Why isn’t the future what it used to be? part 2

I ran across an interesting article, which relates to my previous post about how tecnology in education rarely meets the expectations of those who see its potential for improving teaching and learning. The authors draw upon the Technology I, II and III framework for describing technologists' attitudes and beliefs about achieving desired results in learning. The framework can be described as follows:

• Technology I: the belief that using certain tools will inherently lead to better learning. The problem with this belief is that the complexitites of human learning can rarely, if ever, be addressed wholely through a single tool, or even a collection of tools.
• Technology II: the belief that using certain design approaches or processes will automatically lead to better instruction, thus increased learning. The problem with this belief is that every learner's brain does not operate in the same way, and the complexity of learning environments will invariably disrupt any systematically designed instruction. Having been the designer of instruction for several years, I know from experience that the best laid plans are at the mercy of hundreds of environmental factors which the instructor may or may not be able to anticipate or control.
• Technology III: the belief that learning situations should define which technologies and design processes to use. Practitioners who ascribe to this belief are likely to embrace many design approaches and use a variety of tools. The problem with this belief is that it's hard to maintain due to what the authors describe as technological gravity. Given time, even the most rigorous and thoughtful Technology III practitioners will slip back into patterns of preferring one tool or design approach over others, regardless of their compatibility with the task at hand. I mean, some days we just feel like standing in front of the class and lecturing from slides.

The authors propose three "habits of mind" that, if one is disciplined enough to actually do them, will fight off technological gravity. I won't go into those three disciplines right now, but they are worth considering and may work.

I've read countless articles which start off by recounting the unfulfilled promises of educational technology. I even had a section in my dissertation on this very topic, describing the prophesies of educational film, radio, television, computer-based instruction and the Internet, and their failure to deliver the goods. Just as in sports and movies, hype surrounding educational technologies is rarely lived up to. New innovations are commonly seen as a solution before we even really know what the problem is. What if the innovation causes even more problems than previously existed? Boy, talk about disappointment! Educational technology should address pre-addressed problems or goals.

The Technology III mindset is practical, and I don't think it's hard to achieve. Just be flexible and don't put too much faith in one tool or approach to teaching. Pretty simple.

Going the Distance

It's summer, which means I have once again agreed to teach a couple of online classes for a college in my hometown. I have done this intermittently for the past 7 years (either online or face-to-face), and it's always a great experience. I've tinkered with the class since the first time I taught it, and I think I am ready to roll for another semester. An article I read recently discussed multi-scaffolding for multimedia enhanced instruction, which prompted me to rethink some of the ways I'm using technology in the online class. The authors propose a typology consisting of 4 types of scaffolds:

• Situated video
• Screencasts
• Intelligent agents (virtual reality stuff)
• Collaboration zone

Though I don't think each of these types of scaffolding is essential for the classes I am teaching, it certainly provides a framework to which to compare my current practices. This is one reason I think it's so easy to get into a teaching rut. It's not that teachers don't want to do innovative and engaging things with their students, but they simply don't have a point of comparison to their current practices. Peggy Ertmer identifies a community of practice, among other things, as an essential agent in helping teachers transform their pedagogical beliefs toward the use of educational technology. Think about how hard it is to make changes in isolation, whether that change is a New Year's resolution or a new of way of doing a job you've performed for many years. Without someone to compare yourself to and offer encouragement, most ideas don't make it past the intention stage.

In my experience, online classes have been the ultimate silo. Most colleges use some sort of course management platform, and only the instructor and students have access to course materials. On one hand, this is nice because I don't want random people disrupting the class. On the other hand, no other instructors ever see what I am doing, and vice versa. In this case,  I live almost 2,000 miles from the campus, but even the instructors who occupy the same physical space don't share or discuss their teaching practices.

So, at the onset of my new summer term, I am thankful for having run across the work of Aaron Doering and his colleagues. While I may not immediately employ each of the multi-scaffolding tools in this course, I have re-thought how I might support both student learning and self-efficacy in the online environment through smarter uses of technology.

Why isn't the future what it used to be?

I ran across this article on cnn.com, and it got me to thinking about my entry into the world of educational technology. This is actually something I have been thinking a lot about lately because I recently graduated and accepted a position at a university. This transition from student to professor has caused me to think back and wonder what it was that drew me toward this profession. The fact that just about everyone I meet has asks me the same thing has something to do with it, as well. When I started teaching, I was already very much into computers. The World Wide Web was a baby and the only way I could go "online" was with the AOL software (I don't think they even called themselves AOL back then.) I was fortunate to get my first teaching job at a district that invested heavily in technology. Looking back on the resources they had even in 1995 is still astounding. Just about every lesson I taught had some sort of technology in it, though in most cases the students just watched me play with whatever tool I happened to be using. But I never really had any expectations that using the technology in my teaching was making me any better of a teacher. My classroom was nestled in between two 30-year veterans, and I looked to them as the standard for good teaching. And they didn't use technology ... at all. In fact, I had to remind them every grading period how to enter their grades into the grade book program. Every once in awhile I would do something with technology that got their attention and they would want to know how I did it.

My point is, I've never really trusted technology to do anything for me. I've always seen myself as the creative force in the classroom, and I happen to like technology and use it to do my job. One quotation from the previously mentioned article really caught my attention, and it ties in nicely to this idea. It's from Matt Verheiden, one of the writers for the recent Battlestar Galactica mini-series.

At some point, you can't expect a miracle to come in the form of technology to save us. At some point, the miracle has to come from a change in attitude and a new outlook.

So while it's entertaining to ponder whether or not some technology will be invented that seamlessly interacts with a student's brain making the whole learning process both fun and effortless, I think there is lot to be said for hard work, creativity and collaborating with other people.