I am currently reading two very different books, but one thing they have in common is some startling statistics about the rate of change in modern times in the context of people's use of new technology.
Another thing they have in common is that they inadvertently
highlight the inadequacies of the way schools are evaluated. Only
short-term, easily-measured, and not entirely relevant criteria are
used.
What we need is a radical rethink about what we expect
from schools, as well as a zero-tolerance approach to those who act as
though information technology is optional in this day and age.
Technology's Promise has the subtitle "Expert Knowledge on the Transformation of Business and Society". A quick skim through leads me to the conclusion that it is an eminently optimistic book. It talks about information as being at the heart of everything. It even -- unusually for a technology or science book -- considers changes in human consciousness. The author tentatively describes his approach, which tempers "hard facts" with a measure of intuition, "evolutionary futurism/forecasting/strategy/social science".
In the Foreword, Marvin Cetron says that before WW1 it took around 40 years for the discoveries of science to be found in everyday use. By the 1950s, this had been reduced to 30 years. It is now around 6 months.
Me, MySpace and I, subtitled "Parenting the Net Generation", is based on large-scale research into teens' behaviour. The book is written from the standpoint of helping parents (and I suggest, by extension, teachers) to understand the present generation.
I don't have much time for the mostly spurious distinction between digital natives and digital immigrants, which as far as I can see is eagerly seized upon by Luddites in education to justify their lack of willingness to engage with new technologies and the new approaches they spawn (see, for example, Enough Excuses, by Chris Betcher, which discusses something I wrote on this subject, but in a much less restrained way). But the author, Larry Rosen, does make the point that while we use technology, young people today live it.
He talks about the penetration rate. This is the number of years a new form of technology takes to reach 50 million people. Radio took 38 years. The telephone took 20 years. Television took 13 years to reach 50 million homes (the stats are, of course, from the USA). Cell phones took 12 years. Cable TV took 7 years. The internet took 4 years. Blogging took 3 years. YouTube took 1 year.
We often hear politicians talking about the need to teach young people how to learn, but it is usually couched in terms of falling behind other countries economically, or about being adaptable enough to take on different jobs.
But it strikes me that none of these kind of exhortations are likely to have any impact on anybody. Everyone looks after their own interests first and foremost, so unless someone can tell me, as an individual, why I should be concerned about such rates of change, why should I be? If I am a teacher, my job is likely to be secure for the foreseeable future because, in England at any rate, there is a teacher recruitment problem. Even if there wasn't, I still don't see too much of a problem there apart from the competition for jobs as people get laid off in the commercial sector and decide to try their hand at teaching. As a young person at school or college, the rate of change doesn't bother me because I just adapt and go with the flow.
So this is the problem as I see it:
1. The rate of change is such that schools need to give their students a set of tools and approaches, in addition to a set of knowledge, that will enable them to continue to "go with the flow" for the rest of their lives. If we only give them a set of knowledge, it will not equip them for future change, but if we don't give them any knowledge we will leave them rootless. (I was quite shocked, for example, when I discovered from a TV programme about Crime and Punishment that some people didn't know about the Magna Carta; click the link to watch the programme -- although I am not sure it will work outside Britain.)
2. Schools don't have an incentive to address this issue, because most "success" measures that schools have to address don't include it.
3. Teachers don't have an incentive to address it, for much the same reason.
Although the new secondary curriculum in England looks exciting and innovative, nothing fundamental is going to change quickly, in my opinion, until the following are in place:
1. A much broader definition of "success" by which to evaluate schools. For example, if we must have so-called "league tables", let them include information pertaining to ex-pupils. I'd like to be able to look at testimonials from ex-pupils, and from employers of ex-pupils. I'm not interested in whether a pupil gets a mark of 20% on the collaboration element of her examination, because I don't have a clue what that means in any real sense. I am interested in whether, having gone to a particular school, an ex-pupil is a valued member of a team and is able to adapt to quickly-changing circumstances.
2. All teachers should be required to have IT skills up to at least Functional Skills level. When I say "required", I mean that keeping their job should depend on it. Perhaps there could be an exemption for people of a certain age, but I see this as analogous to the need for a driving licence. Once that was introduced, everyone who wished to drive had to own one, eventually.
3. The "powers-that-be" should walk the walk. Why is it, for example, that I can take part in consultations run by the Department for Children, Families and Schools and other governmental organisations, but I can't comment on their blog (because they don't have one), or to their wiki (ditto)? Don't get me wrong: I actually feel that a lot of good stuff comes out of the DCSF, Becta, QCA, NAA and all the rest of them, and I do value the opportunity to be consulted on issues. But I always have this constant nagging feeling that we (education in general) are encouraged to be innovative and dynamic -- but not too innovative and dynamic!
Perhaps I am wrong, and I would value other people's opinions on these matters. But it seems to me that the bottom line is that we all have a vested interest in needing to recognise and deal with the extraordinary pace of change in technology and society's use of it, but no government has yet succeeded in making it anybody's problem but its own.
There's a special offer of 20%
off of these two books and "What Video Games Have to Teach Us About
Learning and Literacy. Second Edition", for subscribers to Computers in
Classrooms, our free newsletter. (Not applicable in the US or Canada
I'm afraid.) See here for details.
To
access it online you will need your user ID and password, as this offer is
for subscribers only. Not a subscriber? It's free, and you can sign up here.
Subscribe to article summaries
"educational technology"
"ICT in Education"