Is our focus on the "How" instead of the "Why"?
Ian Jukes
(...from an e-mail which generated over 500 responses for Ian)Pardon the rambling nature of this message, I send you greetings from high over North Carolina on my way to Buffalo as the world tour continues. I've spent the past 7 weeks on the road traveling almost constantly from conference to conference. During this journey, I have been spending a lot of time looking at the conference programs and, in particular, focusing on the attendance practices of registrants. I have come to the discouraging conclusion that 20 years on, the primary focus of conferences and the most popular sessions continue to be primarily on the HOW issues of technology (cards, cables, hardware, software, input, output - what Jamie would call installation fever) rather than the WHY issues (learning, curriculum, instruction, staff development and accountability)
Over the course of the past several years, many of us have tried to move the discussion beyond this focus on technology and tried to place more emphasis on the many issues related to learning. Yet as I examine the programs and attendance patterns of the different conferences, I continue to see a predominant focus on sessions related to cool web sites, iMovie, creating flashy web pages, digital devices and the like - in short, technodrool and technolust. Just now I have spread out the programs of more than 20 of the conferences I have attended, Less than 15% deal in any sort of substantive way with what I happen to believe are the critical issues related to the effective use of technology for measurable student results (be they qualitative or quantitative).
For example, I note with a great deal of sadness and discomfort that the most popular one day workshops (either completely filled or almost filled) for the 2001 NECC include Using Dreamweaver, creating E-paper, using a digital camera (3), building a Database-Driven Web Site (4), Adobe Acrobat, iMovie, using Digital Video in the classroom, designing a wireless network, using Palm computers in the classroom, editing multimedia with QuickTime, desktop movies, Photoshop, designing web sites, iTools, PowerPoint, Hyperstudio, Macromedia Flash, Power Learning with Inspiration, Palmtop Technology for the Administrator, creating streaming video web sites and Microsoft Word - I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
Some will say that this is okay - that if we continue providing these kinds of opportunities, by osmotic or proximal adoption, eventually it will get through to the masses - although to a degree I would concur, I also believe that there has to be some balance. But twenty years into it, I am becoming very skeptical that this will happen.
Again, looking back at the NECC 2001 program, I note that very, very few of the proposed sessions are addressing the "why" issues in any substantive way. In fact, based on the current number of registrations for the sessions, my estimate is that less than a half dozen Why sessions will proceed. This is the classic definition of insanity - we continue to do the same thing we've always done, but we want, need or expect completely different results. It isn't going to happen.
It's my belief that if we continue the way we are and don't heed the warning signs, that we are going to be in very, very serious trouble. I noticed last week that in an overview of the forthcoming debate of the Elementary & Secondary Act, which shapes the federal government's investment in education, President Bush proposed accountability measures that would tie federal dollars to proven technology solutions & best practices - which I read to say either the use of technology produces measurable student results, or the money disappears (or gets mandated for what David would describe as veal calf-like computer-based testing materials.)
Accountability is rearing its head - no longer are decision makers willing to take our leap of faith word that spending kabillions of dollars will have an impact on learning - and in reality, when you look at the research, it shows conclusively that based on the way that new technologies are typically used today, except in tiny pockets, spending the money is having little if any meaningful impact upon student learning. The key here is "based on the way it is being used today."
Anyway, there's so much more I could write, but it's awfully late and I've got 4 full days of speaking ahead of me this week and one more next week before I get to go home for a break.
I am of two minds about this trend. In my sessions, I continue to draw policy makers, administrators, and decision makers - but my sense is that our message is not getting down to the daily practitioners - as Yogi Berra said, "when you come to a fork in the road, take it" - so on one hand, because I believe in what we have been trying to do, I could stay the course, perhaps change some titles to try and draw in a few more of the people in the trenches and hope that the message gets through.
On the other hand, I'm ready to throw in the towel and start developing new presentations that focus on the micro issues (with perhaps a little bit of big picture thrown in so that at least I can get par to the message out to the masses who continue to flock to the micro sessions)
Does anyone out there have any comments, opinions or suggestions on this matter or are these just the rantings of a weary road-warrior?
