Key Quote
|
Technology is not inherently motivating. Once the novelty of computers fades, good design and integration are needed to maintain children's motivation. So far, there have been few good designs and little strong integration.
The idea that children must be exposed to technology from a very young age is a myth. "This notion that we have to directly train kids how to do exactly what they will do when they leave school is an abuse of the notion of what schools should be about." Aside from that, with technology changing so rapidly, most software tools learned at age seven, for example, will be gone by age twelve.
For most children, technology should not be treated like another content area, such as math, science, or social studies. Technology can and should be used as tools to facilitate the learning of those core subjects; children "need tools for searching, researching, and expressing one's self."
Planning is the most significant and most problematic aspect of technology use in schools. School districts have not spent much time figuring out how technology fits into their overall educational plan; most schools have developed plans for buying technology, not using it.
"The best uses of technology involve good teaching." Technology can plan an important role in the classroom, if it is well integrated into the school day in meaningful ways, where properly designed technology, with strong, consistent interfaces, is used throughout the curriculum.
While today's teachers are more and more comfortable with the technology itself, few are trained in its pedagogic integration into the classroom and curriculum. Thus far, there is little training, in education schools or school districts, or from vendors themselves, that facilitate this critical integration.
Ergonomics and physical design are areas of significant concern. Most current computer technology is clearly designed for use by adults and not children. Thus far, school districts have paid little attention to this issue, largely because it has not been brought to their attention. Most computer workstations, i.e. the workspace height, seating arrangements, input devices, lighting, are problematic for children and could cause long-term health issues.
A major weak link is the lack of good educational software. Most commercially available educational software is not very interesting or innovative; while it can be useful for reinforcing classroom activities, its potential value is modest at best. The most interesting software projects are still in the research community, but this community has done little to align itself with commercial vendors on the issue of how to use its creations in real world classrooms.
"All things in moderation." This time-honored maxim captures well Dr. Barry Fishman's thoughts and feelings regarding technology, education, and children. While of the opinion that most current technology use in schools is not helpful, a premise with which he says he will soon be in print, he also argues that "that doesn't make technology bad, it makes those uses of it bad." To Dr. Fishman, the problem with information and communications technologies (ICTs) in schools is largely one of poor and problematic planning, design, training, and implementation. He also recognizes, however, that some potential negative effects need to be mitigated for effective use to take place.
To Dr. Fishman, a fundamental problem with technology in schools is planning. "Schools have had a funny way of thinking about technology: as a one-time expenditure, from grants. The worst idea is the bond issue, where you spend 30 years paying for a machine that's obsolete in five." He claims school districts have not spent much time figuring out how technology fits into their overall educational plan. As an example, he cites the federal E-rate program. The program, which facilitates access to discounted telecommunications services, required schools to have a technology plan, but not necessarily a sensible one. As Dr. Fishman has argued in a journal article entitled "Planning for Technology vs. Technology Planning", most schools developed plans for buying technology, not for using it. The problem has been exacerbated by a strong push by industry to get technology into the classroom.
Dr. Fishman does have faith, however, that technology can help manage the pedagogic process by offloading some of the tasks that teachers find too challenging to orchestrate without technology. He cites the "Model-It" software program as an example of this. The program allows students to do fairly sophisticated causal modeling. This involves differential calculus, but the program makes this transparent to the teachers and students. In this way, the technology can promote deep thinking in a way that is impossible to achieve without it.
While Dr. Fishman feels that it is impossible to come up with a canonical list of bad things to do with technology, he suggests many things are or should be fairly obvious, e.g. not letting young children chat online with adults unsupervised. Importantly, he notes that solutions to most of these sorts of problems are social, not directly technological. For these reasons, he advocates putting ICTs in public spaces, not places like bedrooms or the basement, to allow parents to supervise and monitor their children's activities for negative or problematic use.
Dr. Fishman feels that at least in his subdiscipline of the learning sciences, there is a consensus view about technology: that it is a tool, a part of a vital learning environment, but not the focus of it. Dr. Fishman is not for spending massive amounts on technology; to him, it is most important to figure out what you want to do instructionally, then figure out how technology can fit in and support that. Given a defined set of educational goals, he feels, you can then figure out how to best use your resources, technology or otherwise, to reach those goals.
Unfortunately, the educational system, from the federal level to individual schools, is trapped in its own inertia. And, as the pace of technology change increases, it is getting harder for schools to use technology appropriately. "Schools are always caught out of the cycle, working to implement the ‘next big thing' without ever fully implementing the current thing." It is clear that Dr. Fishman believes passionately in the potential for technology to enhance the educational process, but he plainly recognizes that there are major obstacles, mostly tied to issues of planning, training, and design, that inhibit making widespread, effective use of technology in America's classrooms.
Best, S., Fishman, B. J., Marx, R., & Foster, J. "Comprehensive professional development reform efforts: Changing attitudes and practices about pedagogy and technology for science teachers with diverse needs." In D.A. Willis, J. D. Price & J. Willis (Eds.), Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, 1839-1844, San Diego, CA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, 2000.
Fishman, B., and Gomez, L. "New technologies and the challenge for school leadership" (White paper prepared for the Joyce Foundation Wingspread Conference on Technology's Role in Urban School Reform: Achieving Equity and Quality). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, 2000.
Soloway, E., Norris, C., Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B., Krajcik, J., and Marx, R. "K-12 and the Internet." Communications of the ACM, 43(1), 19-23, 2000.
Fishman, B., Pinkard, N., and Bruce, C. "Preparing schools for curricular reform: Planning for technology vs. technology planning." In A. Bruckman, M. Guzdial, J. Kolodner, & A. Ram (eds.), International Conference on the Learning Sciences, 98-104, Atlanta, GA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, 1998.
Fishman, B., & Pea, R. D. "The Internetworked School: A Policy for the Future." Technos: Quarterly of Education and Technology, 3(1), 22-26, 1994.
» Next: Dr. Amy B. Jordan