The "unholy trinity" - really?
Friday, May 31, 2013 at 05:17AM
In a recent Dangerously Irrelevant post, my buddy Scott McLeod wrote:
The unholy trinity of student classroom technology usage
- Taking notes / word processing (look, we’re using computers!)
- Looking up stuff (Google and Wikipedia reign supreme)
- Making PowerPoints (and they’re not even good ones)
Really?
I think I could make the case that these might be the "holy" trinity of student technology use, if technology use has so grown in importance that one's eternal salvation or damnation may depend upon it:
- Word processing: process writing (brainstorming, revising, peer review, publishing) strengthens student communication abilities. I would argue that good writing skills will be an important skill for at least a couple more years ;-)
- Research. The ability to locate, evaluate, use, and communicate information in digital formats, as I recall, is a part of about every "21st century" skill set I've seen.
- Communicating in graphic formats. Yup, there are bad slideshows just as there are bad poems, bad videos, and bad debates, but it's format bigotry to toss out an entire medium or tool because of its abuse. Good slideshows give students an opportunity to show design sense, creativity, organization, and a host of other skills that enhance communications.
I can show positive uses for Scott's unholy trinity of classroom teacher use as well - interactive whiteboards (as a tool for gamification), clickers (checks for understanding, opinion polls, discussion starters), and viewing pre-recorded video (increased understanding of content).
I am not sure what the purpose of such a diatribe serves. To embarrass teachers? Yes, any technology can be used badly and it's not hard to find examples of such use in education - at any level.
But how about a positive contribution to the question you ask "Can we do better (a lot better) than just this?" What might that better look like?
Scott, I think YOU can do better. These shallow little rants serve no purpose except to make those who are using technology with kids feel inadequate.
See also Ryan Bretag's Metanoia post "Tools are for making"
Reader Comments (19)
Hi Doug!
Obviously there was a little rhetorical flourish in that post. Not so much a rant as much as a plea for us to move beyond simple, replicative uses of tech. In most classrooms, teachers are still stuck in low-level uses of tech. And, no, I don't think that's okay in 2013. As I said in a comment to that post:
Sorry this post didn't work for you. It seemed to resonate with many others. Maybe next time? :)
Dear Doug
Thanks for reminding us that we're all on different spots on the learning continuum. In the Twitter Universe, it seems that everybody is riding high on the crest of innovation and attaining glorious heights of technological achievement & glory. (What's your Klout score?! Don't get me started on that...)
I have to remind myself that we are actually the minority in the world. Only 30 percent of the world even has Internet Access:
Internet Penetration World Map
I am in the world of International Education. While I am proud of our fast and deep adoption of 1:1 technology & pedagogy, I also am very aware that we are talking about rich kids in a rich private school. I'm sure that there are many "backwood" places in North America where the computer is still that box in the classroom corner collecting dust.
Someone on Twitter was pulling his hair trying to teach his 80+ year old father how to do online banking. I was impressed that an 80+ year old would be even willing to try to learn!
Most of the world is 10-20 years behind in this evolution (technology changing the paradigm of teaching & learning). They will be going through what we went in the last decade and all asynchronously (that wonderful word I see all the time in ICT but never saw in any other context).
Reading and Writing will always be the foundation of education (in whatever form). The day we scoff at those still using pen on paper will be the day that we've become prideful and forgotten where we came from. Pride is the anthesis to professional development.
Thanks for the conversation. I do admire the American community for their ability to dialogue and debate.
I agree. Those kinds of posts really turn off some folks. He did one once that basically said if you're still using a wall map in a classroom then you should be fired. What if that's all you have? Rhetorical flourish or just plain jerkiness?
I'm all about new tech and new ideas, but making people feel dumb/bad/behind the curve is not the way to get them to try something new.
I think the problem with low-level use of technology lies mainly in past practice and the limited access teachers and students had to technology. When you had to take an in-school field trip to a computer lab, it was easiest to have students do basic things like word processing, internet lookups and simple slide shows. With increased access via room-based laptop and tablet carts and one-to-one programs, these are no longer limitations bust starting points to more robust tasks that involve creativity, collaboration and project-based approaches.
There are still plenty of schools that have computer labs and the primary means of class access to technology and lack anything close to anytime-anywhere access to technology. On the other end of the spectrum, there are many schools where students can use technology tools at needed. A huge gap exists.
Some of the missing pieces are [1] comprehensive professional development programs that teach teachers how to do more with laptops and tablets and [2] school leaders that also see technology as a means to an end. When principals "get it," teachers are more likely to get it too.
I am passionate about what I do. I am passionate about creating technology-rich, empowering learning environments for our children. I speak and write with that passion.
I don't always get the words right for everyone. I never will, not when I have 25,000+ individual readers, each with his or her own histories, contexts, perspectives, and beliefs. But I try not to call anyone out. I try not to name call or insult specific individuals. I don't always succeed, but that's my intent.
We've had personal computers for 3 decades. The Internet has been available to the general public for at least 15 years. And yet our feet still drag, and the current level of technology knowledge by some of our educators who are supposed to be preparing students for the present and future is appalling...
Do I think that we should be pushing harder to make our schools and classrooms relevant to today's digital, global world? Do I think that if we have even a few dollars to spend on geography resources, we should be spending them on GIS, GPS, geocaching, Google Earth/Maps, etc. instead of paper wall maps and globes? Do I know that if we aren't willing to first label the problem of lackluster classroom technology integration for what it is, we never have a chance of solving it? Do I know that if more of us don't push on systems (and, sometimes, individuals), we'll never get to where we need to go? Absolutely.
Sorry my post(s) didn't resonate with you, Jim (and Doug). All my best.
http://goo.gl/bv18
and
http://goo.gl/5H9A8
Dear Dr Mcleod
You're preaching to the choir. The ones that read your blogposts and follow you on Twitter are trying to do better. I would say that we are all trying to do our "best" in fact--with our resources, with our abilities.
If the effect of what anyone says makes someone feel stupid or behind the curve, are you really advancing your agenda to spread passion and vision and to empower people? We know this for students. How about student-teachers? How about teachers who are students again?
Kids start out on paper maps and then hopefully ending up geocaching with GPS devices, eventually. The classroom needs both. (Or have we also thrown out Piaget's Stages where children should start out with the concrete, before moving onto the abstract?)
My husband is in the corporate world (Fortune 500) doing presentations and training using Powerpoint. He does this around the world in pretty much every continent. I don't see him nor the rest of the corporate world moving to Haiku Deck (as wonderful as it is as a shiny new toy for educators and students). I wouldn't denigrate Powerpoint, just yet. This generation of students will most likely move into corporations that still use it. If their job takes them around the world to developing countries, they'll find colleagues wanting their Powerpoint formatted files because that's all they know and have.
As far as Word-Processing goes, most white-collared positions require individuals that can write and type up reports. My husband is an internal auditor and, in fact, writing & typing up reports to inform his company is his main role.
Yes, please don't call out individuals and embarrass them because they don't quite meet your standards, even if they write AUPs that say "Be Good" instead of "Do Wonderful Things" :)
Thank you for sharing your passion and vision with the community.
~Vivian
As Doug and Ryan Bretag have noted, it's all in how you use the tools. The 8 uses of tech that I highlighted in my blog post are characterized in most classrooms by low-level cognitive work and student passivity. Until the majority of classrooms are using those tools to facilitate greater cognitive complexity, greater student agency, and more meaningful work, I stand behind my post. My post was titled 'usage,' not whether these tools were worthy in and of themselves or could, perhaps, be employed in more meaningful ways. The bottom line is that most teachers 'use' - or have their students 'use' - digital tools in low-level, replicative ways. We must be willing to name that as an issue and work to address it. That was the intention of the post and, while it may not have resonated with some, it insulted no one personally and resonated with many who understand, as I do, that many of us are patting ourselves on the back for - and are generally satisfied with - low-level classroom uses of technology as the dominant paradigm.
Gary Stager's commented last evening that "Apologizing for teachers being the last adults in captivity to use computers has become a growth industry." I don't know if I agree that educators are worse than some other professions, but his general sentiment is dead on. We need to stop apologizing and start pushing ourselves to do better. Otherwise, how long is it going to take to address this issue?
We've had decades to work on this...
P.S. Vivian, did you think I 'called you out' on that student AUP issue?
The thing that causes us problems in my school is the confusion between instruction and technology. I know, I know, they should not be at odds. But I maintain that excellent instruction can occur anywhere along the technological curve, anywhere from a rich technological environment to *gasp* no technology at all. Conversely, really poor instruction can occur anywhere along the technological curve. The technology itself, well, it's good if it works fast and seamlessly. A rich technological environment tends to mask poor instruction if it exists. And I think that phenomenon, perhaps, is what Mr. McLeod is talking about.
Just think, though, of what we are asking teachers to do! They must be masters of their content, masters of pedagogy, and then masters of all the tools, all the while caring deeply about their students and what they are learning. The people I work with do a brilliant job, and I am glad you are sticking up for them, Doug!
One example: I talked to one of our new English teachers the other day, and she was talking about a hard lesson she learned during her student teaching. She found a beautiful app on E. A. Poe and introduced the students to it along with an activity or two. The feedback she got was confused and puzzled. She said she was tempted to move on because the app was just so beautiful but, "That's Bad Teacher right there." So, the next day, she broke the poem down the old fashioned way and moved the kids through it so they understood. THEN, they were ready for the app.
Martha's comment made me reflect on the various models of integration of tech into the classroom. Like TPACK and SAMR. I was introduced to TPACK (which I think directly relates to what Martha was talking about) a while ago, but I've recently been looking at the SAMR model of IT integration. If you aren't familiar with it, I like the simple explanation here: https://sites.google.com/a/msad60.org/technology-is-learning/samr-model, or the original work here http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2012/08/23/SAMR_BackgroundExemplars.pdf
What I like about it is the idea of flow between the levels or steps. I think there is a space for the various levels depending on the task and expectation.
On a side note, I love being a part of a profession and PLN in which people can and do challenge each other and push each other's thinking. I think that's an important part of growth and communication. I hope we all model how to do this for our students and encourage them to do the same for each other.
Hi Scott,
I would agree that we need to move beyond "passive, mindless consumption," but what you singled out was active, creative use - writing, research, and transliteracy. Just hoping we can offer positive encouragement rather than scolding to people who are trying to figure this stuff out.
Thanks for the response. I know I can pick on you and you can take it!
Doug
Hi Vivian,
Thanks for the reminder about access and penetration of technology in classrooms. I agree that most of the "blogoshphere" and "twitterverse" is comprised of early adaptors who help push the rest forward a bit.
Doug
Hi Ninja,
I think about the definition: A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you actually look forward to the trip. It's a skill not all of us have mastered, I'm afraid.
Doug
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for the insight. I agree about the need for PD for both teachers and admins.
My thought is that too often we criticize technology use when we should really be directly addressing the pedagogy. Teaching writing skills badly is not about a computer or a pencil - it's about not know how to help kids become good communicators. Given the context, I would be happy if my grandsons were in a classroom using technology to write, design multimedia presentations and do research!
All the best,
Doug
Thank you, Scott, Vivian and all for this spirited exchange.
Hi Martha,
I like your observation that "excellent instruction can occur anywhere along the technological curve." I personally tend to not be as dismissive of "old fashioned" teaching techniques (lecture, drill and practice, etc.) that can be enhanced with technology. What change efforts need to focus on are poor teaching practices, not poor technology use.
Really appreciate your comment. Thank you.
Doug
Hi Lisa,
We've been using the SAMR model in our district as well - and for some of the same reasons. Thanks for reminding readers of it and how we can move between levels.
Yeah, reading these comments is a real treat for me. I quoted you in my last blog post!
Doug
Doug, I do indeed offer a lot of encouragement in person (and, hopefully, also on my blog, Twitter, and my other online channels). But if I were seeing a majority of classrooms engaged in active, creative, mindful uses of technology, I wouldn't have written my post. Nor would so many others have passed it along and/or agreed with me. Glad you're seeing more of this than I am... (and, yes, pick on me anytime!).
At some level, I concur with Dr. McLeod's wistful desire to see students having access to and robustly choosing to use
applications with sophistication greater than WP, PPT and search. It would seem that today's students would (we know there are still exceptions) have sequentially spiraling expectations from K to 12 by educators for using the technologies to represent their learning, analyze data or issues with a host of tools to represent the analysis or argument, or a diagrammatic description of an experiment (problem) from identification, to investigative design, through summary conclusion. Or even a chronological development of a progect of art or music.
Perhaps the uni-tasking tablets and OS's are a step back; a recursion of sorts. It could also be a j-curve often associated with the implementation of new designs. Time will tell, whether we are patient or not. Boards of education and post-secondary will hardly "settle" for experiences only in the triad. As Moore's law is most assuredly real, we would expect students to be using those quick computation improvements to uses beyond those available in the early part of the century or in the 90's.
Ditto what Doug and Vivian said about note-taking and powerpoint-creation being applicable skills used in the real world. If we look at education as preparing students for a career, then there's a strong argument to be made that the unholy trinity is, in fact, helping students to practice skills that they will use in the real world.
If we view the goal of education as instead to develop a student's intellect, measured as their ability to learn new information, adapt and apply prior knowledge to new situation, model curiosity, etc - even if some of those traits do not translate directly to a student's given profession - then yes, the unholy trinity practiced ad nauseam will not by itself serve them well. And I think this is where Dr. McLeod is coming from.
I'll hazard that most teachers would like education to do some of both - prepare students for the real world while not limiting their education only to the career they will practice, since so few of us know during primary and secondary school where we will end up. The only ones of us who do are those locked into circumstances by a low socio-economic status or guaranteed a measure of safety by a high one.
I would personally love it if my students used computers to take notes - notetaking is a fundamental AND UNDERDEVELOPED skill, and of the "higher level" collaborative and creative projects I've seen, the ones that fail do so because student's haven't mastered the basics. Teachers know the importance of scaffolding, and let's not vault the scaffold by summarily dismissing fundmental skills because they are perceived as "passive" (is reading passive now, too? Should we get rid of that?) or "s-o-o-o yesteryear" (if we rejected things simply because they are old, we would have to get rid of the Beatles, penicillin, and the internal combustion engine).
Hi Gordon,
I just think Scott has the wrong boogieman here - technology - when it should be pedagogy. If builder creates a shack do we blame the hammer he used?
I suspect the infusion of tablets and such will lessen both the blame and hype surrounding them. We hear little about the ball point pen as a device that will be either the salvation or destruction of education!
Always good to hear from you. See you at ISTE, I hope!
Doug
Hi Matt,
Thanks for your wise and balanced comments here.
Thank god not everything that is old is rejected - my wife would kick me out of the house.
Doug
Per the title of my post, wasn't my bogeyman USES of technology? (i.e., pedagogy?)
Also, just for fun, see Roger Schank's recent post:
http://goo.gl/UmaKJ
I found this quite interesting:
This is a survey of over 500 educators around the world in 2012 asking them what tech tools they use:
Top 100 Tech Tools being used by Educators
Powerpoint is number 8. The only other contender in the slideshow presentation category is Prezzi and Prezzi is on a decline (down by 7 places). I guess it was a Shiny New Tool that educators grew tired of using and that's why it's on a decline. If it's not broken, why change formats? This explains Powerpoint rising up 11 places in its ranking.
Google Docs is number 3. MS Word isn't even on the list. I'm sure Google Docs is at number 3 and completely edged-out Word because of it's collaborative qualities and not for its Word processing features. I still find Google Docs lacking in word processing features. This will probably change and improve over time.
Google Search is number 4. Poor "denigrated" Wikipedia is number 10
Excel is the only spreadsheet software on the list, at number 81. (I guess it still hasn't surpassed the simple hand-held calculator).
So, it appears that Wordprocessing, Powerpoint, looking up "stuff" on search and Wikipedia are in the top 10. This means that these three are the cornerstone of learning with technology. They are the "Holy Trinity for technology". They are where every student and teacher starts and hopefully revisits throughout their entire school years--increasing skills along the way. The traditional "Trinity" of school was the 3Rs "Reading, 'Riting, 'Rithemetic". Doug's Trinity covers the reading & 'riting. (For 'rithmetic, I would choose the calculator. There's nothing more glorious in the calculator on your mobile phone or computer than the stand-alone one.)
Either these are the Cornerstones being in the Top Ten, or all these 500+ educators are just lazy, incompetent teachers not willing to "do better" or to have their students "do better".
I should also point out that the number 1 tool is Twitter, so these are not technophobic teachers or ones that are out of the technology loop.
At any rate, there's wonderful things happening in schools with different shiny new formats, but these students will have to fit into industry eventually. Until the present "old guard" of corporations and corporates die out, they'll still be working in Word and Powerpoint format. (Especially if their work takes them travelling throughout the world.) If it's not broke, why try and fix it? I can only see Google Docs pushing out Word and that's because of it's collaborative abilities and its interface with Google Drive. At any rate, it's STILL Wordprocessing. As I mentioned in my first comment in this thread, only 30 percent of the world has Internet access. Until the entire world has CHEAP Internet access, Google Drive is not going to be ubiquitous the way Word is now. I am a MAC girl but I still use Word (instead of Pages) and Powerpoint (instead of Keynote--heck I had to do a search to remind myself that it's called KEYNOTE!). It's just easier when it comes to sharing files with the "rest of the world".
One of my Coetail friends teaches in Africa in an International School. It costs them $8,000 US per month for their school to have Internet access (cover their bandwidth.) They won't be throwing away their wall maps anytime soon and I bet Google Docs isn't going to edge-out Word either when they don't need to work collaboratively on the document.
(In fact, they are only doing Google Apps/Drive for teachers and not for students and I bet $$$ has to do with this decision.)
Anyway, some facts for all of us to consider. I appreciate blogposts that are founded on research and show some data. Anyone can get up and blow "opinion". As well, we talk about the "Flat Classroom", so can we teach teaching practice so that it reflects a "Flattened" world? We're not all teaching in First world countries. Some of us are even teaching in First world countries with Developing World levels of technology resourcing. As teachers of Professional Development, we can do BETTER than this.
Hi Scott,
Thanks for sharing Roger's post. If you don't like the basics, I suspect we should not teach grammar or spelling either. Of course we all want students to go beyond the basics, but the basics have their place as well.
So, list your holy trinity of good uses of technology. We'd love to read them...
Doug
Vivian,
Thanks for sharing this list. I do think we to differentiate between the top 100 tools and the top 100 uses of technology in the classroom.
And yes, we are very focused on developed world economies and school systems. Other places have big challenges (with educational technology access perhaps not even making the top 10.) What I am reading is that developing nations are simply skipping the whole wired infrastructure, desktop computer, laptop mess and going straight to smartphones. Might well be where US and Canadian education winds up as well>
As always, your comments are invaluable,
Doug
Hi Doug,
It's not that I don't like 'the basics' or don't think they're necessary. I think Roger's point (and mine, although perhaps I'm not making it very well) is that we don't have to and shouldn't stop there. The 4th grade curriculum that he outlines is ONLY the basics. The examples that I used on my blog are ONLY 'the basics' (most of the time). As I said before, what should be a foundational floor becomes the ceiling. Instead of 'the basics' serving as an essential step toward deeper, richer learning technology usage, they become the end itself. That's what Roger's post points out, and what I was trying to get at in my original post. And we can do better, even in grades as low as 4th.
What's my own personal 'holy trinity?' Uses of technology that facilitate 1. greater student agency, 2. greater cognitive complexity, and 3. greater connection with and service to the outside world.
Thanks for the conversation. Am looking forward to seeing you at ISTE and continuing the discussion. At dinner you can throw tortilla chips at me for all of my online transgressions. ;)
Vivian, thanks for reminding us that much of what we're talking about here are 'first world problems.' As you note, tech integration and usage concerns in developing countries and other locations often are a whole different ballgame...