance for youth. He's not afraid to criticise government attempts to jump onto the bandwagon either, and thinks that there are smarter people outside government than are inside it.

I think Martin Bean will be a good Vice-Chancellor of the Open University when he assumes his post in a few weeks. He is following in some illustrious footsteps, but I don't think he will disappoint. He is not so much Mr Bean, more like Martin the Magnificent.