How can you measure the success of technology in education?

This is a piece of writing for my study course (H800, week 11 activity 1) but I would be grateful for any comments on the ideas within it. These are my personal views.

The online debate in the Economist (2007) considered the proposition “This house believes that the continuing introduction of new technologies and new media adds little to the quality of most education”. This debate, apart from being asynchronous due to its online context, was a traditionally styled debate with proposer, opponent, comments and questions from the floor, and so on. There were some fascinating projects discussed, revealing the engaging use to which new technologies and media can be put in educational settings. Some statistics were quoted which really did not reveal any grand truths – because, of course, they were measuring something different from what was being investigated; I shall return to that issue presently.

The big question, in my view, is something that Sir John Daniel (the proposer) refers to in his opening remarks: “we usually focus on improving existing teaching systems whereas technology is better used to create new learning systems.” He continues this theme in his rebuttal remarks when he points out that Robert Kozma (the opponent) also sees this as a a key issue. Daniel writes, “most uses of new technologies have been conducted within the traditional educational paradigm." He highlights the fact that Kozma’s opening statement concluded with the question “What if advanced technologies were used to ignite a major transformation of the educational system?” In terms of my own development, and choices made by teachers, this is a very important consideration. The problem is that, realistically, the choices are not made by teachers in classrooms but by administrations systems and even by central government.

The first guest commentator in the debate, Professor Linda Darling-Hammond, hits the nail on the head when she points out that “As we move into the 21st century, the nature of learning has to change to promote critical thinking and problem solving and to encourage applications of knowledge to new situations.” This relates rather strongly to a recent (2009) BBC video made by Lord Puttnam “We are the people we’ve been waiting for” (based on a traditional story by the Hopi Elders, Native Americans). The message here is that today’s young people (at least in the affluent West) have at their fingertips great resources of knowledge and global networks and also face great problems concerned with economic, social and natural issues. They need to be provided not only with the tools to be adaptable, creative and resourceful, but also an education geared at developing the skills to use those tools. A recent inspirational talk was given to teachers at the Creative Transitions conference (2010) by Kieran Osbourne in which he pointed out that if we are to produce creative individuals who will fulfil this role which history has allotted them, we need to have creative institutions (schools and universities as well as businesses).

The third guest commentator in the Economist debate was Don Knezek. He highlights my concern at the start of this discussion - that what is being measured does not reveal much about what is being investigated. For Knezek, the following are the key metrics:·

• Learning outcomes geared to a “digital, global and media rich information society”;·
• Development of a “deeply engaging” educational environment; and·
• A means of rewarding a variety of successes.

The comments from the floor include concerns about filtering and blocking systems in schools, universities and businesses, banning of the use of mobile phones, skype and other similar technology due to restrictive practice. As one such commentator (ptdrumm) writes, “There’s no use of the most modern 21st century digital stuff if the teachers are still in the 19th.” (sic)

The open universities (such as the UK’s Open University) are also considered in the debate as to whether or not their blend of people and technology really does lead to quality as well as quantity. In Daniel’s concluding remarks he points out that for too long the educational and academic world has defined quality “by those you exclude”. This is true right through the educational system, certainly in the UK where secondary age students are judged not on what they have achieved but how – so that vocational qualifications are still seen as inferior to more traditional ones or else we have the idea that we will merge the two (14-19 diplomas) and so lose the quality of both: Knezek’s variety of successes.

Returning briefly to Daniel’s opening remarks: he points out that some countries dream of universal secondary educational access whilst others worry about boys dropping out of school. This, too, links to Knezek’s points, in this case that we do need to consider engagement and not fall back on our tried and tested approaches – because they have not been tried and tested in the new context in which we find ourselves as educators today.

When considering what has this activity has taught me about my own practice, I need to refer again to two of the roles that I have as an educator, which are closely tied together and which I hope complement one another. As a Professional Development leader in a secondary school and as a tutor on the Open University’s MA in education, I believe that it is my duty to try to keep abreast of educational debate, including that related to new technology. That is why I undertook to study the ‘H’ series of courses in the first place. I do not mean that I attempt to learn about every new technology and pass this information on to others but I do try to disseminate ideas, concepts, resources and sources of information. Encouraging colleagues to become more reflective, more receptive, more risk-taking (my new Three R’s!) is my major passion. Two years ago, a colleague was kind enough to refer to me in her retirement speech as “the most innovative teacher I have ever worked with” – the problem is that in the ensuing two years there has been so much more innovation! I doubt that without my engagement with colleagues at the Open University, staff development events and the ‘H’ modules I would have made as much progress.

References

The debate overview can be found at The Economist website.

Puttnam's (2009) video can be seen here

Kieran Osbourne spoke ate the Creative Transitions Conference at Shirley High School Performing Arts College on 18/5/10