Musings Prompted by Tom Ward's Talk

I have mixed feelings about Tom Ward's message. Tom himself is nice fellow and it was great he came and shared his ideas and experiences with us.

Ward cites the SAMR (Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition) model for enhancing technology integration as the theory behind his approach to using technology. This model was developed by Dr. Ruben Puentedura. Puentedura runs a consulting firm focused on IT in education. Here is the site. I plan to consider SAMR in a separate post. For now I will say that while the materials look comprehensive and persuasive, it also appears to be a case of backwards design, i.e., that the goal of using as much “technology” as possible in the classroom is stated at the beginning with all subsequent work being geared towards justifying this outcome.

It's not a bad direction in terms of popularity, job security, attention, “buzz”... Who wouldn't like it? Philanthropists will, investors (especially those who sell educational technology and software products), principals, parents, even teachers will jump on the bandwagon so as not to seem out of touch. Students of course will love it. Students are all about gadgets. We are all about gadgets. We love our gadgets. So anything that makes us feel our gadgets are wonderful, that there is nothing wrong with all the time we spend staring at screens, makes us feel wonderful about ourselves. This is what bothers me.

I do not blithely dismiss educational technology altogether. The notion of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), for instance, is a serious framework for understanding how to do learning + technology. But I keep going back to my first class in Teaching with Technology, where we learned about the history of technology in education—the way radio, film, you name it, was supposed to “transform” education but never quite lived up to what its proponents declared for it.

I attended to Ward's presentation trying to keep an open mind. But my skepticism could not be overcome. I found myself wondering about Vine and Viddy and other formats and the growing tendency to reduce everything to 8 seconds or 30 seconds or 140 characters, this notion that everything worthwhile can be expressed in 30 seconds or 140 characters. I agree with Ward that the ability to be concise, to strip away everything but what is essential, is a useful skill. “Imagine the depth of understanding at which students would need to know something to convey it is six seconds,” he remarked. There are some things, however, that are not containable in six seconds. There are some things that if you put them into 8 seconds, thirty seconds, or 140 characters will be destroyed or at least transformed (usually mutilated) completely. There are ideas and conversations, creations and collaborations that will never happen if the time and space for them to develop is cut short or limited.

I think as teachers, as adults, we should be trying to foster increased attention not decreased attention. We should encourage thoughtfulness, rumination, patience, and serenity. These and other thinking dispositions promote intellectual character. 

The grounds of Aleksander Pushkin's hereditary estate in Boldino, where the quite, contemplative atmosphere helped him create some of the most enduring works in Russian Literature.

I do not think that our students need any help going faster... here I pause, check my email and see the subject line “Life's Inhuman Pace,‏” today's update from The Chronicle Review: “Speed Kills: Fast is never fast enough,” by Mark C. Taylor, which begins:

 "Sleeker. Faster. More Intuitive" (The New York Times); "Welcome to a world where speed is everything" (Verizon FiOS); "Speed is God, and time is the devil" (chief of Hitachi’s portable-computer division). In "real" time, life speeds up until time itself seems to disappear—fast is never fast enough, everything has to be done now, instantly. To pause, delay, stop, slow down is to miss an opportunity and to give an edge to a competitor. Speed has become the measure of success—faster chips, faster computers, faster networks, faster connectivity, faster news, faster communications, faster transactions, faster deals, faster delivery, faster product cycles, faster brains, faster kids. Why are we so obsessed with speed, and why can’t we break its spell?...

Think carefully about who benefits from a speedy world: Big business. Multinationals. Forces wanting to sell us things, wanting us to never slow down to enjoy what we have. We give them our money and then throw away our time. Instead of enjoyment and satisfaction, all we can do is feed our addiction to speed and novelty.

And what about the forces who watch us? They like nothing better than see us all leave our digital footprints everywhere and at all times. Makes us that much easier to track, to control...

What are we becoming?

Ward turned things around at the very end, I though. His final reflections were perceptive when he critiqued his students' notion of, “the video is proof, why do we need the talking?” As an ELA teacher, I will make sure my students understand why they “need the talking,” and the writing, and the reading.

"I greet you, deserted corner of the earth. You are a calm refuge for labors and inspiration, a place Where the invisible rush of my days Streams through your lap of happiness and oblivion. […] I am yours. I love this dark garden, Its cool shade, its flowers, This meadow piled with fragrant haystacks. Where radiant brooks murmur in the shrubs..."

Pushkin, A. (1982) "The Countryside," (D. M. Thomas, Trans.),  

The bronze horseman: selected poems of Alexander Pushkin, 

Secker & Warburg. (original: 1819).

 

ДЕРЕВНЯ

Приветствую тебя, пустынный уголок,
Приют спокойствия, трудов и вдохновенья,
Где льется дней моих невидимый поток
На лоне счастья и забвенья.
[...]

Я твой: люблю сей темный сад
С его прохладой и цветами,
Сей луг, уставленный душистыми скирдами,
Где светлые ручьи в кустарниках шумят...

@ Jayant Trewn, Caitlin Donnelly, & Jennifer Nao. Reflections on your Connections Across the Disciplines assignment

Bravo for challenging the assignment! You made a coherent, logical, and, most importantly, compassionate case in your Preamble for why BYOD in your discipline (math) is not a good idea. This compassion is evident when you speak of, “social competition,” “dissonance between who’s [sic] device can perform which task,” and how, “students working individually on their devices would only be distracting and disruptive.” I appreciate your candor and bravery to say this.

I think what you argue holds true for all disciplines, not just math. The inequality inherent in BYOD does not depend on the discipline.

I also appreciate the flexibility you try to incorporate with regard to instructional strategies. Accommodating this reality means more work for the teacher. If this stance became a reflex, though, it would start to be less difficult, less time consuming. And in addition to striving to accommodate different learners with different strategies, a variety of instructional approaches for the same content/lesson ought to result in more students making stronger connections with the material: using computers and technology AND covering the same concept or skill without them; lecturing AND offering opportunities to learn through application or in groups.

Your assignment is thoughtful and well done. I like the addition of a social studies component (ideally there would be some concurrent curricular connections with their SS lesson...). And I really like you including a writing assignment.

The only thing I think might be missing is some attempt to “problematize.” I envision this as a discussion at the end of the lesson, with perhaps something to write about, that gets students to reflect on how social issues and their solutions are complicated. A ratio, in other words, is a ratio, but liquor stores per square mile is only one factor, one that could be mitigated or aggravated by may other conditions, such as, perhaps, the ratio of churches in the same neighborhood. I wouldn't dwell on it, but some small effort in this direction would be a good move, one that may not necessarily improve students' scores on the standardized tests, but which would help them become better thinkers, problem solvers. and citizens. And that's not a bad outcome, eh?