top of page
Search

Sophistry Abides - But Frankly It Needs To Move Along

Writer's picture: darryl487darryl487


I will do my best to avoid coming off as snarky or condescending as I attempt to address the fallacies, shortcomings and other issues I have with the article, “The EdTech Revolution Has Failed” by Jared Cooney Horvath published at After Babel on Nov 12, 2024. Please do, however, allow me to push the edge a bit with the title of my article. I was going to call it, “Tell Me You Know Nothing About Education or Education Technology Without Actually Saying You Know Nothing About Education or Education Technology” but I was concerned that title had a pretty high snark value associated with it so I dialed it back a notch.


My disdain for the article began almost immediately. In fact I couldn’t even make it past the Introduction written in part by Jon Haidt, one of my least favorite authors of the day, without making copious notes in the margins. Beyond the smug plug for his own book, the introduction highlighted a number of underlying themes from the article that are…well…wrong. The best way to break down and correct the article may be to point out the underlying assumptions and indicate why they are wrong. So here we go.


Fallacy #1 - Schools deploy 1 to 1 computer programs to improve test scores. Wrong. It’s about the learning.


At Fort Worth Academy, we were very clear about the “why” behind our 1 to 1 program in the two year lead up to its launch in 2007. We were adamant about one fact, improving test scores was not among our “whys”. Why? Because our students were already performing very well. While independent schools are not required to administer ridiculous state standardized tests, we did and do still make use of tests that helped us assess our students’ knowledge and understanding across many areas of educational content. Furthermore, these assessments ranked our students with their peers across the country in these content areas. These assessments indicated that our students were doing quite well academically for the years ahead of our 1:1 initiative and frankly for years after its launch.


So why then did we roll out our 1 to 1 computer initiative? Because computers were (and still are!) relevant and important tools of the modern world that facilitates learning. In his book, “Creative Schools”, Sir Ken Robinson says a fundamental purpose of school is not to increase test scores but to facilitate learning. Sure, the facilitation of learning can lead to improved test performance (I don’t see American education systems abandoning or abolishing the dreaded testing anytime soon) but that isn’t, nor should it be, the goal of education technology initiatives. We all know that textbooks, last century’s mode of facilitating learning, can become outdated or at a minimum less relevant shortly after their printing. It’s a fact of the speed at which the world turns these days, just ask Pluto. Educational resources available to students digitally not only remain relevant but can also employ the latest tools and techniques to help students learn even more, even more efficiently and (I think this is super important) at their own pace and interest levels.


The bottom line here on fallacy #1: About the line, “(EdTech) has not delivered the academic benefits once promised.”, I’m not sure who these folks are that promised better test scores but it wasn’t anyone I know who rolled out 1:1 initiatives like we did. The author would do well to remember the words of Elliot Eisner, one of the leading academic minds of our time, who said, “Not everything important is measurable, and not everything measurable is important.”


Fallacy #2 - digital devices undermine or overwhelm pedagogy due to their distraction factor. Wrong. Digital devices should be part of the pedagogy.


Let’s start by making sure we all know what the definition of pedagogy is. From dictionary.com:


pedagogy

[ ped-uh-goh-jee, -goj-ee ]

noun, plural ped·a·go·gies.

the function or work of a teacher; teaching.

the art or science of teaching; education; instructional methods.


Back to our 1:1 rollout at FWA for a moment. Because computers were (and again, still are!) relevant and important tools of the modern world that facilitate learning, they continue to be tools our students need to understand. And therefore, it was our job at FWA to teach them how to best use them. So the function of the work of our teachers, or the pedagogy, was to teach the students how to use the computers. Or said another way, the digital devices were the pedagogy! The article author suggests that students “...have spent thousands of hours training themselves to use digital devices…”. There is the actual issue! No one is helping the students manage the use of these devices, especially in an educational setting! Every Kindergarten teacher understands that deploying any new learning tool is fraught with distraction (counting bears…anyone?). Consequently, their pedagogy is centered around helping their students manage that distraction so that ultimately, learning can occur. I submit that today’s digital distraction factor comes, in large part, from educational institutions’ departure from modern, relevant pedagogy that includes the effective use of digital tools.


In his book, “A New Childhood - Raising Kids to Thrive in a Connected World”, Dr. Jordan Shapiro says the purpose of school is to teach kids how to express themselves using the tools that currently shape their world. Educational institutions who ignore the impact of digital devices on the modern world, something I’ve come to refer to as “The Ostrich Principle” (before you hate on me, yes, I know ostriches do not really bury their heads in the sand…but you knew what I meant!), does nothing but further students’ belief that school is disconnected from the real world. I might also submit an alternative correlation between declining standardized test scores and the implementation of 1:1 programs. Could it be that while students gained a broader understanding of what the real world looks like through their digital devices, they began to see this educational institution vs real-world disconnect? Further, perhaps the devices illuminated the fact that the standardized testing in no way represents skills they need to be successful and therefore, their value became greatly discounted to them? When was the last time a sales and marking executive took a standardized test as a part of their professional life?


The bottom line here is that the only way to overcome the distraction factor related to digital devices is to make them a central part of the pedagogical process.


Fallacy #3 - EdTech is defined as the digital device alone. Wrong. Education technology is as much or more about how the devices are used by the student than about the device itself.


Allow me to share a memory from my childhood that I will connect to an analogy of fallacy #3. As a kid, my favorite afterschool activity was to grab a heaping tablespoon of peanut butter and plop myself down in front of the TV and watch my favorite shows…talk about unproductive screen time, there it was. One of my favorite shows was “Gilligan’s Island”. Yes, I’m showing my age but so be it. If you’re unfamiliar with the show, a bit of backstory is essential for the understanding of my forthcoming analogy. The show was about 7 folks who were castaways on a deserted island and the daily calamities that ensued as they awaited the rescue that never came. In this particular episode of memory, Gilligan was dreaming that they were on the island but they were there during the stone age. And in this episode, the professor (he was the smart one of the gang) invented the wheel which he said would make their lives remarkably better. He mounted the wheel on the end of a pole and gave it to Gilligan to use. Cut to the next scene and we see Gilligan stumbling across the island pushing the pole with the wheel in one hand while carrying a load of items in the other hand. In no way was he using the power of this great tool the professor created, rather the way he was using it made his chore even more difficult. This is exactly the plight of EdTech in far too many K-12 educational institutions across the country.


Because the computer is used as an add-on, as only the S in the SAMR model, students and teachers alike struggle with the device's relevance just as Gilligan struggled pushing the wheel along without even remotely using its real, inherent value. And again, its real value is not in the improved test scores but in facilitating learning. Let me ask, which has more future value to students, using the computer to take notes in class or using the computer to learn how to produce an admission video that is to be shared with prospective students visiting the school? Let me help you with the answer. Creating an admission video represents real world skills. Using video and audio editing software to edit video shot on a smartphone around campus showing “a day in the life of an XYZ school student” is relevant education and learning. That is, by the way, an actual project I’ve done with students that was fueled by an EdTech Revolution that is in no way failing.


The bottom line here is, focusing just on the device while ignoring what is being done with the device is wrong. It is the reason the American Association of Pediatrics no longer focuses on a random time limit on screen time but rather advocates an understanding of how that screen time is being used in order to maintain healthy relationships with devices. https://www.healthychildren.org/English/family-life/Media/Pages/kids-and-screen-time-how-to-use-the-5-cs-of-media-guidance.aspx


A couple more observations from the article:


First, to suggest that effective or sound pedagogy should “select the tool” or “will rarely be dependent upon digital tools” indicates to me that the author has a very narrow, 18th or 19th century view of pedagogy…as do many in educational leadership today particularly across the public school domain, sadly enough. The roots of public education and many of its practices today remain almost indistinguishable from its 1700s Prussian Education System counterparts. If anything in education has failed, it is this undeniable clinging to ancient educational rituals seen in schools every day. The EdTech Revolution is likely the only breakthrough modern and relevant aspect to school that keeps many students coming back day after day. I’ve seen the engagement and the investment students make in their own education when modern tools and real world environments are brought into the classroom. The EdTech Revolution is passing with flying colors in those institutions that embrace it as a foundational aspect central to their student’s future success.


Next, with respect to the ridiculous notion that “student-facing digital devices should be confined to a dedicated computer lab within school; they should not be freely available whenever and wherever.”, FWA had a computer lab that we dismantled prior to our 1:1 rollout…another “why” behind our program. Why? Because we felt it was ineffective to send a student off to a special room to use a device in complete isolation, away from all of the core curriculum of the classroom. A Bunsen burner has little relevance in an 8th grade English classroom. A ban saw has little relevance to a 7th grade American History classroom. Those comparisons to the applicability of a computer are laughable.


Yes, the computer is just a tool. But it’s the most powerful tool for learning ever built. And unlike the Bunsen burner and ban saw, the computer does have relevance in every academic discipline. To deprive the core curriculum and learning of that power and relevance and the ability to create modern, real world environments was and is, simply put, a disservice to our students. I would ask this of the article author, how many modern, corporate work environments isolate computers in a lab within the organization? None that I’ve ever been a part of. By the way, I spent the first 20 years of my professional career in corporate finance and accounting for several large and small corporations and in every position I was hired for, the first tool I was assigned was a computer to sit on my desk. That’s how the real world works. So if schools are really in the business of preparing students for their future, the same must be done.


Additionally, some aspects of the article lead me to believe that the author is not an educator and has spent little, if any, time in a PreK-12 classroom setting. For example, “I am not arguing against having hope for EdTech; there is a good chance that somebody will someday create a program that outshines even the best teachers in the world.” No one in education technology today or at any point in the past has ever hoped or even suggested that technology can or will someday replace teachers. No one. EVER. Period. What a ridiculous statement.


Another is the idea that multiple areas of curriculum cannot or should not be taught using the same pedagogy? Here is that statement, “...you might believe we should teach table manners to students (curriculum), but that’s different than arguing we should teach all classes in a dining room over dinner (pedagogy).” Obviously, the author is unaware of popular pedagogical models such as project/problem based learning, personalized learning or experiential learning. In fact, in a glaring example of how the author's analogy is actually quite valid, I would offer up High Point University’s 1924 Prime restaurant. HPU, for those not in the know, is an extraordinary, highly experiential learning and life skills institution in the wonderful community of High Point, North Carolina. 1924 Prime is a restaurant that is in fact a classroom. From their own website, “1924 Prime is an immersive learning lab that enables students to develop life skills including business and social etiquette skills and an understanding of global cultures and cuisine.” So they actually do use the dining room over dinner to help students learn multiple skills!


In conclusion, my rebuttal here may not be plagued with deep evidentiary based support. But I can assure you, in the everyday world of education and in the schools I have the pleasure of working with, the revolutionary optimism of the remarkable benefits of education technology is in no way fading. I have lived this for decades. Are there issues with EdTech? Absolutely. However, the banning of anything is rarely ever a solution for overcoming issues. Rolling the clock of societal advances back 30 years to a time where pencil and paper were the primary educational tools does nothing to prepare our students for the realities of and success in the modern world.


Finally, let me share what I found as the ultimate twist of almost obscured irony and the point in which I realized this article was unworthy of the time I spent reading it…buried somewhere near the end of the article, the author shares a revelation that the issues he so readily blames on the digital devices, “...lack of attention, shallow thinking, overconfidence, and other(s)...” actually existed before those devices were ever introduced into the classroom. Maybe he should have led with that.

8 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


For Daily Motivation

Thanks for subscribing!

© 2035 by Naomi Rhyme. Powered and secured by Wix

bottom of page