Questioning the Assumption that a New Age Mandates New Learning

Resnick (2000) entered familiar territory in education discussions by framing his argument with a concern for our society’s future solvency. All avenues of discussion are sealed when one channels the mystical aura of these this indistinct concept. Either you are part of the supposed solution, pushing students into tomorrow, or a massive hunk of dead weight, relegating students to ignominy by dispensing anachronistic training. This conclusion may be hasty, especially when technology enters the conversation. Technology designers are often the loudest voices in this discussion, insisting that newer is always better (Noble, 1996). Resnick’s heart is certainly in the right place, but the demand that we revolutionize education, an issue that I explored in the first blog post, for a rapidly-evolving digital age may just be a knee-jerk reaction.

Resnick’s anecdotal evidence is powerful and promising. To ensure the optimal health of this society, we must foster the growth of more students like Mike Lee, the budding artist and role model, as well as the other individuals whose inventive nature is astounding. There is merit in Resnick’s (1998) notion of a lifelong “kindergarten” facilitated by challenging, interactive software that provides students with building blocks and allows them to create. Life in the digital age, if such a thing exists, still requires the expression of human characteristics that transcend invented epochs that only permit simple description. Instead of assuming that the technological skills themselves solely determine the manifestation of exceptional qualities, we should encourage the development of those human qualities through any means possible.

We cannot deny the fact that the ability to manipulate varied forms of technology is a valuable asset in our present circumstances. A digital literacy similar to the model proposed by Labbo, Reinking, and McKenna (1998) is an absolute must. In particular the authors’ fifth key concept states that the use of technology should be incorporated into a broader effort to strengthen critical, independent thinking. A misguided approach would entail insisting that students demonstrate proficiency in a certain number of technology skills. Even if the boundaries are not immediately visible, reducing learners’ interactions with technology to quantifiable elements is limiting. It cages them in just when we desire to set them free. Prescribing the qualities deemed essential by employers, Galbreath (1999) urges educators to mimic the atmosphere of current employment setting. According to this businessman, students must be imbued with a sense of urgency to complete assignments, a realization that they can and will be replaced if they do not produce results, a desire to learn new skills to accentuate personal and corporate value, and the willingness to cooperate on a global scale. Rushing headlong into a digital age does not mean that every aspect of our existence must be reinvented. Perhaps we should labor to produce thinkers who step back from the melee and examine alternatives to a digitized world and work force. Sometimes our society simply needs to ask, “Why?”

References

Galbreath, J. (1999). Preparing the 21st century worker: The link between computer-based technology and future skills sets. Educational Technology, 39(6), 14-22.

Labbo, L. D., Reinking, D., & McKenna, M. C. (1998). Technology and literacy education in the next century: Exploring the connection between work and schooling. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(3/4), 273-289.

Noble, D. D. (1996). Mad rushes into the future: The overselling of educational technology. Educational Leadership, 54(3), 18-23.

Resnick, M. (1998). Technologies for lifelong kindergarten. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(4), 43-55.

Resnick, M. (2001). Revolutionizing learning in the digital age. Publications from the forum for the future of higher education. Boulder, CO: Educause.

Assessment as an Engine for Reform?

The word “assessment” often elicits a combination of fear, loathing, and trepidation within educational circles. Most forms of assessment measure the wrong attributes of student progress, are anxiety-provoking, and guilty of capturing students’ knowledge only at a single moment in time. The problem is only compounded when high-stakes testing is introduced (Neill, 1997). Let there be no confusion: accountability is a vital component of education and assessments must be utilized to shape curriculum, plan individual interventions, and inform all parties of what type and how much progress is being made by learners. However, to agree withBond (1995), assessment is due for a makeover.

The discussion concerning assessment should not become as polarized as the Clark and Kozma debate over technology, pitting those who value reliability, validity, and standardization against constructivists who define the type of assessment according to the needs of the learner. We must marshal our forces and firmly secure the middle ground, developing authentic assessments and ensuring that the curriculum and measures of student performance are firmly aligned as suggested by Bond (1995). Terwilliger (1997) decries the principle of authentic assessment, labeling it a misguided exercise in tautological reasoning and a narrow-minded effort to introduce students to a supposed real world. He is correct that reality is subjective, but that is not a suitable reason to dismiss all attempts to assess authentically. Although Gulikers, Bastiaens, and Kirschner (2004) assert that in order to be authentic, assessments must replicate the conditions common in the real world, we should not be discouraged if this cannot be accomplished. This is trivial when compared to the broader implications of implementing performance-based, authentic assessments. If our mandate does not involve the preparation of an informed, active citizenry, then the school doors should be closed and child labor laws should be repealed. As Strange (1997) so eloquently articulated, authentic assessment allows us to take a step toward the point where “…the distinctions between assessment and learning blur into insignificance” (p. 30).

Criticism is warranted when authentic assessments are assumed to be a feasible substitute for standardized tests without considerable modification of the entire education system (Givens, 1997). Like Vermont’s method of assessment, described by Bond (1995, portfolios hold a great deal of promise for evaluating learner progress over an extended period of time. This is also an excellent opportunity for integrating technology and familiarizing students with a vast array of valuable skills (Siegle, 2002). It also provides students with a product that can accompany them and be shared with others. As Cizek (2000) observed, portfolios must be elevated beyond the realm of mere repositories of assorted work. Portfolios portray the learner at their best with artifacts that are selected to demonstrate proficiency in certain skill and content areas. Portfolios also permit ample opportunity for reflection and adjustment because the criteria for evaluation is apparent from the beginning. Standards currently exist, so perhaps these benchmarks should be utilized in a manner that involves, rather than alienates, learners.

References

Bond, L. (1995). Critical issue: Rethinking assessment and its role in educational reform.

Cizek, G. J. (2000). Pockets of resistance in the assessment revolution. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 19(2), 16-23, 33.

Givens, K. (1997). Performance assessment tests: A problematic panacea. Contemporary Education, 69(1), 27-29.

Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 67-85.

Neill, D. M. (1997). Transforming student assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(1), 34-42.

Siegle, D. (2002). Creating a living portfolio: Documenting student growth with electronic portfolios. Gifted Child Today, 25(3), 60-63.

Strange, W. B. (1997). On the criticisms of performance assessment. Contemporary Education, 69(1), 30-33.

Terwilliger, J. (1997). Semantics, psychometrics, and assessment reform: A close look at "authentic" assessments. Educational Researcher, 26(8), 24-27.

Bloom and the Connection between Motivation and Mastery Learning

After sifting through Bloom’s description of mastery learning with a fine-toothed comb, waiting to pounce upon an argument or evidence that appears objectionable (or horribly dated), I discovered little to criticize. Frequent formative assessments that provide an accurate portrait of the emerging learner and guide instruction and further evaluation presents educators with ample information with which to work. I do find Bloom’s emphasis on catering to the individual student and guaranteeing consistency somewhat demanding and ignorant of what education is capable of. Education requires invigoration without compromising rigor or relaxing pressures of personal accountability, and Bloom appears to provide those qualities.

Bloom noted the vital nature of motivation, which is perhaps the most essential ingredient when attempting reach an individual effectively. I often wonder how students are capable of completely neglecting the importance of education and violently opposing anything that requires thought, creativity, or involvement beyond passively listening to the teacher. Why is lack of motivation such a persistent nuisance to teachers and hindrance to students when it is one of the components of a learning situation that the learner has the most control over? Without motivation, a mastery learning program cannot succeed, especially because it is assumed that students will not pass through the system by inertia alone. Evidence of competence and understanding must be displayed.

Reigeluth, Beatty, and Brian (2003) concluded that lack of success stems from four sources: unmet needs (Maslow’s hierarchy), deficient or misplaced motivation, the absence of a firm foundation of basic skills, and a defective support network. These authors assert that motivation, influenced by attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction, can be enhanced by technology that responds directly to individual learners, allows for the sharing of information, and provides for learning rather than additional sorting and pigeonholing. Guha and Leonard (2002) provide evidence of one instance in which the introduction of technology-based instruction resulted in a measurable boost in elementary students’ motivation because it provided a richer and more enjoyable context. However, this fix may only be temporary, and maintenance of the students’ enhanced levels of motivation may hinge on continuously providing ever more appealing devices. Motivation is a fickle beast.

Bloom (1968) indicated that a tutor for every individual would facilitate mastery learning by providing the one-on-one interactions helpful to most students. We know that not every learner can be accompanied by an educated professional with limitless expertise on a daily basis, but we must expand our notion of what constitutes a suitable tutor. Tutors are everywhere, and they are already in positions to be of service. If learning is praised at home, then learning will be attended to at school. Motivation can be cultivated and ingrained. In this regard, technology may perform its greatest service to education, as the barriers separating home and school can be dismantled. The urge to learn and external forces stressing learning become universal. Without a drastic change in motivation, we will continue to stumble along with the status quo.

References

Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1(2), 1-12.

Guha, S., & Leonard, J. (2002). Motivation in elementary mathematics: How students and teachers benefit from computers. TechTrends, 46(1), 40-43.

Reigeluth, C. M., Charles, M., & Beatty, B. J. (2003). Why children are left behind and what we can do about it. Educational Technology, 43(5), 24-32.

David Jonassen, Mindtools, and a Constructivist Awakening

Surveying David Jonassen’s publications from the last decade, the image of a staunch advocate of constructivist education, whose evolving philosophy is becoming more refined, emerges from the pages of his articles. I genuinely hope that his prolific nature translates into influence. As espoused in the assigned article, Jonassen’s (1998) vision for technology’s rightful place in education is positive, bold, and pragmatic, a necessity when we are speaking of institutions that proceed with caution.

Taking a moment to assess the scope of the technology debate, which Jonassen (1995) appears to ignore except to argue that technology is not a delivery vehicle or controller of instruction, technology’s role in education is crystal clear with constructivism. Richard Clark’s (1994) dismissal of technology is foolish and detrimental to the field. Education’s values are not defined only by efficiency. As Hooper and Hokanson (2000) claim, technology is a provocateur, challenging educator’s deep-seated assumptions and serving as the catalyst for change and further exploration into what is meant by learning and knowledge acquisition.

We must also be skeptical of those who perceive technology as a panacea. As Jonassen (2000) observes, the human component cannot be eliminated from education. It is vital and irreplaceable. However, the focus can shift from teacher-centered approaches to those in which the students are active, personally responsible, and engaged with a form of technology that builds understanding, meaning-making, and critical thinking skills without usurping control of the situation from any of the people involved. Jonassen (2000) claims that students must own what they are learning, but we should extend that principle to assert that teachers act as primary shareholders, as well, because the notion of an independent self-regulated learner (Simons, 1993) ignores the complicating factors that differentiate theory from reality.

The inherent beauty of Mindtools is that they are forms of technology designed explicitly with constructivist learning as a goal, which elevates them beyond the devices adopted and adapted from the broader culture (Jonassen, 1992). This fact may ease some of the discomfort generated by Marshall McLuhan’s approach to evaluating technology, especially when we consider the horizons that are broadened by the marriage of constructivism and technology. As Perkins (1991) notes, constructivism is demanding of the learner, situating them in rigorous tasks that emphasize cognitive complexity, relocating the onus of task management to the student, and forcing them to take a great leap of faith and buy into the situation. These stipulations may be unfamiliar and taxing, but Mindtools ease the transition by performing menial tasks that sap ones cognitive strength, providing scaffolding, and contextualizing the activity. Jonassen (1992) assures us that these tools are a vehicle toward thinking harder and in ways that are impossible with other media. I can think of no greater ideal for technology or for education. Asking students to become full-fledged participants in learning, a learning that they create, manipulate, and apply, is an admirable goal. Constructivism and Jonassen have my vote.

References

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.

Hooper, S., & Hokanson, B. (2000). The changing face of knowledge. Social Education, 64(1), 28-31.

Jonassen, D. H. (1992). What are cognitive tools? In P. A. M. Kommers, D. H. Jonassen, & J. T. Mayes (Eds.), Cognitive tools for learning (pp. 1-6). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Jonassen, D. H. (1995). Supporting communities of learners with technology: A vision for integrating technology with learning in schools. Educational Technology, 35(4), 60-63.

Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. (1998). Computers as Mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24-32.

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Transforming learning with technology: Beyond modernism and post-modernism or whoever controls the technology creates the reality. Educational Technology, 40(2), 21-25.

Perkins, D. N. (1991). What constructism demands of the learner. Educational Technology, 31(9), 19-21.

Simons, P. R. (1993). Constructive learning: The role of the learner. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 291-314). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Seymour Papert and Learning to Learn

I agree with Papert’s statement (1993a) that the ability to learn is assumed to be intrinsic, and fostering this ability is therefore assumed to be unnecessary. Piaget’s influence on Papert is apparent in his approach to learning and noted by those evaluating his work (Goldberg, 1991), but his departure from Piaget’s theory is subtle. Much of what Piaget identifies are skills that are automatically learned, but Papert encourages us to wonder what forces are driving (or hindering) the acquisition of these abilities.

As educators and workers within what Papert would characterize as the lethargic and ponderous institution known as School, we do not actively promote an awareness of the learning process and how it can be tailored to suit the needs of each individual. There is no doubt that education should be more personal and relevant. We structure units of study, activities, and instructional materials with the hope that learning will spontaneously and miraculously occur. Many educators would prefer to break free from these constraints and attempt to impart meaningful learning that will endow students with the capabilities and affinities necessary to be lifetime learners, but we fear what we cannot see and control directly. Strategies and methods of design are beginning to emphasize metacognition and the rich, student-centered environments advocated by Papert (Masingila & Moellwald, 1993), but I would assume that he remains disappointed with our progress. Even Wiggins and McTighe’s (2005) much-vaunted Understanding by Design provides the endpoint around which all instruction is created, but even this technique suggest that accomplished teaching begets learning.

Opposition to Papert’s vision emanates from a variety of sources. Some of this resistance is structural, existing solely because School is limited by forces having nothing to do with education. Papert (1993a) suggests that genuine learning requires the time to engage in prolonged consideration of a problem to examine all of its facets and discussion with others. This indicates that learning is social, which is fine for the majority of learners, but also challenging, time-consuming and exhausting. The demand for immediate, positive results often translates into only seeking the correct answers that can be repeated on a test in order to receive desired rewards. Papert is correct in suggesting that some of the resistance from students is active. In his book, Mindstorms, Papert (1993b) discusses the detrimental effects of mathophobia (actually applicable to all content areas), which causes people to perceive this subject as beyond their realm of ability and interact with it like a bitter medicine. Our mind is often our own worst enemy, especially in education. According to Papert (1993b p. 42), “the consequences of such self-sabotage is personal failure, and each failure reinforces the original belief. And such beliefs may be most insidious when held not only by individuals, but by our entire culture.” Countering these forces is challenging for teachers, but I am not wholly convinced with Papert’s assertion that technology will be the solution that education needs.

References

Goldberg, M. F. (1991). Portrait of Seymour Papert. Educational Leadership, 48(7), 68-70.

Masingila, J. O., & Moellwald, F. E. (1993). Using Polya to foster a classroom environment for real-world problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 93(5), 245-249.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: BasicBooks.

Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: BasicBooks.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Will Technology Destroy Critical Thinking?

Tarlow and Spangler (2001) warn that the unchecked expansion of technology may be causing a gradual regression in our society, sabotaging the literacy that has emerged throughout history. Their warning is timely and appropriate, and it is clear that they are well-versed in the philosophy of McLuhan. Fear not Tarlow and Spangler, when implemented properly, technology will not only eliminate any slide toward stupidity that may be occurring, but it will also vastly improve education and the cognitive ability of our young people.

Educators seek to infect their students with a case of the H.O.T.S. (higher-order thinking skills), which support a lifetime of learning. Unfortunately, the instructional devices and assessments that are often inflicted upon students rarely promote the development of these skills. Evolving beyond memorization and regurgitation appears to be our primary stumbling because we are asking students to perform tasks that are new to education and for which they do not have adequate preparation or support. Technology can be an agent of change. Salomon, Perkins, and Globerson (1991) remind us that simply thrusting technology upon a student, regardless of how well-versed they are with its use, does not reap desired results. Nor will it automatically boost their intelligence. When framed by a richly supportive cultural context, technology extends our ability by working alongside us and sharing its “cognitive residue” (Salomon, Perkins, & Globerson, 1991, p. 5). This connotes a fundamental, intellectual partnership between man and machine.

Here we see the core of David Jonassen’s argument (Jonassen, Carr, & Yueh, 1998). Jonassen and his colleagues developed the concept of computers as Mindtools, which suggests that educators allow these devices to execute the task for which they were designed: organize, store, and peform basic functions, like computations, on information. Thus, technology can be utilized for semantic organization, dynamic modeling, and knowledge construction, thereby freeing the human element to use his or her talents and mental energy to think critically about the material. In effect, the technology takes care of the tedious and often frustrating preparatory work that inhibits learning and promotes disinterest. For example, Peck and Dorricott (1994) noted that word processing applications foster creativity by eliminating the fear of spelling and grammatical mistakes as well as opening a new world to individuals who may experience difficulty with fine motor skills. Active critical thinking and deep reflection can be experienced by more individuals. Siegle (2004) advocates the use of technology for gifted education because it facilitates the development of knowledge in one context and the application of it in another, which appeals to gifted students. There is no reason why this type of learning cannot be experienced by every student. As Kizlik (1996) eloquently states, technology will never answer our questions for us, but it will provide a better framework to aid in determining if our answers actually make sense. That is the essence of critical thinking. Tarlow and Spangler must have faith that educators will develop ways to combine technology and critical thinking that prevents our society from sinking into the doldrums.

References

Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. P. (1998). Computers as Mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24-32.

Kizlik, R. (1996). Connective transactions- Technology and thinking skills for the 21st Century. International Journal of Instructional Media, 23(2), 115-122.

Peck, K. L., & Dorricott, D. (1994). Why use technology? Educational Leadership, 51(7), 11-14.

Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2-9.

Siegle, D. (2004). The merging of literacy and technology in the 21st Century: A bonus for gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 27(2), 32-35

Tarlow, M. C., & Spangler, K. L. (2001). Now more than ever: Will high-tech kids still think deeply? The Education Digest, 67(3), 23-27.

A More Substantive Approach to Cultural Diversity in Education

As Reeves (1997) stated, multiculturalism is not a buzzword that will soon be discarded from the educator’s lexicon. As our nation’s population becomes increasingly more diverse, the development of practical means of teaching an entire spectrum of learners will likely become a primary concern for many school districts. The vast majority of educators would probably find little to criticize in Reeves’ argument that instructional materials and forms of assessment should be thoroughly combed for an evidence of bias or discrimination. Unfortunately, Reeves speaks only of formalities and minor instances of offence, but we need multicultural methods that attack the problem at a much deeper level.

The anecdote concerning the culturally insensitive ESL program purchased by the Taiwanese businessman is unfortunate, yet also satisfactory for illustrating Reeves’ limited point. In the end, this issue is minor and easily rectified. Other researchers (Skiba, Knesting, & Bush, 2002) reported that widespread bias in evaluation tools are not to blame for the overrepresentation of minorities in special education programs or the poor performance of minority students in general. The assumption that instructional devices actively repress certain groups appears implausible. The system of performance assessments, differentiated by culture, that Neill (1997) advocates sound appealing, but it is rendered impractical when one considers the amount of knowledge a teacher must have in order for it to function properly. Lee (1998) lists the necessary qualities of a learning environment preferred by African Americans as spirituality, harmony, movement, verve, affect, expressive individualism, communalism, orality, and social time perspective. Incompatible demands may be expected by a different cultural group, and then what does one do? Educators must strive to fully understand and effectively teach each student that steps into a classroom by familiarizing themselves with cultural norms, but this solution can only partially advance multicultural education.

John Ogbu (1992) divided minorities into three broad cateogories, autonomous, voluntary, and involuntary, each with their own inherent attitudes regarding education. Voluntary minorities, like Asian Americans, view hurdles blocking their path toward meaningful education as obstacles to overcome in order to fully participate in their adopted society. These individuals can exist in two distinct cultures concurrently. For them, accommodating to the majority culture while in school is not interpreted as a threat, but merely another tool in achieving ultimate success. Involuntary minorities, like African Americans and some Latinos, struggle against dominant social pressures to maintain their unique identity and fend off the oppressor and his school systems. Until these negative belief systems are altered, cultural diversity will continue to plague the field of education. No amount of cajoling or polite gestures by educators will do the trick. Respecting and celebrating a culture in its present form is not always a viable option. Sometimes, we must select the difficult choice of directly interfering with a culture in order to save it and its members. Correcting minor details like instructional materials and assessment instruments is worthwhile, but a feasible multicultural program can only be developed once ingrained opinions of education are changed.

References

Lee, C. D. (1998). Culturally responsive pedagogy and performance-based assessment. The Journal of Negro Education, 67(3), 268-279.

Neill, D. M. (1997). Transforming student assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(1), 34-42.

Ogbu, J. U. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Educational Researcher, 21(8), 5-14, 24.

Reeves, T. C. (1997). An evaluator looks at cultural diversity. Educational Technology, 37(2), 27-31.

Skiba, R. J., Knesting, K., & Bush, L. D. (2002). Culturall competent assessment: More than nonbiased tests. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11(1), 61-78.