Keynote Speakers - Dismissed Laptops

[John D'Arcy]

Two of our keynote speakers left me wondering, because I did not hear a satisfactory answer, why can seemingly well informed speakers not see the educational value in a well run laptop program?

Perhaps, due to time restraints, they simply could not distinguish between poorly implemented and successful programs? Perhaps it is because laptop programs are difficult to implement and many, as we have all witnessed, do not provide a significant return on investment. If that is the case a qualification to their statements would have been welcome.

Two attempted answers were, new technologies will replace laptops and having 30 children sitting behind computer screens is an unacceptable vision of education. Neither of these is a particularly satisfactory answer. I’d offer these are exactly why laptops have value to classrooms. We need students to have access to computers but we don’t want desktops cluttering our learning spaces. Responding to the second answer, wait for the next new technology drives the discussion to one of technology rather than “how do we best inspire learners to ‘own’ their learning experience”.

cheers,
John

PS To reveal my bias - I am part of a team implementing a laptop programme.

[Paul White]

Hi John,

I agree with you. We talk about web 2.0, but without connected students, it only supports learning outside the classroom. If you want to know more about my views, watch the video of my presentation One-to-One Computing.

[Jason de Nys]

Paul, your presentation cemented in my mind that tablets are the way to go in any laptop programme. In addition the phased roll-out you spoke of was eminently sensible and you seemed to have thought through potential problems before they occurred; like access to sufficient loan computers and control software for the teachers. In contrast, at one of the other sessions that I attended it was obvious that the school administration had not thought it through quite so well with staff feeling unsupported in their learning of how to use the technology and problems arising due to laptops being rolled-out school-wide at the outset.

What I got from Jamie MacKenzie's keynote was that the people in charge aren't interested in waiting four years to implement a laptop programme with due consideration of all the potential stumbling blocks, they want it now so that they can bask in the glory of their visionary initiatives. One kind of hopes that this isn't the case but human nature being what it is...
The story he related of the school where they had laptop and non-laptop classes was just ludicrous.

[Peter Woodhead]

I picked up the same message and was also interested in their position on laptops. From what i have read the evidence of laptops transforming learning is thin but this is not to say to can't happen. I would argue that the problem with poorly implemented schemes is the failure of SLT's to declare the true purpose .. for one.. and secondly to to fail to address the impact on curriculum design, assessment frameworks, pedagogy and the learning environment. If these are ignored then you get replication, a lot of frustration and confusion!. From my observations it can also increase the digital divide between those who understand how technology can change learning and those who don't.

[Paul McMahon]

John, I really want to pick up on the last comment about inspiring learners to "own" their learning experience. I am not sure that the equation is as simple as laptop programme=inspired learners.
We we started on our laptop programme in 1999 in Western Australia, I insisted that we were on an "enhanced learning programme" and that I was open to any tool that we could put in the hands of the kids to ensure that they were doing was creative and extended them. It took me 6 years to get teachers to understand that they needed to shift and not just look to make the laptop support what they had been doing for the last however many years they had been teaching prior to the introduction of the laptops. I must confess to not knowing how open ended investigation/project based or inquiry oriented the Alberta curriculum is (or is that Ontario?) but the Western Australian one allowed for this but many teachers saw secondary in particular as a preparation, at least in part for the external university entrance examinations. As a result, parents, senior management and even students gave a lot of positive reinforcement to traditional, content based teaching. Let me tell you that the students did not "own" this learning but wanted it all the same.
To my mind, we need to be supported to look at the sort of skillset that we want to see demonstrated in students on exiting our schools. We need to have inspirational leadership in our school that supports "onwnership" of learning and not just a narrow focus on examination scores. We need to also be confident that if we encourage a true love of learning our students will excel.
I featured an innovative school that I have read about in my presentation. It is Hsinchu International School in Taiwan. They have a very innovative curriculum model that is partly described thus: "A truly innovative 21st Century Curriculum whose philosophy is supported by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Harvard University’s Project Zero, Brown University, Columbia University, The George Lucas Educational Foundation and many others" See http://www.hdis.hc.edu.tw/depts/sec_dept/sec_curr/sec_curr.html
Sometimes these things do not ring true when you look deeper. When you look at the blogs that are set up by Brent Loken, Director of Curriculum and Innovation, you can see that kids really are engaging in deep thought.
Now it happens that the school is 1:1 with Macs, which appears to be the choice of many. I would argue that they could do the same with other mobile devices as well. It is really not about the laptop, the network, the tools but the underpinning philosophy. I am sure that you and I could both point to examples of poor implementations of the best technology!
To misquote a former leader: "It's about the learning stupid!"

[John D'Arcy]

Thanks for the responses to my reflection.

Paul, Your presentation was excellent. Thanks for sharing the video. I am sorry that I did not do the same.

Jason, I take your point that Jamie's point was largely about the nature of leadership. That his primary example was about poorly implemented notebooks programmes was simply an example.

Paul, I agree with your summation. It is true that it is "all about the learning" and anyone who thinks that learning will come out of any technology - notebook, tablet, desktop, or the ball point pen - does not understand the complexities of the teaching and learning equation. My concern is that to dismiss the power of notebooks is akin to throwing out the baby with the bath water. If the issue is authentic learning, and I do believe this is our common goal, let's talk about that. Let's find the best technologies that are available today that can assist teachers to engage kids. For one of our keynotes to suggest that notebooks are not part of that discussion is rather simplistic.

As with all of IT initiatives - it is not about the technology, it is about the learning. If a teacher can inspire deep, authentic learning with a ball point pen kudos to that teacher. If teachers can be engaged more deeply in their learning with any digital tool we should be exploring those options.

To close, the keynote speakers were excellent and their ideas have been the source of many super discussion over the past few days. Our team has been inspired.

cheers,
John

[Paul White]

Hi John - it is very confusing with all these Pauls in this discussion.

Thanks for your comments about my presentation – I feel the only reason that a school would not go with tablets in one-to-one is the cost. It is of course important to avoid comparing the cost of a top of the range tablet with a cheap and cheerful laptop.

– Best of luck with your one-to-one

Paul White

[Terry Lindeman]

Computers are useless until schools value education over test scores. All the research points to the fact that if computers/tech is used correctly then kids will learn. They may not do well on the test, but they will learn.
The real question is does education value learning or a final scores. Until the value changes, teachers will neither have the incentive nor the time to use laptops effectively in class.

[Wesley Fryer]

Terry: I wouldn't go so far as to say "computers are useless." In the 1:1 laptop programs in West Texas with which I've been involved, there is a big impact in providing digital access for students even if the schools don't fully embrace immersed learning. I agree that helping teachers change practice is key. I do think, however, laptop programs can have a positive impact even in cases where the school philosophies of instruction remain very traditional. I certainly am not saying school leaders shouldn't "shift" thinking about pedagogy in a 1:1 environment: they/we should. Even when that thinking hasn't changed or is slow to change, however, laptops can and do have a positive impact in bridging the digital divide and providing greater access not only for students at home but also members of their families.

[Wayne Hodgkinson]

I have been following these threads with interest. I am in a school that has a 1:1 tablet program, which I initially approached with excitement. However after two years, most staff are predominantly doing the same old thing as we have always done, except on much more expensive computers, rather than cheaper paper, so I feel there is a lot of cost and not a lot of benefit to the students.

I feel a lot of this is down to the direction we have been taking. Much PD we have received has been about cool new programs that are available and very little about the change in pedagogy (and the way we think) that is required to really use these tablet as a new, different and improved teaching aides. I saw so many cool ways to use the technology available (at 21C) to really utilise the tablets for our kids. We are locked down to not using websites "off our internal Portal" and I really feel until these policies change, we can never utilise the tablets to their fullest.

For anyone out there looking into introducing a 1:1 program, it is not about the technology, but about changing the way we do things. This takes time and to expect staff to work their fulltime job (read 5 different classes), and introduce new technology into their teaching, teach the kids about the new technology (not all kids just "pick it up") and, at the same time, change the way we think is not realistic. This takes (a lot of) time to implement well.

On the other hand, many now talk about removing the mantle of being tied to content. Sorry, but most kids in our international schools still need to pass content-driven exams to get into colleges of their choice. I have heard several times that the IBO is about to change, so we can change away from content driven education. Ten years ago, there were similar expectations about the IBO changing and nothing came of it. We can all talk about giving our kids a "better" education, but one of our aims has to be to prepare these kids for these (content laden) exams, or we do these kids a disservice. I guess, like teachers of every other generation, we walk a tightrope with conflicting pressures on each side, neither of which is “right”.