— Steve Weatherell (@steveweatherell) June 27, 2016
So was it worth the wait? After 9 years, ISTE has given the Standards a big shake-up. Firstly, the bar has been set higher, and no longer do we merely "use technology to learn". No, we are promoting "Transformative learning with technology".
And it's true! The new Standards are very far-reaching, including whole new skills and abilities which we expect good teaching to bring to our students. For example, there is a new category: Computational Thinking. Of course, it could all just be wishful thinking. Just saying something is transformative, does not make it so. But as I plot my path through CoETaIL Course 1, I feel that the new Standards (a taxonomy, if you will) are very timely.
[caption id="attachment_26" align="alignleft" width="213"]
Bloom's Taxonomy updated 1990[/caption]This week I became re-acquainted, once again, with the work of Dr Benjamin Bloom who pops up whenever I am studying education.
The most interesting aspect of the 1990 revision of Bloom's taxonomy is how Synthesis is promoted and re-branded. It becomes Creating. Whereas 'synthesis' suggests a use of raw materials to make a new product, 'creation' implies an extra ingredient - something which wasn't there before. Perhaps the difference is only semantic, but the decision to put Creating at the top of the ladder is significant.
Few people in 1990 could have foreseen how, within a couple of decades, it would be commonplace to be able to create artifacts: films; sound recordings; multimedia objects using one and the same portable machine. But Bloom's revised taxonomy anticipated the changes in education which ubiquitous digital technology makes possible.
[caption id="attachment_28" align="alignright" width="160"]
3 steps to heaven[/caption]I read about another hierarchical taxonomy in Living and Learning with New Media. According to this analysis, kids, on their own and without the help of adults, hang out with technology, then mess around and finally geek out. It's a hopeful vision, but the reality about the geek stage which is "intense, autonomous, and interest-driven" (p. 28), is that:
"these kinds of youths are a small minority among those we encountered" (p. 28)
That is not a startling revelation to many of us who work with 21st century youth. Although some of my students are much more skillful and dexterous than me in their daily use of their devices, in other ways they are limited in what they do. They have acquired certain habits such as efficiently consuming and generating social media, but they do not necessarily learn new skills unless they offer immediate rewards (why would they?). This innate conservatism is invisible to many of my colleagues who regard their students as masters of the new devices, but it is important for the teachers to realise that it is so.
For otherwise, what would we need teachers for? Thankfully, search engines have taken over some of the bottom-rung Bloom skills. And there are web-services which allow anyone to cobble together a basic explanatory video. This leaves us with our hands a little freer to give the students new challenges.
[caption id="attachment_29" align="alignleft" width="174"]
Image credit: ladder[/caption]Sure, student, you can bash out a quick presentation, but:
- Do you know how to find and evaluate the most reliable sources?
- Can you use visual information to engage your audience rather than riddle them with bullets?
- Will you present it in a way that your audience understands the ethical or social implications?
Google won't do that for you, but your teacher can.
Last week, in my Theory of Knowledge class, I had a clear idea of what I wanted the students to understand at the end of the lesson and I designed an activity to achieve it. I don't think I did a good job. In attempting to dictate the students' learning, I did not trust in their ability to construct it. We used the devices but as consumers when we could have been creating.
So next time we will climb the ladder.
Hi Steve,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your post and made several connections. I too, am excited about the new ISTE standards, especially the Computational Thinker one. I am a technology teacher/integrationist but in the last year or so I have become passionate about computer science. I love teaching my students the fundamentals of computer science with a variety of coding games and unplugged activities and how to use programming to create their very own games and animations! I hope this is the future of the technology curriculum and I hope it begins at the K-level.
Erin
Hi Steve,
ReplyDeleteThanks for a great post. I think the ITSE standards are a giant leap forward for educators and children. It raises the bar higher which is good because for too long technology has not been truly trans-formative, rather it has been at the substitution at best. Your post makes me think of brilliant post from Medium which includes this quote "So when we say transformational learning experiences powered by technology, we are talking about authentic, project-based learning, where students have agency, ownership and commitment to a relevant and meaningful goal that allows them to use digital tools to take on roles of creators, problem solvers, and learner-teachers working with and alongside peers, instructors, and other mentors to accomplish something bigger than themselves"
https://medium.com/@OfficeofEdTech/what-do-we-mean-when-we-say-transformative-learning-experiences-powered-by-technology-d6fd1af9e257#.3fez6xe36
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Cheers, Joel
What a quote, Joel! Everything we are hoping to achieve in one sentence.
ReplyDeleteHi Steve,
ReplyDeleteI really liked your post which shows an interesting historical perspective on the way we perceive and use technology. I find the expression "transformational learning experiences" very meaningful and relevant to what we are trying to develop. I also agree with Joel as it seems unlikely that this transformational learning could fully take place without a pedagogy for inquiry-based/problem-solving learning. The real challenge could be to find the perfect match between technology and pedagogy. This topic was discussed in an article about the SMILE model by Elisabeth Buckner in 2013 if you're interested: https://elizabethbuckner.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/10-1007_s11125-013-9269-7.pdf
Stéphane
Hi Steve,
ReplyDeleteThanks for highlighting the evolution of the ISTE Standards for Students. This article was both encouraging and challenging for my future professional practice. I also loved the specific questions that you pose to students at the end. While creating is positioned as the highest order thinking skill, this verb is not always used with much thought. Students 'create' a presentation by cobbling together information and really they possibly have demonstrated analysis or more likely just some understanding of a topic.
You're right, Shannon, not every creation is creative. That's one of our challenges, I feel: to make sure that the apparent ease of what computers can do doesn't lead us to pretend that low-level achievements are high. All form and little function.
ReplyDeleteThat's a very interesting paper, Stéphane. I noticed that they said that solutions in one context does not necessarily work in another. I am hoping for the perfect match too, but I think that there will be more than one pedagogy. Our work will never be finished.
ReplyDeleteSome schools are even using the mobile phone as a photocopier!
Thanks, Erin, I also hope that coding reaches down to the K-level.
ReplyDeleteI come to ed tech from teaching Physics and have a lot of appreciation for the present attention to design process, coding and computational thinking. I meet a lot of ed tech coaches with, like you, a passion for the same sort of things. I am mindful, though, that it is not in everyone's comfort zone, and that we must make sure we are also providing an interesting space for both teachers and students whose natural inclination is not so computational.
I know you 're not saying that, but I have noticed a shift at tech conferences in this direction.
Hi Steve,
ReplyDeleteWe may have crossed paths at ISTE! I remember getting them that morning and going the same thought process you describe above.
I've had a lot of conversations about student's "innate conservatism" with my colleagues over the last few weeks, and even wrote my last blog post on it! (www.coetail.com/kaufmala/2016/09/15/teaching-tech-troubleshooting/)
As educators, I think we need to keep in mind that all of the scaffolding we do (and however we term it), needs to apply to technology and being courageous with technology, not just following a teacher suggestion or the same path they have in the past.
This innate conservatism is invisible to many of my colleagues who regard their students as masters of the new devices, but it is important for the teachers to realise that it is so.
Hi Laura,
ReplyDeleteYou're right, the principles we apply to students' learning in the traditional areas must be used for technology too. It's common to hear teachers say: "the technology is just a tool". OK, but you've still got to learn to use it!