|
Moving the technology agenda
Cheryl Lemke talks about what it means to be educated and literate in a digital age. By Melissa Burgos Brown SCR*TEC It's really not about the boxes and wires. It's about what we do across those boxes and wires and with those boxes and wires so that we enhance and enrich the human intelligence that we have. --Cheryl Lemke |
 heryl Lemke,
Director of the Milken Exchange on Educational Technology and Vice President,
Educational Technology for the Milken Family Foundation, has worked as a professional
educator for more than 20 years. Here, she suggests that school districts really
shouldn't have a technology plan, they should have a school improvement plan that
has technology as an important component in it. |
Cheryl Lemke, Director of the Milken Exchange on Educational Technology
and Vice President of Educational Technology for the Milken Family Foundation.
|
How did you first
get interested in educational technology? Well originally my interests stem from my work as a high school instructor/teacher for mathematics. I started in the late 1970s understanding that technology was up and coming and my students needed to be able to use it as a tool for mathematics. And so I began, you're going to laugh when you hear this, I began on a TRS-80. I went to a National Science Foundation workshop in the summer for teachers in Washington State and then began on a TRS-80 Model 1 with 4k and a tape drive. Oh my goodness. I mean it's been a long time! And I wrote a lot of programs, especially for math analysis and trigonometry, where my students could do exploration through the use of those programs. The only thing that came with the machine was BASIC and so I wrote all of the programs that I used with my students myself. |
| You wrote them
yourself? Yes, isn't that amazing? It has been a long time. There were no word processors on it, there were no spreadsheets. There were no databases at that time. We had to create whatever we wanted. What I did was in the math analysis and trigonometry areas where students could put in various, you know, y=3/4 sin(X) and kind of see, if they changed some of the coefficients, what would happen to the graph, because it graphed it automatically. And so they could get a sense of that by just playing with the graph. This was tremendous at that time, we didn't really have much of that, so the kids really learned a lot by doing that. |
| Did you realize
even then that technology would be so widespread now? I think all of us thought that there was great potential for it. I remember in the early 80s when I began to do a lot of staff development and professional development for teachers, being a teacher myself I just did it at night as an adjunct professor for one of the colleges and universities in Washington state. I thought to myself, "Well gee, this is a niche that will go away within the next five years, because the colleges of education would begin to do all of the necessary preparation for teachers." And here we are today, many years later, and we're still doing a lot of inservice rather than preservice in the area of technology. We haven't really caught up with that in our preservice programs. |
|
Most of the people I talk with who are advocates for, not for technology,
but for using technology in intelligent, thoughtful ways ... are not
suggesting that arts programs or industrial arts programs be cut. Instead,
I think what they're suggesting is that technology adds a new dimension
to that kind of program. |
I've visited the
live virtual debate that the Milken Exchange is currently hosting and
that you are monitoring, which has to do with Todd Oppenheimer's controversial
article "The Computer Delusion." One of the things he claims is that
arts programs and shop programs and various other programs are being
cut to put technology in instead, do you see that happening? Well, I think that schools are making hard choices and in some cases they may be cutting back on some programs. Most of the people I talk with who are advocates for, not for technology, but for using technology in intelligent, thoughtful ways that really do improve student learning, are not suggesting that arts programs or industrial arts programs be cut. Instead, I think what they're suggesting is that technology adds a new dimension to that kind of program. Let me give you an example. In Illinois we had a Museum in the Classroom project where we had an art teacher who was teaching three dimensional art get involved. You know, we really admire and believe that the arts programs are very, very important. So what we did was connect them with Adler Planetarium, in this case, and other museums in other cases. And they actually came together and the students actually looked at the issue of sundials and did a lot of exploration with the astronomy and physics specialists at the Adler Planetarium. As a result of that, students in the art program got really heavily into mathematics behind the pieces of work that are, sundials. They were able to, not only produce artistically beautiful sundials, but they were also able to make sure that those sundials were mathematically and scientifically correct so they actually were functional. And that was an interesting connection. Then they were able to put these in QuickTime virtual reality so that a piece of three-dimensional work that these students did on sundials, could actually rotate on screen so that the person who's visiting a Web site could actually look at it. So I guess my reaction is that I do not believe that art programs should be cut. I think in some cases that may be happening, that's not something that we certainly support at all. And one of the things that I suggest to you in looking at the Todd Oppenheimer article is that he has not answered the question, "Where is his data coming from?" He does have a very specific quote in that article that suggests that our data is faulty because it's based a lot on anecdotes, yet if you look through his article, his entire premises are based on anecdotes and particular instances that he will cite rather than hard data of wide-scale background. |
| How do you see
technology being best used in schools? One of the things that I think needs to happen is that the public and policy makers, in particular, need to become more aware of what questions to ask. Right now the questions they're asking are very simplistic. They're asking questions like, "Does technology work?" And what they really are asking behind that question is, "Is it raising test scores?" And I guess my suggestion to them would be to ask better questions. Such as, under what conditions, for what purposes, with which audiences does technology work effectively? One of the things that we're suggesting is that school districts should actually take a look at their learning programs and say to themselves, "Where is it that we're currently not achieving in ways that we really would like to? Is it in the science area? Am I losing a large percentage of my students who don't go on to chemistry and physics? Or is it in reading programs where I'm not having students read the grade level that I really want them? Or is it in the fact that I teach a lot of science and social studies, but when kids go out into business and industry, they're not able to apply it, so they don't have any relevency or see any relevency to the conceptual learning? What is it that I'm really trying to solve here?" And then go after that, using technology as one of the many tools that you use. So there are a couple of ways that I see it [technology] as really critical. One is: We live in a digital age. Students will not be able to succeed in the workplace unless they have fluency with those digital tools, so that's one. A second one is that: We have always failed, school districts have always failed about 20 to 25 percent of our student population. They're called our dropouts. And my suggestion to people is that if we focus on the basic skills in the academic standards for that 25 percent of the population, but approach it in new ways that make it more relevant and engaging to students, I think that we can stop having those students fall through the cracks. We can then begin to actually better prepare them in the basic skills in the academic standards by presenting material and presenting a learning environment that is much more inviting to them where they really can succeed where they haven't before. So from those two perspectives, I think it's extremely important. |
| You brought up
an interesting point because, when people talk about technology, they
often talk about student achievement in terms of standardized test scores
going up. So what I understand you're saying is that they should look
at many other aspects or ways that technology can impact children. So
you believe that they should look at the bigger picture? Well right, it's almost like having someone come to a doctor's office and they say, "I'm not feeling well" and the doctor takes their temperature and says "You're temperature is 98.6, you're fine" and sends them home, rather than using a variety of measures to see what the real true health of that patient really is. It's the same thing in schools. Even when we look at a baseball figure we look at a batting average, we look at if they're a pitcher, we look at that aspect of their career. We need multiple methods of assessment in order to really figure out how students are doing and how they're learning and whether or not they're actually being prepared to live, learn, and work in the digital age that they're living in. Right now, most people are just basing the success of school districts on standardized tests. Unfortunately, those standardized tests are not always in sync with the true knowledges and abilities that students really need out in the world in order to succeed. So we need some new ways to assess how children are working. One of the ways that needs to come into play is this whole idea of technological fluency, which includes information literacy in this new age where we're bombarded with information. Can students navigate their way around this chaotic environment that they have, called the Web? Do they have the wherewithal to not only do that, but also analyze and synthesize and evaluate so they transform that data into information and that information into wisdom. That's the real power. So it's really not about the boxes and wires, it's about what we do across those boxes and wires and with those boxes and wires so that we enhance and enrich the human intelligence that we have. |
| In your experience
working with teachers do you find that, as a whole, most teachers have
a positive outlook about making these big changes or do find that many
teachers are wary of incorporating technology into their classrooms. I think it's a combination. It hits the gamut from people who aren't interested in technology to people who are extreme advocates for it. And I think there's something to be said for people who have a healthy skepticism. One of the things we need to do is we need to make sure that we're thoughtful and intelligent about how we use these tools. I don't think it should be used for everything. I think we should be very, very careful of where we use it and how we use it and with whom we use it. My experience with teachers has been that, the bottom line for business and industry is money, the bottom line for teachers has always been, is this an important thing for my students and how will my students benefit from my bringing this new technology into the classroom. And so, I think that, if and when the teachers are convinced that this is a critical part of basic education, they will be interested in it. And I think they will begin to use it when we build the capacity of the system to really bring this into schools in a very healthy and exciting and robust way. |
|
What we need to do instead is to figure out the power and the potential
of what technology really brings to this society today and then decide
what it means to be educated and literate in the digital age. |
Many school districts
don't have inservice training in place. We need to understand that if we are expecting it to be a transparent tool, a learning tool in our schools, then we do have to invest in it. We have to invest not only in the initial support of it, but in the training that goes with it and the software and the updating and the modernization. So it's an ongoing, continuous progression that's not just a one-time thing. And we have to support teachers in kind of 'mucking' around with it and seeing where it's possible to really bring it in that will help students and then honor them when they explore with it, they learn with it, they grow with it. And in some cases they're going to make mistakes with it and it's not going to be of much value. We need to be sure that we support them through that whole exploratory process that they go through. Where do you suggest that schools who are just beginning the technology integration process turn to for guidance? My suggestion to school districts in particular is that they not do this in isolation from their community. One of the most critical things they can do, if they're just beginning or if they're thinking of revising a particular technology plan or a learning plan that they have, that they involve their community and that they draw that community in. Then with community members at the table, look at all the possibilities that technology and telecommunications brings to learning so that a strong vision is established that is supported by the community, as well as the educators, as well as the students. Let me give you two scenarios. One scenario is, and I have seen school districts do this, where they really do understand that what we're doing is we're trying to get students ready for a digital age. We're trying to get them onto the Internet to do significant research, to do the analysis, to construct knowledge, to really empower kids in critical thinking and problem solving, and within the context of that, those basic skills and academic standards. If they understand that, then they will go far and if they always keep that in mind, they will make good decisions and continue to grow. I've also seen communities or schools that have said, "Well what I'm going to try to do is continue what I've always done, but I'm just going to buy computers and telecommunications in order to do it." That fails oftentimes because they don't really have that vision. So I'm suggesting to you that, dollars follow vision, results follow vision, and if you don't know where you're going, you'll probably never get there. So be very careful at the front end. Now it doesn't mean that you have to have a 100 page technology plan that is very detailed and succinct, because in some cases what you need is a strategic framework. Things happen and change so quickly. If you have it embedded in everybody's mind's eye, what it is you're trying to accomplish and have that general guideline of student learning is what it's about and new ways to empower students to do very significant things that are relevant and connected to the academic standards through that relevancy, they really will be on the right track. |
| Finally, I wanted
to ask if you're working on any new projects at the Foundation for the
coming year? Yes, yes we're working on several. One is we're working in cooperation with ISTE, the International Society for Technology in Education, to bring to closure the identification of student standards for technological fluency. ISTE's done such a marvelous job of pulling some drafts together, we hope through our convening groups around those drafts, we'll be able to help ISTE bring closure to it. And there will be some consensus about, "What is technological fluency? Do you require that it's, within the school system, in a separate curriculum or do you integrate it into the academic standards?" A second one that we're exploring is in the area of assessment. Once you establish those standards, are there some new assessment instruments that you need in order to really figure out how students are doing in that arena. We are beginning to convene groups to explore things in that arena, so technology assessment. A third area is an area that we hope to publish a document by April on. That is, "How do you assess the progress that a school district or a state is making in moving toward technological fluency for learners?" We convened a group in December. It was a national group including state technology directors, the education commission of the states, the National School Board Association, the American Library Association, and just a number of people who represent a variety of groups and brought them in to react to a framework that we had put together in six areas. What we're trying to do is say, 'if we were going to collect data or take a snapshot in time of a school district and how they're making progress in technology in schools, what questions would we try to get answered by collecting data? What data elements are the core elements that we would collect to answer those questions? |
| So you would want
to make the Milken Exchange to be the central source of this information
once it is collected? Actually, a combination of things, one is, we would like to convene researchers from across the nation in dialogues and conversations and discussions about what do we know to date about technology in schools and what kinds of research projects are needed to move us forward in that knowledge base, so that researchers from across the country are not, again, reinventing the wheel, but talking through with each other and collaborating and partnering where possible. So that's one. Another one is that there needs to be one source in the nation where people can come and say "I want the latest research on what's going on, and not only that, I also want to know, if there isn't any research on this, who's involved now in a project that will have some results shortly and if they're in the interim steps, can I contact them?" So we have not accomplished that yet, but again, you're asking what we are looking for in the future and that is certainly one of them. And another might be, we anticipate doing more work with the public. This month we are conducting public forums on education technology to get at, in a more in depth, concrete way--what does the public really mean when they say they support technology in schools? And what is it they're really expecting from this public investment in technology in schools? |
| Is there anything
else you would like to say to our readers? Well I would like to say that we believe that there are four major ways to move the technology agenda at all levels and I think that two of them have been used a lot in the past. One is mandates. Where a school district or a state or even the federal government will mandate something. We think mandates are important because of the equity issue but we don't think they're sufficient. The second one is incentives. We think there are a lot of incentives right now because there's more and more money being invested for technology in schools. But I think that there are two other strategies that haven't been used well in the past that are critical if this is going to succeed. One is capacity building. We think that the power of this change process that needs to happen, if the full potential of technology is going to be realized, is locally. Decisions have to be made locally. But teachers and administrators and community members won't be able to do that unless their capacity is built to make those good decisions locally. And that means that there's a lot of resources out there. There's a lot of training. There's a lot of awareness that has to happen in order for the system to evolve in very significant ways. And the next one is system changing, that we are now in the process of trying to bring new contemporary technology into an antequated, industrial age system. We need to change that system so that it works better with the new tools that we've got. On the one hand you don't want to see administrators say, use technology in this way but then rewarding people for behaviors that support the old system. So we've got to break down those barriers and there's a lot of barriers out there. Let me give you a simple example. In a lot of cases what we're saying is technology is so expensive, that we have to partner with local community, we have to partner with local business, we have to partner between the K-12 system, the community college system, the library system, and the higher ed system. But when you look at the way that you get legislative dollars to do that, the systems are built very separately. So when you try to bring them together through this infrastructure, you hit a lot of barriers. There's a lot of problems with the system when you try to cross those geographic and political boundaries that we must do if we're going to economically get technology in schools. The other one is staff development. We need a lot of staff development that's very different than it's been before. We need a lot of staff development that's at the building level, where teachers can get together within a building get together and say, "We've got all these new tools, how can we better correspond and interact about students so that we use the tools to their benefit. How can we change the history curriculum and the math curriculum and the social studies curriculum to do this?" They need time and they need support and resources in order to do that. But the only staff development that we really honor right now is the pull-out model, sending teachers away to learn more about it when we've got to begin to support them to take that stuff that they've learned while they've been away and apply it here. It's going to take a lot of change and interaction. So those are two small examples of that. But those capacity builders and system changing, I think are going to be critical so that we don't just say, 'Now, teachers you've got these tools so just go do it,' you've really got to build their capacity, so they're staged to be successful once they begin to use these tools. |
| You're right,
many teachers go to great workshops and are enthusiastic about incorporating
positive changes into their classroom, but we've found that, without
support and follow-up after the workshop, that enthusiasm dies down.
You know, part of what we've been suggesting to school districts and states is that, there really shouldn't be a technology plan, there should be a school improvement plan, that has technology as an important component in it. I think if we approach it from that perspective, people will see that the real important piece of this is the learning. It's not the boxes and wires, but the boxes and wires are important aspects of basic education today. |
|
