Obstacles to the 21st Century Education

So I received a comment on a previous blog post. When I started to address the question it posed, the response kinda ran away from me. I’ve regained control and have provided the product here as a new post. I should be careful; if I address every comment like this 1) I’ll never get anything done and 2) I’ll never get another comment... 

In response to posting a video introducing my research goals, a good friend of mine asked a very good question:

“So...What do you see as the biggest road blocks to giving the students of America this dynamic education. Funding? Pedagogy? Resistance to status quo (by adults of course?) Government interference? University teacher preparation? The technology gap?”

There are many very viable, substantial, and compounding obstacles in the way of providing an education fitting of the 21st century. No single road block stated can be taken alone. Additionally, the research base for drawing conclusions to these issues are underdeveloped. My response will be somewhat opinionated, but driven by what is available.

Funding is rarely not an issue. However, given the availability of free and very-low-cost tools such as Wikispaces (PBWorks and WetPaint are others), Google Docs, Ning, and others, the investment is not the major concern. The concern of funding is more appropriately directed to the equipment needed to facilitate these hybrid or completely online environments. Computers are expensive and districts are currently unable to structure budgets to account for technology tools. Renovation of education is inevitable, however. The way in which schools distribute money will change. How this occurs and how money is repurposed leads to the next road block.

Race to the Top, the new and improved form of No Child Left Behind, may not be well-received in the hearts of practicing educators. This interference certainly places restrictions on education that will be felt for years. Its implications are being felt quite heavily in New York City and New York State with the recent fiasco regarding the trumpeted-then-retracted success of mayoral control and assessment-based accountability (see here, here, and here). Truly, the concept of racing to the top with one (maybe a few) winners with everyone else being losers might not be the best model for education reform. However, this all ensures that schools reconsider where and how their dollars are spent. This does not occur in a vacuum, away from external influence. School government allows for voice and expression of community values as the school is a derivative of the community and responsible for the education and development of the community’s children. Whose voice will be heard, if any at all, when schools redefine spending? 

This leads us to the next set of obstacles. There are three blocks mentioned that I’d like to take collectively: teacher preparation, pedagogy, and resistance of the status quo. I will assume that by “status quo”, this is referring to the held belief of many that technology was not used in their education, so it is unnecessary for the education of their children. This view employs a very narrow definition of the term technology (application of knowledge for practical purposes - New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd ed.) as technology has always been employed in instruction. There is, within this definition, a skepticism about the impact certain technologies have been assumed to have. Electronic textbooks are a recent “big deal” that haven’t had much influence, and the laptop initiatives are yet to produce a complete model of success. If that is the case, the status quo must have a source. Where does this skepticism originate?

I contend that the origin of this skepticism is in the deep-rooted practical nature of pedagogy. When concerning ourselves with the method and practice of teaching, is it assumed that pedagogy is static and unchanging? Is there a specific practice of teaching that has proven to ultimately lead to a set of “learned” students? The nature of diversity, especially seen when entering the classroom, assumes that pedagogy is dynamic and relative to the class of students such that the learner dictates the method with which they are taught. If this is a statement that can be agreed upon, then I shall proceed by applying it to the purpose of this comment reply. 

Teachers are known to reluctantly and pertinaciously maintain the instructional methods that have sustained them throughout their career to the point of stereotype. Modifications are often made to accommodate district/state mandates (electronic grade-book or assessments). Consider that the teachers renowned for success are those whom emphasize order and procedure as opposed to learning (see “The Six-Lesson Schoolteacher”). Is this odd? The primary instruction found in schools today is an outdated pedagogy that fails to account for the technology and technological content knowledge necessary to educate 21st century students. When there is no impetus to change, no change will occur. In the video is a quote from Gary Stager that can’t be ignored, despite the generalization: “Teachers tend to become dependent on teacher-proof systems and stop exercising professional judgement” (“The Games Teachers Play”). The education of our preservice teachers is an area in which these needs can be addressed, and they are in institutions around the nation, but reliance upon this slow, generational transition of instruction cannot be the only place in which to hold hope. 

Therefore, pedagogy is the major obstacle to the educational environments that best serve the needs of our students. The instructional methods of millions of teachers must be awakened to accurately reflect the term pedagogy: a changing, dynamic understanding of what it takes to educate, adequately accompanied by knowledge of content and technology in order to reach students where they are (www.tpack.org). In a school comprised of teachers that fit this model, the technology gap will cease to exist, administrators and community will no longer fuss about assessments and accountability, and students will exercise their full potential, becoming successful and responsible members of the civic body.

The teachers ultimately hold the balance of power to restore faith and trust in the institution of education through their oath as a professional in the art of pedagogy. If teachers continue to passively surrender the power over their profession to makers of policy - those that know little, if anything about education - who expects to be satisfied with the result? Not I.

Research Interests

When I set out to begin a PhD in Educational Psychology and Educational Technology, my aim was to explore the educational and academic possibilites of online collaborative environments toward the development of a blueprint of sorts for their proper employment in classrooms. Education has been historically slow in realizing the potential that many tools have for classroom use and as a result, technology must be repurposed in order for it to be used effectively in schools. What I mean by this is technology has been received with skepticism, as being unnecessary, and an inhibitor to learning over the last several decades. In a technology-infused society, tools with the capability to bridge distances and connect people in ways never before possible, it is unwise and negligent to keep them out of the classroom. However, these technologies have already been purposed in society as a means of social networking for entertainment and correspondence. When the potential exists for them to be used for greater functions such as addressing academic and educational concerns, teachers, administrators, and parents, resist their ability to serve those capacities. The result is a generation of individuals who are unable to see how powerful technologies can be used differently.

If online collaborative tools are employed in younger grades and used during the formative years of education, children will develop an understanding of the full function and capabilities of powerful forms of networking, collaboration, cooperation, and collective abilities. Resistance to such simply extends the unfocused purposing of this technology and perpetuates the generational inability to realize the potential of online collaborative environments toward social, economic, and political issues plaguing our society.

How Do You Know What You Know?

My daughter, almost three years, has reached the stage in her cognition where she is always asking "Why?" Sometimes, she's questioning authority or a statement or even a reality and I respond with an assertion such as "because that's the way it is". Often it's a good question, and I respond with what I can in order to take this simple question and produce a bit of true understanding for her. I want her to grow up curious about her world. I want her to explore it and build understanding that leads her toward an increasingly successful future. But it's what she says after I provide a response that leads me to the following: "Why?"

How do we know what we know? Seems like an odd question, but there is not a consensus about the answer. You're not likely to ever really consider what this question entails, or pursue it through to it's end. But follow me as I try to capture some of my thinking as I ponder the implications of this question, specifically related to educational technology. 

Constructivism is a theory that states that the way we learn is through a process of building understanding as a result of an active cognitive encounter with a new learning experience. The understanding we have about our world changes, but it may or may not change significantly depending on how a learning experiences challenge the way we understand something to be. We we add into this process, the people with whom we learn, directly or indirectly, we have social constructivism - building or constructing knowledge together through our shared experiences and understandings. 

Recently I was engaged in a conversation regarding the debate over how we know what we know. The other camp in opposition to constructivism asserts a very objective position. What this means is that scientific research and the scholars that have participated in building this body of knowledge we rely upon and teach to our children is truth, fact, and larger than humanity. This knowledge of the world is bigger than just "how we see it". They state that if we cease to exist, our understanding of the world would live on. This differs from the subjective camp in that constructivists claim that our knowledge is dependent upon culture and the people that have created that understanding. 

The conversation I was engaged in was focused on educational technology. Regardless of where individuals stand, the way in which we employ technology has always had an impact on this debate. So, where does educational technology fit?

Educational technology is critical to the subjective camp - at least it is inherently associated. This is so because never before have participants to the construction of knowledge been so superfluous and involved. No longer is information so tightly controlled by aristocratic academics. Some may see this as decreasing the aggregated wealth of knowledge and understanding, but civilizations have known the cost of knowledge being too limited (Dark Ages). Society rests upon the accumulated wealth of understanding we all build every single day. Students are the future of this wealth and it is the station of educational technology to continue it's advance through investment in it rather than deposits from it. 

We have the chance to become participants and to allow our students to become participants as well. Are we controlled by the body of knowledge or do we take part in controlling it? How do you know what you know?

Educational Technology and Constructivism

		My daughter, almost three years, has reached the stage in her cognition where she is always asking "Why?" Sometimes, she's questioning authority or a statement or even a reality and I respond with an assertion such as "because that's the way it is". Often it's a good question, and I respond with what I can in order to take this simple question and produce a bit of true understanding for her. I want her to grow up curious about her world. I want her to explore it and build understanding that leads her toward an increasingly successful future. But it's what she says after I provide a response that leads me to the following: "Why?" How do we know what we know? Seems like an odd question, but there is not a consensus about the answer. You're not likely to ever really consider what this question entails, or pursue it through to it's end. But follow me as I try to capture some of my thinking as I ponder the implications of this question, specifically related to educational technology.  Constructivism is a theory that states that the way we learn is through a process of building understanding as a result of an active cognitive encounter with a new learning experience. The understanding we have about our world changes, but it may or may not change significantly depending on how a learning experiences challenge the way we understand something to be. We we add into this process, the people with whom we learn, directly or indirectly, we have social constructivism - building or constructing knowledge together through our shared experiences and understandings.  Recently I was engaged in a conversation regarding the debate over how we know what we know. The other camp in opposition to constructivism asserts a very objective position. What this means is that scientific research and the scholars that have participated in building this body of knowledge we rely upon and teach to our children is truth, fact, and larger than humanity. This knowledge of the world is bigger than just "how we see it". They state that if we cease to exist, our understanding of the world would live on. This differs from the subjective camp in that constructivists claim that our knowledge is dependent upon culture and the people that have created that understanding.  The conversation I was engaged in was focused on educational technology. Regardless of where individuals stand, the way in which we employ technology has always had an impact on this debate. So, where does educational technology fit? Educational technology is critical to the subjective camp - at least it is inherently associated. This is so because never before have participants to the construction of knowledge been so superfluous and involved. No longer is information so tightly controlled by aristocratic academics. Some may see this as decreasing the aggregated wealth of knowledge and understanding, but civilizations have known the cost of knowledge being too limited (Dark Ages). Society rests upon the accumulated wealth of understanding we all build every single day. Students are the future of this wealth and it is the station of educational technology to continue it's advance through investment in it rather than deposits from it.  We have the chance to become participants and to allow our students to become participants as well. Are we controlled by the body of knowledge or do we take part in controlling it? How do you know what you know?

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Stresses on Education - Learning Abilities, Culture, and the Brain

I've been asked to describe the role of education on intelligence. It appears as though education may not have a “role” in any of the differing views on what intelligence is, how to measure it, or how to increase it. Considering the inability to generate a consensus as to what intelligence is or how to classify, categorize, and interpret different types of intelligences, this tells us that we may never understand it to the point of developing structures and environments to “produce” it. Intelligence is elusive. Unfortunately, so much pressure and stake is placed on that which we are unable to describe. Our institutionalized educational practices such as grading provides little to no insight into one’s intelligence. This could be a product of flawed grading methods used by the teacher, low motivation but high efficacy of the student, and many other alternatives. However, it still stands that education has long had a problem of identifying, producing, and increasing intelligence. That all sounds a bit paradoxical.

What then of the great push toward free, compulsory education? Our culture has developed from the simple melting pot into what has become a “mixing bowl”, consisting of a greater diversity than America has ever seen. The statistic that was striking was that by 2050 (within our lifetime) there will be no majority race or ethnicity. A nation that prides itself in the great maxim that “out of many, we are one” (E Pluribus Unum) has never been farther from it. We’re not one of anything. Since WWII, our society (I can’t even say “our culture”) has increasingly become more accepting of ethnic and cultural differences - almost, it seems, against our will. In the golden ages of public education, when the government first started funding millions of dollars to education in order to produce scientists and engineers to combat communism, the classroom was not diverse; at least the segregated schools weren’t diverse. SInce the Civil Rights Movement (and the subsequent spin-off equal rights movements) and through the 70s, American society has pushed public education to serve the greater needs of all demographics, no one is expected to assimilate. Johnson’s Great Society ushered in a wave of ideological reforms to close the income gap and increase the likelihood of a chance to succeed, putting American society on the path toward multiculturalism.

Since then, schools have grown into the provider of all things. It seems that every piece of educational legislation passed since has increased the demands of schools, and none of them have made teaching students any easier. While this all certainly makes a strong case for civic education, the effects of diversity on education is difficult to grasp. To do so involves conversations on motivation, expectations, stereotyping, gender differences and bias, and language acquisition and barriers. These effects exact a staggering toll on the teachers and students. Consider the perspective of a Hispanic girl, whose parents speak no English, and are unable to overcome unemployment - the odds stacked against her are seemingly insurmountable! What if she is labeled as having a learning disability, what then? This is not a far-fetched scenario. As we have been frighteningly unable to educate children out of poverty (meaning the cycle of poverty continues despite increased educational opportunities), how are we to educate the whole packages?

This makes us wonder, do we even stand a chance? Does education hold the promise for our future?