A netbook for every student?

Wednesday, March 4th 2009 by Wes FryercloseAuthor: Wes Fryer Name: Wes Fryer
Email: wes@isteconnects.org
Site: http://www.speedofcreativity.org
About: Wesley is an international learning consultant, author, digital storyteller, educator and catalyst for educational reform focused on blended learning, differentiated instruction, and creative engagement. His bio is available on www.wesfryer.com/bio and complete vitae on www.wesfryer.com/vitae.See Authors Posts (74)

As educational leaders gather in Washington D.C. in the upcoming week to discuss the financial details of the recently approved economic stimulus package for U.S. schools, including educational technology funding increases, I’d hypothesize many conversations will focus on computer hardware issues. What types of educational technologies should schools be encouraged to purchase which have a high likelihood of both stimulating a sluggish U.S. economy as well as encouraging improvements in student learning and measured academic achievement? Should schools purchase more electronic whiteboards? Should schools buy electronic response systems (clickers / remote controls) to maintain student attention and collect real-time assessment data of student understanding? Should computer labs be updated with newer hardware and operating systems? Should mobile carts be purchased? How about more COWS (computers on wheels) in schools? Or what about 1:1 learning initiatives for students and teachers, where all learners are equipped with a wireless computing device?

As our leaders discuss these issues, I think we would all be well advised to read and listen to the findings of Christensen, Horn & Johnson in their 2008 book, “Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns.” On pages 72-73 they observed:

…the billions schools have spent on computers have had little effect on how teachers and students learn… The reason for this disappointing result is that the way schools have employed computers has been perfectly predictable, perfectly logical– and perfectly wrong. As we show in this chapter, schools have crammed them into classrooms to sustain and marginally improve the way they already teach and run their schools, just as most organizations do when they attempt to implement innovations, including computers. Using computers this way will never allow schools to migrate to a student-centric classroom.

Dr. Christensen and his co-authors echo the observations of Dr. Larry Cuban, who wrote “Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom” in 2003 noting:

As for enhanced efficiency in learning and teaching, there have been no advances (measured by higher academic achievement of urban, suburban, or rural students) over the last decade that can be confidently attributed to broader access to computers. No surprise here, as the debate over whether new technologies have increased overall American economic productivity also has had no clear answers. The link between test score improvements and computer availability and use is even more contested.

Simply giving students and teachers faster computers in their school computer labs will not lead to improved academic achievement anymore than an initiative to provide all students with a high-tech mechanical pencil or fancier ballpoint pen would raise test scores. Dr. Alan Kay has astutely and famously observed that “the predominant learning tool defines the predominant learning task in the classroom,” and while pencils and chalkboards continue to define our classroom landscapes we will continue to see digital learning as the EXCEPTION rather than the rule (or more common experience) in our schools. We do need to provide digital tools for ALL learners in our schools. Simply “cramming” more technology (to use the parlance of Christensen, Horn & Johnson) into our classrooms dominated by traditional, teacher-directed pedagogical models, however, has virtually NO probability of constructively transforming learning outcomes.

Given these realities and documented research findings, what can and should we do with these millions of additional educational technology dollars for U.S. schools in the year to come? For answers, I highly recommend the July 2008 report of the Texas Center for Educational Research (TCER) “Third-Year (2006-07) Traits of Higher Technology Immersion Schools and Teachers.” As reported by various sources, the overall TCER findings for TxTIP was that “Laptops Do Not Increase Academic Achievement in Reading and Writing.” This type of simplistic reporting is ridiculous, however. Of course simply giving technology in schools to teachers and students doesn’t result in transformative changes! Cuban, Christensen, and many others have documented this repeatedly! We have to look deeper at the WAYS technologies are used, the expectations which are set forward for students as well as teachers, and the specific ways these projects are implemented to understand what works and what does not. This report by TCER does a better job than any other I’ve read to date highlighting what works and what does not in 1:1 learning settings.

Some of the findings in this report make me want to weep. Some of the campuses did not give their laptops to students till the very end of the academic year in year one, after mandated state testing was over. Some of the sites did not let students take the laptops home. Despite the fact that TxTIP was designed as a 1:1 learning initiative, some of the campuses actually put the laptops on carts rather than assigning individual laptops to individual students. These actions and research findings are tragic.

The news in this report is far from all bad, however, because amidst the 21 “experimental” TxTIP campuses four were identified as “high immersion” sites. These were and are sites where students and teachers were permitted to take laptops home, where administrative support was strong and consistent, where technology was consistently used as a tool for creation, communication, and collaboration, rather than strictly content consumption. Test results DID improve on these four “high immersion” sites, along with a variety of other indicators.

We need to provide digital tools for all our students. It is fiscally irresponsible to continue purchasing textbooks on a five year cycle, when digital curriculum can be licensed and co-created by educators around the globe for a fraction of that cost and readily updated as needed. We need to answer the question, “How do we begin a large scale effort to help our current in-service teacher workforce to become digital learners and educational leaders?” Perhaps U.S. leaders should follow the example of officials in New Zealand.

I had an opportunity last month to spend a week in New Zealand, sharing the closing keynote address at the Learning@School 2009 conference in Rotorua. I was intrigued to learn that EVERY teacher in New Zealand, at both the primary as well as secondary level, has a laptop computer provided by the government. Certainly the issue of scale must be addressed here: New Zealand is a nation of 4.6 million people. The teacher cadre in New Zealand is a small fraction of the size of our educator force in the United States. Still, the idea and goal of providing a laptop computer for EVERY teacher in the country is one whose time has come in the United States.

Should every state in the United States be required to spend their additional EETT funds in 2009-2010 in the same way? Certainly not. We have a relatively long tradition of local control in our U.S. schools, and states should continue to exercise that local control over education dollars and educational policies affecting curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment. I do think, however, that state leaders would be well advised to consider the price-point and constructive potential of netbooks to help catalyze a learning revolution in our schools. Following the example of OLPC, our leaders need, in the near term, to provide netbooks for every student in third grade and above in our schools. Purchasing netbooks for all our teachers as well as providing sustained professional development to support the effective uses of those netbooks for personal as well as student learning with new stimulus package funds would be a step in the right direction for US leaders seeking to move our nation forward constructively into the 21st century.

Similar Posts:

None Found