How can you make a judgement about the suitability of ICT? At the moment my decision-making process doesn't go much beyond 'will it work?' Or, that should be, can I make it work.
For example, I was rather proud this week of the brief PowerPoint presentation on the Welsh colony in Patagonia that I put together for my last Leisure & Tourism session. It was meant as just a quick five minute aside, but did look good - even if I say so myself.
The problem was that I put it on a cheap and nasty memory stick, which the classroom desktop refused to read. As it turned out I didn't really need that PowerPoint - the lesson seemed to work fine without it.
So, how to make a judgement about when to use technology, and when to stick with something more traditional? For insight I thought I'd turn to one or two of the text books I've come to rely on.
And my first impression is that in even the more recent editions the advice feels dated. For example, the library's copy of Francis and Gould (3rd edition, published 2014) is so new that it hadn't previously been stamped, but the language it uses when new technology is discussed sounds quaint; it devotes a section to the use of the overhead projector.
They only give half a page to the topic of how resources should be evaluated. They say "as in all aspects of teaching, use and reflection on that use, provides the route to improvement" and then offer this checklist.
He warns his readers not to be 'dazzled' by the new, adding: "Ask yourself, 'What am I trying to teach?' and 'Will this help me?'"
It seems a commonsense approach. And research seems to suggest that the danger of being dazzled by the tech is very real. I've found plenty of opinion, but what seems to me to be the most useful study is one that looks at the hard evidence for a connection between ICT use and improved learning.
A Durham University team led by Professor Steven Higgins looked at 48 studies of learning from a range of age groups and from around the world.
What they were trying to find was primary studies that made comparisons between groups of pupils so that they could quantify the learning gain (or loss) that could be attributed to technology. Their study, published in 2012, concluded that technology alone does not make a difference to learning.
Technology engages and motivates, the report says, but it is the way that it is used that is the really important factor. "The crucial lesson emerging from the the research is that it is the pedagogy underpinning technology which is important: the how rather than the what," it says (those are their italics, not mine).
The report makes lots of interesting points - far too many for me to regurgitate here. The stand-out points for me are that technology should replace less effective classroom strategies, not effective ones, and that teachers (and learners) need lots of support when they are getting to grips with new classroom tech.
Just one last thought. I can't help thinking that there's a serious conflict between what this report says and Sugata Mitra's vision of schools without teachers. His street children did wonders with a computer in a wall, but would they have done even better if they had been given a computer - and access to a first-class teacher too?
Sources:
Francis,
M. and Gould, J. (3rd edition, 2014) Achieving your award in education and
training. London: Sage.
Higgins,
S., ZhiMin, X. and Katsipataki, M. (2012) The Impact of Digital Technology
on Learning: A Summary for the Education Endowment Foundation. London:
Education Endowment Foundation. Link
Petty, G.
(4th edition, 2009). Teaching today. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.
Nicely argued
ReplyDelete