Reappraisal of technology in the classroom

For some time now, the call for technology integration in classrooms has been a regular topic of school reform, transformation, and improvement. Nonetheless, many educational leaders will attest that while technology is increasingly finding its place in classrooms, it is only a small cadre of teachers actually utilizing technology in classrooms to improve student learning.  It may be that merely "integrating" technology is not the real issue.  If pedagogy itself is not changing through the use of digital technology then the problem is clearly not the tool but the method in which it is used.

 Much has been made of this inability of technology to add any real capacity to improved student learning regardless of academic level. Increasingly the evidence has shown that "teachers have been painfully slow to transform the way they teach, despite the influx of technology into their classrooms" states Benjamin Herold in his article for Education Week, June 11, 2015. It is, therefore, critical for 21^st Century educational leaders to address this situation.  There are many already concerned with the situation:

“In general, teachers at many schools seem to view technology as a more valuable tool for themselves than for their students.” Kelly Shapley (2015), Educational Researcher, Shapley Research Associates.

“The net effect”, says Leslie A. Wilson (2015), the chief executive officer of the One-to-One Institute, a nonprofit based in Mason, Mich., that has consulted with hundreds of schools and districts across the country and world, “is that schools rarely realize the full promise of educational technology.  There's nothing transformative about every kid having an iPad unless you're able to reach higher-order teaching and learning.  If schools take all this technology, and use it like a textbook, or just have teachers show PowerPoint presentations or use drill-and-kill software, they might as well not even have it."

“Public schools now provide at least one computer for every five students. They spend more than $3 billion per year on digital content. Nearly three-fourths of high school students now say they regularly use a smartphone or tablet in the classroom.  But a mountain of evidence indicates that teachers have been painfully slow to transform the ways they teach, despite that massive influx of new technology into their classrooms. The student-centered, hands-on, personalized instruction envisioned by ed-tech proponents remains the exception to the rule.”  Benjamin Herold, Education Week, “Why Ed Tech is not Transforming Teaching” (2015).

"The introduction of computers into schools was supposed to improve academic achievement and alter how teachers taught," said Stanford University education professor Larry Cuban (2015). "Neither has occurred."

The purpose of this reappraisal is not to make projections or proposals to be followed for success, rather to consider the teaching, leadership and/or management issues that likely must be attended in improving this situation: 1. Developing a culture for critical digital pedagogy for use in K12 schools or HE program,  2. The leadership support needed for same, and  3. The sustainability of effort and effect of the leadership for ongoing success.

Suffice to say my reappraisal is based on the belief that each organized professional educational group of shared focus, e.g. schools, districts, or education departments must answer the important pedagogical questions around these three areas themselves. Their decisions regarding pedagogy, technology, and student performance will require shared goals, shared commitments, and regular review of their growth. Unless the professionals themselves ask the important questions about improving critical digital pedagogy and student performance, regardless of tools used, any real success will be fleeting. 

A "NEW" year of more of the same.....

Each and every year, prior to my retirement this Spring, I remember always looking forward to the new school year.  I remember saying that the Summer in which I did not look forward to the Fall and the new year would probably indicate I was done. While this Summer I knew I was not returning to the daily function of school, I nonetheless was still excited. Maybe excited is not the correct word, I was more hopeful.  More hopeful that some of the early adoption /"underground" educational issues would start to really pay off.  Issues like fewer days of testing pointless facts, increased awareness by principals of the critical job they play in establishing a positive school culture, of increased technology use by students in tech savvy classrooms, and teachers owning their own professional development needs rather than spending two days prior to school in large body "sit&get" training. Sadly, in visiting schools and talking with teacher colleagues this year did not start out as I would hope. The tests are still scheduled for too many days with inadequate feedback fo teachers, principals still read from lists of top down policy, technology is still not much more than a some computers (or chromebooks - which are no different) in classrooms, and teachers had to sit through another round of sit&gets that will ultimately only add more notebooks gathering dust on their shelves.

The function of mandatory change

In some of the courses I took in gathering a Master's Degree in Counseling Psychology, there often was mentioned the condition of personal change.  How do we change, why do we change, why would we want to change? Obviously, counseling is about change.... of one sort or another.... change in behavior, change in relationship, change in thinking, etc.  Counseling assumes that the person 'wants' to change and the counselor can assist.  So how does change work when someone else tells someone to change.  Sometimes in an intervention the support of the others suggesting the need for change helps the person to see they want to change.  But what about the function of forced change - "you have to change"?  I'm not aware of too many people that appreciate being told that they have to change. That often ends relationships, jobs, etc.
My point here is why do we tell all teachers that they have to change.  I mean really what was the point of NCLB or even Race to the Top?  Trying to force teaches to change, either through perceived incentives or consequence, will never work.  There is not enough incentive or enough consequence as long as the policy tries telling teachers what to do AND how to do it.  While my experience has shown me that teachers try to do what they are told to do, most know that what they are doing is not best for their students.
The bottom line here is this, educational policy tries to control the outcome of every classroom and, for that matter, every student.  Control is an illusion and will never 'force' change.  Since we know now, after 25 years of trying that forced change doesn't work, why don't we incentivize change in education differently.  First, let's give teachers full responsibility AND accountability for student learning in their classrooms.  They are the only ones who really get to know the needs of the specific students in their classrooms. Second, let's pay them better given what we are asking them to do. Every teacher needs to be in charge of their own classroom AND every teacher needs to know that student outcomes are their responsibility AND every teacher needs to be remunerated at a professional standard.  We don't need tests to tell us whether they are successful or not. Just require each teacher to provide an annual portfolio of each student's work that shows that the student gained academic improvement while in their classroom. Finally, third, let's make certain that every school has a highly qualified leader that will assist teachers in their daunting tasks.  Leadership of a school needs to be about servant and supportive leadership.  If teachers are 'in charge' of their classrooms, there is no need for an authoritarian leader.  Principals are responsible for the social culture and climate of the facility.

Helping others as leaders

As for me, I think personal reflection is the most important of all leadership behaviors. I am constantly struck by the amount of information available online about "How to be a better leader." Wouldn't you think this information would, in fact, make for better leaders? I'm not so sure it does. After teaching leadership at the doctoral level, I have come to realize the significance between the academic "knowing" about leadership and actually being able to "be" a good leader. I'm fairly certain that academic knowing has little to no correlation to actually being a good leader.

As we consider how to assist someone to be a better leader we really do need to talk about their leadership "thinking" first. What do they think a good leader is? That answer will tell us a lot about their frame of mind and thus how they probably will act as a leader. It is in this "framing" of leadership that we can find our way to discussing how to improve leadership. The old adage, "it is what you think it is," certainly applies here. Do you see yourself as a leader with a position of authority or supervision, are you a leader who requires followers, or are you a leader that influences others? To reflect on your frame of leadership (Thanks to Terry Deal and Lee Bolman for their book on "Reframing") allows you to see where you are and perhaps consider changes to your leadership behaviors.

Observations of leadership

I am re-reading the book, Leadership Jazz, by Max De Pree. I highly recommend it.

De Pree says, “A jazz band is an expression of servant leadership. The leader of a jazz band has the beautiful opportunity to draw the best out of the other musicians. We have much to learn from jazz-band leaders, for jazz, like leadership, combines the unpredictability of the future with the gifts of individuals.”

He goes on with, “Leaders certainly need to know where they stand. But how do leaders stand? A sound philosophy isn't enough; we all need to connect voice and touch. So much discussion these days talks of ethics as a legal line in the sand, a prohibition against certain actions. But leadership is constructive, the right actions taken in the context of clear and well-considered thinking. The active pursuit of a common good gives us the right to ask leaders and managers of all kinds to be not only successful, but faithful.”

As we look at leadership in our external contexts, what do we see? How is leadership conceived in these contexts, how do we "see" the function of leadership in these organizations? How do these leaders connect "voice and touch"?

Transactional / Transformational Leadership

From Bernard Bass. 2008. The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications, 4th Ed.

"A leader of the transactional kind,

1. recognizes what it is we want to get from our work and tries to see that we get what we want if our performance warrants it,

2. exchanges rewards and promises of reward for our effort, and,

3. is responsive to our immediate self-interests if they can be met by our getting the work done. (Bass 1985b, 11)

"A leader of the transformational kind, however, motivates people to do more than they had previously expected to do. This is accomplished

1. by raising our awareness, our level of consciousness about the importance and value of designated outcomes, and ways of reaching them,

2. by getting us to transcend our own self-interest for the sake of the team, organization, or larger policy, and

3. by altering our need level on Maslow's hierarchy or expanding our portfolio of needs and wants (Bass 1985b, 20)

These descriptions provide us with a picture of HOW certain types of leaders function.

Which of the four Bolman and Deal frames do you think is the primary frame for each of these types of leaders? How might we predict what the culture or "how we do things here," plays out with each?

Organizational Culture

If culture is about "how we do things here." Maybe we could add that organizational 'climate' is "how it feels here." Then we might also consider organizational 'context' about "how it looks here." And finally, we might say that organizational 'content' is about "the tools we use here." Add these to Bolman & Deal's (2008) four frames and you can start seeing patterns develop.