I’ve been reading lots of folks lately writing to the effect that this whole read/write web world is not about the tools, it’s about how we use them. I agree with that notion. Mostly.
In some of the conversations I’ve been having recently, I’ve been arguing that, at least at some level, the focus should be on the tools, for a couple of reasons. One, we need to have a handle on what the tools can do so that we can apply them to our particular teaching and learning situations. If I don’t know how to publish to the web (or that it’s completely safe for students to do so), then I can’t consider it as a possibility in my classes. Further, if I don’t know that most wikis won’t allow for same-time multiple edits/editors, then I won’t realize (until it’s too late) that having everyone edit the same piece of text in class is just won’t work. #
The second reason is a little trickier, but was really brought home to me this week as I was involved in some training on a web-based gradebook.
This particular tool, the one that our district provides to teachers as an electronic gradebook, appears to require a letter grade as an output. What I mean is that, as it’s currently configured, the only possible output for a student grade is a percentage tied to a letter. While we could tinker with what percentages resulted in what letter, that was all the tinkering that we could do. So this particular tool (certainly, not a read/write tool, but a technology tool nonetheless) only allows for a particular type of output. Not using letter grades is not an option with this tool. (I know – I’ve really, really stated that – but I think it’s very important.) #
While I’m not going to make a case right now for eliminating letter grades, I want to point out that, if my school system decided tomorrow to eliminate letter grading, we couldn’t. Our computer system would not "allow" it.
Currently, many of our middle schools have assessment systems that are standards based and don’t involve letter grades. The software that creates those is aging and might not be compatible with the new system. See the potential for a problem? #
I’ll end this post for fear of beginning to lose my point, which is this: Sometimes, it is about the tools, and about how those tools shape what is and is not "possible" in particular situations. The tools and their use (or misuse) can completely drive a classroom or management scenario. Pretending that it is never about the tools, and is only about the pedagogy or philosophy, is shortsighted and ultimately problematic. #
Good point–and I say that as someone who has repeatedly said, “forget the technology; it’s only a tool. What do kids learn?” A good case in point is Apple’s revamp of iMovie in iLife 08. I do a lot of digital videos with my students, and previous versions of iMovie were easy to use, but also provide some very sophisticated tools. If David Pogue and the uproar in the blogosphere are correct, the newest version of iMovie removes all kinds of features, most specifically the timeline and key audio features, which severely limits what students are able to do and, thus, create. (For a detailed review, see David Pogue’s column in the NYT, http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/17/apple-takes-a-step-back-with-imovie-08/ )
So, you’re right. Sometimes, it IS about the tools.
I think your point is well taken–tech shapes us just as handily as we shape tech. Teachers need to know what these tools are and what they can do. More importantly, through that thorough ‘knowing’ they also need to be able to know the tools’ limitations. In the end that is what we must teach our students–the ability to discriminate among the sea of tools in order to decide what to use. The Amish understand the way technology shapes us and make conscious, community-wide decisions about whether or not a tool will be used. It is the choice and the process of choosing that we must bring to our students. We must also put the food down where the goats can get to it so that they can decide. I don’t think it is an either/or proposition as you perhaps unintentionally portray it in your last sentence. I think the underlying issue is this: do tools serve us or do we serve tools?
And in the case of your fugly grading software–that’s a no-brainer: dump it. Of course, I know that won’t happen because your district made the wrong choices or were forced by circumstances and money to make bad choices. Any time we are forced to make bad choices because of technology then I think we have grabbed the wrong end of the stick. We can just call that a rule of thumb in the war against the machines.
Thanks, y’all. Terry, you’re right — it’s far from “either/or.” Ideally, the philosophy or pedagogy should be driving and the tools should be supporting. But that’s not always how it plays out. Too often, I think, we’re willing to let the tools dictate what we can and can’t do, rather than laying out what we want to do and then creating the tool or tools that will help us to get there.
I agree that the right tools can be very important. And the wrong tools can be worse than none at all.
Reacting to the steady drumbeat of blogs and wikis, our district decided to buy a package to put those structures into our Blackboard system. Neither of them have a search tool, neither has RSS, and the blogs have no capability for a blog roll. for that matter, we are using Blackboard itself as a content management system for publishing class web sites, something it was not designed to do.
So, we wind up with a poorly designed set of tools being wedged into a bad framework, or at least one that is being used incorrectly.
As a result, I’m not optimistic about our teachers having a positive view of blogs and wikis after they get some idea of what our IT folks are giving them to work with. I think many of the kids, especially those who are already publishing on their own, will just laugh.
Amen Brother Bud!
Timely post Bud. I just posted asking others to chime in with what tools they thought would make up the “intelligent classroom” (http://bcsmith.edublogs.org/2007/08/17/intelligent-classroom/).
Funny thing about mobile laptop carts up here in NY. They get used for internet access and… you guessed it, PowerPoint. I’m in agreement that sometimes it is about the tools. If an educator has an understanding that the laptops that are being pushed into their classrooms have capabilities beyond web research and presentation generation, they might discover that the teaching and learning taking place can be furthered. Many teachers I’ve worked with are not aware that their machines have built in applications for creating videos, recording audio files, producing digital stories, communication tools to collaborate across the globe and many more. Their first inclination when learning about something new is to ask, what software and how much is it? Sometimes it is all about understanding what is available to us already.
I invite you all to add to the “Intelligent Classroom” list. Thanks again, Bud, for the timely post.
This is an interesting issue–Aristotle to Mcluhan have weighed in on it–When do we shape our tools and when do our tools shape us. I hate to side with the technological determinists, but I don’t think that 600 years ago people said “we need a renaissance…let’s find a machine that can help us.” On the other hand, it is a complex dance of social forces (including values and pedagogical goals) and technology that creates change.
Someone mentioned PowerPoint…check out Tufte’s *The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint*–very provocative look at how PP shapes our communicating and thinking.
You’re right. My point of “It’s not about the tech, it’s about the teach” is always proceeded by a big BUT. There needs to be some zone of proximal development, where the teacher has an understanding of the potential, if not the technical skills to carry it out themselves. Having discovered the potential, they can work it out in their own time and put it into action.
It’s only after these three stages that we can expect teachers to go forward an innovate, which is where you, most edubloggeres and many of your readers are at. We mustn’t forget that many of our colleagues are still at the first stage. But they will work it out, with the help of their students and their colleagues.