Is there only one "right-minded" way to do education?
Thursday, September 20, 2012 at 03:13PM ... reformers believe that technology-integrated lessons should put students at the center–such as in blended instruction (e.g., School of One, Carpe Diem, Rocketship)– online instruction, or in project-based learning (e.g., High-Tech High). That is the right-minded use of technology. Those champions of student-centered learning believe that those teachers who use hardware and software to improve their teacher-centered lessons such as what I described at Las Montanas use powerful tools in wrong-minded ways.
This unacknowledged bias, of course leads to wrong-headed judgments about what constitutes “good” teaching. The fact is that there is no one best way of teaching and learning. No evidence that I know confirms that student-centered–however defined–is superior to teacher-centered instruction. What might make “pedagogical” dogmatists wince, however, is some evidence that teacher-centered lessons in the form of “direct instruction”does increase standardized test scores (see here and here). Moreover, practitioner wisdom–something researchers too often ignore–is rich in stories of those teachers who hug the middle and use hybrids of teacher- and student-centered instruction to increase their chances of engaging and reaching more students. Larry Cuban, "As Teacher Use of New Technologies Has Spread, Have Most Teachers Changed How They Teach?" September 20, 2102
Throughout my career as a both a librarian, tech director, author and speaker, I have been torn by two, sometimes conflicting roles.
Constructivism, project-based learning and performance assessments with strong attempts to individualize instruction have always held great appeal to me as both a learner and a teacher. If not more effective, these educational approaches certainly seem more humane. Books like Best Practices, tend to support this view, arguing for less lecturing less time devoted to fill-in-the-blank worksheets and “seatwork”, less attempt to thinly “cover” large amounts of materials and less memorization of facts and details, etc.
Yet at the same time, I recognize that other, equally well-intentioned educators place great faith in a more teacher-centered, traditional approach to learning and the importance of standardized testing. As both a technologist and librarian, I recognize that my role is very much a supporting one as well.
As I prepare for the workshops I am doing next weekend in the Philippines, I am asking myself again if I am doing the right thing by suggesting that teachers can and should be using technology in three ways:
- To increase one's professional productivity - doing those outside of the classroom tasks, including home/school communication - more effectively and efficiently
- To improve traditional teaching activities, including lecturing, with "technology-upgrades"
- To restructure the educational process through doing with technology what could not be done without it - most through differentiation, project-based learning, and collaboration.
My experience has been in listening to other technology gurus that only the third use of technology - restructuring - counts as being worthy. Or "right-minded." Am I being a traitor to the constructivist cause by even suggesting one can use technology to create a better book report or help teach reading fundamentals?
It seems to me that we are taking a real risk in not acknowledging the power of technology amplifying any teaching strategy, any educational goal, or any philosophy. Like Cuban writes, there is "no one best way of teaching or learning." And certainly no one best way for every individual child or to meet every individual educational goal.
I think I'll stick with my three uses - in good conscience.
