Re: Technology Vision Statements
EDTECH Editor-Beil
For the record, I love online exchanges with David. ;) Here is the past dialog
- more below.
> X-From: David Marcovitz <Ma...@loyola.edu>
>
> Ok, so why are we not farther ahead? (Except that educators are using
> technology for productivity.) I think there are four answers. 1. NCLB stifled
> all innovation. 2. CIPA - which has resulted in totally ineffective
> technology
> use management. 3. Technology enthusiasts have have always been pushing
> forward
> and have not paid enough attention to what is necessary to help the other
> teachers shift to more productive use of the technologies for instruction. 4.
> During most of this time, the educational technology staff person has been
> associated with technical services - not an integral part of curriculum and
> instruction.
>
> I think that part of the problem is that too few teachers are trained to
> think like this. When we say the words "technology vision" or "technology
> planning," most people think of a plan to buy stuff. Maybe we need a new word
> (call it "technology integration planning," perhaps), but the concepts that
> you outline are still important. If you say "technology vision" isn't
> important or useful, I agree with you if you mean by that a vision of what
> stuff we will buy isn't important or useful. But that's not what I mean by
> "technology vision." I think the challenge is to get people to think more
> broadly about technology visions and technology planning and get beyond the
> "stuff" mentality. I agree that all 4 of the problem areas you outline have
> been problematic for technology planning, but these problems predate NCLB and
> CIPA so I am more inclined to think that 3 and 4 are bigger problems. I don't
> want to downplay the role of NCLB and CIPA in stifling good uses of
> technology, but they are bumps (probably very large bumps) in a much longer
> road.
>
> --David
> --
> David M. Marcovitz, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor, Educational Technology Director
> Department of Education Specialties
> Loyola University Maryland
David is right. Most "technology plans" are about purchasing more technology
equipment. Frequently this is in anticipation of a bond election requesting
funds for technology.
BTW, I am working on materials on this - but have to get some stuff on sexting
finished <major sigh>
There are underlying factors at play. Two excellent books - Crossing the Chasm
and Inside the Tornado (Moore) explain the foundations of this. In the 80's
when computers first started coming into schools the ed tech enthusiasts were
talking about the technology adoption life cycle. Jump onto the bell curve with
the innovators - ride into the early adopters, then the middle adopters, and
then over the top to the late adopters. Problem is that it does not work like
this.
There is a major Chasm between the Visionaries (innovators and early adopters)
and the Pragmatists (middle adopters). The reason for this Chasm is that
Visionaries are intuitive risk takers and Pragmatists are analytical risk
managers. So what works for Visionaries will not work for anyone else. For
decades I have been to ed tech conferences with Visionaries making
presentations on these way cool new ways to use these technologies - and what
they are encouraging is an approach that can and will only be tried by other
Visionaries. To reach across that Chasm, you have to have an entirely different
approach. Pragmatists do not trust Visionaries because they take too many
risks. Visionaries get totally frustrated at Pragmatists because they will not
try anything new. And we are only talking about the left side of the bell
curve. The other half of the population will not change until the majority
does.
It has been over 2 decades and if you look at the data, we are still in the
Visionary era - the ed tech enthusiasts. And we have been stuck there for a
very long time. And oh, BTW, simply giving all students laptops will not create
change.
Now about that Chasm (this is my thinking applying Moore's theories that what
is happening in schools). This Chasm is grounded in perceived risks - the
greater the perceived risks the wider the Chasm.
Here is where NCLB and CIPA/filtering problems come into play. NCLB raised
concerns related to taking risks. NCLB requires the use of Scientifically
Proven Programs - yeah right, like we have this in ed tech. If you are taking a
risk and something goes wrong the stakes are now higher. CIPA and the
overreliance on filtering with the failure to provide a way to get around
inappropriately blocked sites has lead to teachers being unwilling to even try
to do something with students online - because they know that they can't
effectively manage how they are using the Internet and at any time, the site
they want to use instructionally could be mysteriously blocked.
All of the fear-mongering about risks to young people online, especially
predator risks, have also taken a toll. Speak Up folks told me that in focus
groups students told them that after receiving Internet safety training (likely
by those presenting these fear-based inaccurate messages) the teachers
restricted their Internet use even more. The Cyber Smart people have told me
that when they present to teachers over half think that if a student can be
identified on a school site, this means a predator could track that student
down and abduct and rape him or her. There has been no case where this has
happened that any of us in Internet safety can find. But if over half of
teachers think that using Web 2.0 will place their students at risk of
predation - fat chance they will move in that direction. Recognize that the new
requirement for Internet safety could undermine things further - if schools use
the fear-based Internet safety approach.
In order to Cross the Chasm, we have to find ways to reduce the perception of
risk. Several emails ago I outlined some of the approaches I think are
important. For example, making sure that the district has technologies that
less savvy teachers can use to create an Internet-based lesson plan and
restrict students to sites of their choosing EduPlatform is a technology that
does this. Many ed tech enthusiasts would find this approach far too
restricting - BUT this is exactly the approach that Pragmatists need to move
forward. Teachers need to be able to override the filter. ALL TEACHERS! The
district must provide a Web 2.0 environment - and start first by setting up a
professional online community.
I really am trying to get these materials done. Also - as soon as I come up for
air, there is a comment period open on the new FCC CIPA Internet safety
requirements. BUT this is not the most important issue that they are asking for
comment on. They are also asking about how districts are determining what
materials are "harmful to minors" - which is flat out ridiculous - but gives
the opportunity to raise concerns about the fact that these choices are in the
hands of private companies that protect what they are doing as trade secrets.
And they want comments on the override provision. So I will try to provide some
background and encourage you all to comment.
but I have something else I have to finish first.
Nancy
Nancy Willard, M.S., J.D.
Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use
http://csriu.org
nwil...@csriu.org
---
Edtech Archives, posting guidelines and other information are at:
http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~edweb
Please include your name, email address, and school or professional
affiliation in each posting.
To unsubscribe send the following command to: LIST...@H-NET.MSU.EDU
SIGNOFF EDTECH
EDTECH Editor-Beil
> Here is where NCLB and CIPA/filtering problems come into play. NCLB raised
> concerns related to taking risks. NCLB requires the use of Scientifically
> Proven Programs - yeah right, like we have this in ed tech. If you are taking
> a
> risk and something goes wrong the stakes are now higher. CIPA and the
> overreliance on filtering with the failure to provide a way to get around
> inappropriately blocked sites has lead to teachers being unwilling to even try
> to do something with students online - because they know that they can't
> effectively manage how they are using the Internet and at any time, the site
> they want to use instructionally could be mysteriously blocked.
Just last week I was teaching a graduate class in a school. I had another
teacher (from a different school district) presenting. Part of what she was
presented was a blog she had created to help the teachers in her school with
technology. It turns out that she couldn't show the blog to the class
because it was blocked by the school's filter.
With that said, I'm still not seeing this as the biggest obstacle to using
technology in the schools. It is just one more barrier among all the others.
It might currently be the biggest barrier, but if filtering and CIPA were to
disappear tomorrow, there would be plenty of other barriers to take their
place. The frustrating part (for us technology-enthusiasts) is that just as
Web 2.0 was starting to eliminate some of the old barriers (making
everything easier and more reliable), draconian school-system policies have
come in to block those solutions.
--David
--
David M. Marcovitz, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Educational Technology Director
Department of Education Specialties
Loyola University Maryland
mailto:ma...@loyola.edu
http://www.loyola.edu/schoolofeducation/facstaff/DavidMarcovitz.html
EDTECH Editor-Beil
> X-From: David Marcovitz <Ma...@loyola.edu>
> Just last week I was teaching a graduate class in a school. I had another
> teacher (from a different school district) presenting. Part of what she was
> presented was a blog she had created to help the teachers in her school with
> technology. It turns out that she couldn't show the blog to the class
> because it was blocked by the school's filter.
Best story I have heard like this was that a top notch ed tech presenter was at
a school. Could not get around the filter to show an example like this. Saw a
student in the back of the room. Asked for his assistance. Less than a minute
the student had gotten him around the filter. One lesson turned into two. ;)
> With that said, I'm still not seeing this as the biggest obstacle to using
> technology in the schools. It is just one more barrier among all the others.
> It might currently be the biggest barrier, but if filtering and CIPA were to
> disappear tomorrow, there would be plenty of other barriers to take their
> place. The frustrating part (for us technology-enthusiasts) is that just as
> Web 2.0 was starting to eliminate some of the old barriers (making
> everything easier and more reliable), draconian school-system policies have
> come in to block those solutions.
Agreed. And they are not going to disappear anyway. So we need to make them
work for us. More on this when I come up for air.
Nancy
--
Nancy Willard, M.S., J.D.
Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use
http://csriu.org
nwil...@csriu.org
---