1/15 Assignment: Response to Sara Dexter's article

On eTIPs - Educatonal Technology Integration and Implementation Principles, by Sara Dexter

Early in her article, almost as an aside, Sara Dexter tosses off a comment that to my mind merits closer and more careful focus than she herself gives in.  She writes: Educational technology does not possess inherent instructional value..."

I'm a Big Picture kind of gal.  I like to start off with a rock-solid crystal-clear laying-out-of-the-fundamentals before plunging into the minutiae.  And this point is very fundamental indeed; so fundamental that I truly wished Dexter had honored it with at least a full paragraph of its own.  

Educational technology does not possess inherent instructional value.  It is, in other words, a means, not an end in itself.  The mere presence of technology in a classroom does nothing at all, if not used; and nothing of instructional value, if not used with thought and care to support educational objectives beyond the technology itself.  Technology provides tools: no more, no less.  With tools, we can do things -- draw upon information from disparate sources; aggregate and present data; stitch together images and words and sounds; communicate quickly and cheaply.  Today's technology offers tools of great potential, which like all other tools are only as useful as the person wielding them is skillful.  And, also like many other tools, can be misused and even dangerous.

I wish Dexter had laid that sort of thing out, explicitly, in her prelude.   From the rest of her text it is clear that she does, indeed, believe it.

That said, much of what she did write makes good sense.  In the article, Dexter lays out two broad principles for the selection, implementation and integration of technology:

1. The teacher must act as an instructional designer, planning the use of the technology so it will support student learning; and
2. The school environment must support teachers in this role by providing adequate technology support.

The second point is plain common sense: at the most basic, physical level, the classroom must have enough outlets and Internet connections and so on; at the nearly-as-basic (but immensely harder to achieve, particularly in large institutions) level, teachers must be allowed the autonomy to determine which technologies support their instructional objectives (what Dexter calls "learning outcomes").

The first point is the nub of the matter, and is very hard indeed.  What Dexter is saying, rightly, is that in order for technology to serve education, its purpose has to be planned in a manner that supports learning, and its execution has to be managed in a manner consistent with the plan.  Otherwise you are left either with: a) dusty and poorly functioning machines languishing in the back of the classroom; or b) a handful of boys racing through their seatwork so as to jostle over computer games.

At the very outset, the teacher must have succinct clarity about what the "learning outcomes" are -- the teacher must do what Steven Covey, in Principle-Centered Leadership, calls Beginning with the End in Mind.  In school as in business, this is far easier to articulate than to do.  Thereafter, the teacher must realistically assess what Dexter calls the "cognitive demands of the user" -- that is, what the student must be able to do to use the technology effectively.  This requires both a detailed flowchart-like understanding of each small step in the utilization of the technology and a realistic understanding about the capabilities among the students.  (Even just locating an Internet address requires accurate spelling, keyboarding, and ability to scan.  Young kids with reading difficulties may not be able to do this most basic step on their own.)  As well, she must be able to discern what is true "value added" in Dexter's terms -- what the technology is actually doing in support of the "learning outcome" -- from the whiz-bang that can be seductive to students and adults alike, but does not necessarily support instructional objectives.

It is easy, and tempting, to label "quiet and occupied in front of their terminals" as "learning."  But the labeling doesn't actually make it so.  Dexter's article is a useful reminder to keep thinking through the difference.