When Prof. Ren and I wrote a short history of
educational technology for The SAGE
Encyclopedia of Educational Technology, we decided to look back many
centuries rather than a few decades as others have done. In doing so, I noticed
that educational institutions and efforts could be categorized around a small
number of goals, some of which are interrelated and overlap: (a) develop basic
knowledge and skills, (b) develop specific problem solving skills, (c) develop
productive workers, (d) develop higher order reasoning skills, (e) develop
responsible citizenship attitudes and behaviors, and (f) develop life-long
learners. Those goals have been differently emphasized and prioritized in
different places at different times. One could make a reasonable argument that
over the centuries, there has been increasing emphasis on the last three of
those goals. Such an argument might find support in a number of policy
statements and documents published in various countries. For example, one might
cite the United States 2016 National
Educational Plan (see http://tech.ed.gov/netp/),
the European Commission’s Strategic
Framework – Education and Training (see http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/strategic-framework/index_en.htm),
Taiwan’s Modern Citizen’s Core Competencies Project (see http://english.moe.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=15668&ctNode=11449&mp=11),
or UNESCO’s Education 2030 – Incheon
Declaration and Framework for Action (see http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002432/243278e.pdf).
There are many more policy documents and strategic education plans that one
could find emphasizing higher-order reasoning skills, responsible citizenry,
and life-long learning. Caveat lector
– reader beware. The truth that some seem to be telling about educational
reform and the future of education may only be the truth that’s selling.
Perhaps it is time to take a closer look. I am
reminded of Nielsen’s A Game of India
(see http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mqrarchive/act2080.0011.002/44:7?cite1=game+of+India;cite1restrict=title;g=mqrg;rgn=full+text;view=image;xc=1;q1=game+of+India)
in which the main character manages to figure out the rules of a game being
played by those who do not speak his language by squatting down and observing
the game up close. With regard to education, the focus might then be on primary
and secondary school settings. Are children around the world learning to be
critical and independent thinkers and responsible social beings? While most
adults would want to say ‘yes’ or ‘hope so’, the reality may be quite
different. I want to focus on primary and secondary school since not everyone
manages to go on to tertiary education and get a college degree, and many of
those who do may still be lacking well-developed reasoning skills and the
ability to be independent learners and responsible citizens. My thinking is that
developing those higher education goals needs to start early in a person’s life
to ensure success. That is the reason to focus on primary and secondary
education in this case.
In psychology, there has been a distinction between
developmental psychology, historically concerned with the physical, emotional
and cognitive development of infants and young children, and the psychology of
learning, typically focusing on factors (e.g., individual, environmental,
social, etc.) and processes (e.g., cognitive, memory, neurological, etc.) that
explain and predict persistent changes in behavior and beliefs. As it happens,
developmental psychology is focusing more on life-long development and those
with special circumstances (e.g., autism, dementia, dyslexia, etc.), and the
psychology of learning is focusing increasingly on developmental factors and a
holistic perspective of a person, from infancy to old age. If my perception
about those two disciplines is somewhat correct, I regard the overlapping
research and increased communication between specialists in those areas as
promising and healthy … putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.
Unfortunately, such a healthy collaboration is not
happening in areas concerned with the planning and implementation of learning
environments and instructional systems. There are those who associate
themselves with the learning sciences. Others associate themselves with the
instructional design community. Still others see themselves as educational
technologists or educational computing specialists with only loose connections
with either of those two areas. I think such a situation is not likely to
result in sustained progress in an applied science domain that can result in
large-scale improvements in learning and instruction, and on several occasions
I have attempted to improve cross-collaboration with very little success.
However, I wish to set aside that concern in the remainder of these remarks and
address a somewhat different problem – namely, lack of alignment between
education theory, research, practice and policy. The policy statements and
documents mentioned earlier can provide one piece of this four-part puzzle –
the message being that the four puzzle pieces (theory, research, practice and
policy) are not fitting together very well. Lest one accuse me of idle talk,
please know that I am also attempting to address that situation through a major
online reference work entitled “Learning, Design and Technology: An
International Compendium of Theory, Research, Practice and Policy” (see http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319174600).
In the remaining paragraphs, I want to say why I see a lack of alignment in
those four education areas.
There are, of course, theories of learning which are
often grouped in such categories as behaviorism, cognitivism and social
constructivism. There are also theories pertaining to memory mechanisms,
instructional design, and more (see http://www.instructionaldesign.org/about.html
for a much more comprehensive account of relevant theories). Theories in
general are elaborated in terms of principles, which are supported through
research and then can explain or predict what might happen and guide
developments to improve what has been happening. When there is a reasonable
degree of alignment between theory and research, policies can then be
formulated to create practices that are systematic and can be sustained with
the expectation that desired outcomes will be attained. When practice results
in suboptimal or unacceptable results, there is then a need for more research
and perhaps refinement of theory and the formulation of new policies. In short,
these four areas should influence each other, and there should be an ongoing
articulation between them if we really want to talk about the sciences of
learning and instruction and make continuing and sustained improvements in
education on a large scale. However, I do not see such fluidity among and across
those areas.
Here is an example to illustrate the lack of alignment that I see. Recently, there was a three-year effort to develop the next generation science standards (NGSSs) in the USA (see http://www.nextgenscience.org/). When one reads these standards and how they were developed, one is likely to be impressed. There were many so-called stakeholders involved, review cycles, and a framework to integrate engineering into science and a framework that promotes interdisciplinary inquiry and applied practice of core ideas. Consider this 8th grade science standard pertaining to electromagnetism (see http://www.nextgenscience.org/topic-arrangement/msforces-and-interactions):
MS-PS2-3.
|
Ask questions about data to determine the
factors that affect the strength of electric and magnetic
forces. [Clarification Statement: Examples of
devices that use electric and magnetic forces could include electromagnets,
electric motors, or generators. Examples of data could include the effect of
the number of turns of wire on the strength of an electromagnet, or the
effect of increasing the number or strength of magnets on the speed of an
electric motor.] [Assessment Boundary: Assessment about questions that
require quantitative answers is limited to proportional reasoning and
algebraic thinking.]
|
How might this standard be implemented in an 8th
grade classroom? The National Technology Leadership Coalition (see http://ntlcoalition.org/)
addressed that question over a three-year period in its annual summit meetings
in the years 2013-2015 (NTLS; see http://www.ntls.info/).
The group had previously been exploring the potential of transmedia books
constructed using 3D printers for support. Because NTLS meets in Washington DC,
contacts had been made with the Smithsonian Institution. The first attempt to
address the question at the annual summit meeting was based around constructing
and testing a motor built loosely according to the electric motor patented by
Charles Page and archived at the Smithsonian Institution (see http://3d.si.edu/invention/motor).
Four groups of five NTLS participants (all with PhDs in various fields
including educational technology, engineering education, science education,
etc.) were given access to a 3D printer, general description of the Page motor,
and two half-days to build and test a motor following the above NGSS standard.
None of the groups succeeded. That caused us to wonder how that standard might
be effectively implemented in schools. My observation of the effort was that
too much time was spent on building the motor and that did not leave enough
time for testing and explaining and doing the science aspects of the standard.
As a result, we decided to try implementing the standard in a number of schools
in a summer effort using a partially constructed motor, now called an education
kit by the Smithsonian Institution. Four middle schools in the area around
Washington DC were selected. A summer project with four or five 8th
graders involving a technical expert from NTLS, a 3D printer, and the complete
patent for and description of the Page motor were conducted. Basically, each
group had the task of building and testing the motor in according with the NGSS
standard with the understanding that they would be invited to the next NTLS
meeting to explain how the motor worked.
At the following NTLS meeting in Washington DC, each 8th
grade group was given access to a 3D printer, the Smithsonian education kit,
and 2 hours to reconstruct the motor without outside support. All four groups
succeeded. Each group then had to demonstrate to the 60 or so PhDs their motors
and explain how they worked. This was also successful. One of the groups decided to build a vertical version of the Page motor. When aksed why, they responded that they just wanted to see if it would work - a marvelous response from the point of view of critical thinking. Another group broke on the parts. Without any discourse or guidance from an adult, one student picked up the flash drive, went to the computer connected to the 3D printer, found and printed the part and brought it back to the group that then finished building the motor.
NTLS now felt encouraged that with the proper support (e.g., the Smithsonian education kit and a trained teacher) that the effort could succeed in schools. However, we wanted additional verification prior to proceeding with a larger scale effort in schools, so the group again tried repeating what the 8th graders had done with five groups of PhDs at a national conference. Each group was given 4 hours to build the motor. Each of the five participants in each of the five groups had a Smithsonian education kit. Is a PhD smarter than an 8th grader? As it happened, none of the groups managed to even construct the motor much less test it. One confounding factor was the fact that each person in every group had an education kit, and that led to a lot of individual work and very little collaborative problem solving with all the focus on building (without success) and no focus on the science of electromagnetism.
NTLS now felt encouraged that with the proper support (e.g., the Smithsonian education kit and a trained teacher) that the effort could succeed in schools. However, we wanted additional verification prior to proceeding with a larger scale effort in schools, so the group again tried repeating what the 8th graders had done with five groups of PhDs at a national conference. Each group was given 4 hours to build the motor. Each of the five participants in each of the five groups had a Smithsonian education kit. Is a PhD smarter than an 8th grader? As it happened, none of the groups managed to even construct the motor much less test it. One confounding factor was the fact that each person in every group had an education kit, and that led to a lot of individual work and very little collaborative problem solving with all the focus on building (without success) and no focus on the science of electromagnetism.
As the unofficial evaluator of the effort, I then
pointed out the lack of collaboration and the need to address the basic science
prior to the construction effort as well as the need to recognize the desire of
most persons to be personally involved in building something. The group then
proposed the idea of a second education kit – namely one for a solenoid switch
which was much simpler and which could be used to help someone understand how
an electrical current could be used to create a magnetic field that could then
complete a circuit and turn a device on or off. So a second education kit was
created and each person could then build a solenoid switch and apply that
experience and knowledge of the core ideas to explain how it worked. That
activity could then precede a group effort to build and test an electric motor.
The notions of scaffolding (as elaborated in cognitive
apprenticeship) and collaborative learning were now being folded into the
planning of a large scale implementation effort to support that NGSS standard.
The Smithsonian Institution is participating and has since constructed a dozen
different education kits in related areas including the solenoid switch, a
telegraph system, a generator, an electric motor and more. The National Science
Foundation is supporting a large scale study led by the University of Virginia
involving different school districts and the ongoing support of the Smithsonian
Institution.
That is a long story spanning several years and it is
still in process. This effort is just to support one of those NGSS standards.
The effort is taking a policy decision (the NGSS standards) and conducting
research, building on relevant theories (cognitive apprenticeship and
collaborative learning), and involving practical implementations in
representative schools (i.e., not just lab schools with close and ongoing
support from university researchers). It took three years to develop the NGSS
standards. It is taking more than three years to develop adequate support that
aligns theory, research and practice for that policy standard. It is still
unknown what the impact on learning and career plans will be from schools
implementing that and other standards.
I am not trying to criticize the NGSS standards. They
are quite impressive and seem to be emphasizing the right things. However,
there was clearly not sufficient involvement of representative teachers,
although some teachers were involved. It seems to me that there is a tendency
for educational scholars to advise policy makers that something about which
they feel passionate and about which they believe will transform learning
should be implemented on a large scale and as soon as possible. Likewise, there
seems to me to be a tendency for educational technologists to believe that a
particular technology will transform learning if only it were embraced on a
large scale. In short, it seems like educational theorists, researchers,
practitioners and policy makers live in worlds apart. They talk to each other
and occasionally to some in another area. An occasional visit to a classroom is
not sufficient to gain an understanding of what teachers are doing. Conducting
a study in a classroom with the support of researchers and technologists does
not provide insight into the everyday world of an everyday teacher. It is not a
technology that is going to make a difference. It might be the appropriate and
effective use of a technology that can make a difference in learning and
instruction. It is not a policy that is going to make a difference. It might be
the proper support of a policy with teacher training, ongoing professional
development and adequate investment in support personnel that might make a
difference. It is not a case study nor a randomized controlled research study
that will make a difference. However, synthesizing a number of case studies and
experiments might be useful in refining theories and informing policy makers.
We need to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. To
do so, we need to begin aligning theory, research, practice and policy and
keeping the lines of communication and collaboration open in all directions.
Given the lack of alignment, it is not surprising that the wealth of
educational materials, tools and technologies widely available has had so
little impact on learning. We can do better. Not doing better on a large and
sustained scale given all the resources now available amounts to a form of
education malpractice.
