In my previous post (here) I referenced an upcoming event at SFU, Targeting Technology for Maximum Student Benefit. To think out loud a bit, as well as to garner some ideas, I want to take a look at a number of issues that need to be unpacked, and to create some models for comment, pushback and refinement. So, the idea is to engage in a larger conversation, but less about the case for change, and more about a tangible idea of what that change might look like.
One of the points raised in the BC Education Plan under Learning with Technology is “The Province will promote the use of technology for both students and educators.” So, why does the BC Education Plan want to promote the use of technology? Technology is only the device; it is access to the benefits of a digitized world where everything is amplified that is the greater goal. For many, this part of the education plan speaks to moving to one-to-one opportunities. In the feedback I have seen around this, many have raised concerns over equity, and how one-to-one might further divide our students into have and have-nots, and while most believe technology can help overcome barriers of access and geography, we need to ensure there is some baseline. While it plays out as ‘technology’, what so many want for their children is the benefits of digital learning — relevant, connected, unlimited.
So, given that it seems unlikely that all students will be provided with a similar device (as was done in Maine and has been done in specific grades in BC at different times), what might a model look like that embraces personally owned devices, but would also tackle the issue of equity for all?
Some underlying background assumptions:
1) If we believe technology is crucial for students moving forward, we need to find a way for all students to have a base level of access.
2) Many still argue about the merits of technology; however, without question, the world is becoming increasingly digital. Accessing content, communicating, working, learning, and all facets of life are being shaped by the ‘digitization’ of the world. For our students to thrive in this world, they need to have access AND direction.
3) All efforts need to be learning efforts; the goal is to increase personalized learning that improves engagement, relevancy, achievement, and the technology is there to support this goal.
3) Given that it is unlikely any grand plan will come together to support all students and staff with technology, implementation will be incremental.
4) Simply encouraging students to bring their own devices is not enough, or an effective strategy. The strategy must be purposeful, supported and unified for both teachers and students. Failure to do this will leave us with pockets of innovation, and without a sustainable model.
5) There will be teachers who continue to push the boundaries, who will do amazing and edgy stuff — teachers always have and always will. But, while this should be encouraged, it shouldn’t be understood as a base expectation. Not every class needs to be Skyping with students in Europe for their assignments, or producing videos to explain their work (but it’s great in classes that do).
6) To be clear, one-to-one computing is not the solution to any challenge — it may, though, be part of the answer to going forward. If we think by placing an Internet appliance in a student’s hands alone will create a more creative, innovative, or more intelligent student we are missing the point. Like the paper and pen of the last generation, it is the ‘oxygen’ to breathe in a digital world.
So, what might a strategy look like:
1) It is important to start with either one grade or one school. While this post covers the technology, there is huge support needed for staff. This is not a pilot project — this is the first step in a strategy. The ‘sweet spot’ seems to be between Grades 4 -10. The elementary level is appealing as a starting point because it is one (or very few) teacher(s) interacting with each student, and easier for early success. Grades 4-10 is also the area where learning strategies can be integrated and cross-curricular, supporting personalized learning strategies.
2) Teachers need to have the technology in their hands early on to become comfortable with it and before students are using it on a regular basis. There is also a lot of work to be done to support teachers in adopting pedagogy in this ‘new’ classroom environment.
3) We need to identify what will make the digital learning ‘sticky’ for classes and schools to enable meaningful and powerful learning; it might be digital writing through a blog, student portfolios, or digital content (e-books/content). It will need to be supported for both teachers and students, and framed around an inquiry-based approach with student ownership and teachers as guides in learning.
4) A standard about what technology works best is required. Absolutely, bring what you have, but that strategy is far from perfect. Much can be done with a smartphone, but I am not convinced it is the best device for learning. I still think a small laptop that allows for work production is currently the best device, of course, this is changing with the growth of slates (iPads) and the potential of new devices like ultrabooks.
The really big question, how do we ensure equity?
- Have students with their own devices bring them. There are more students who have them than we think, and if the case is made that students are benefiting from the learning, more families will invest in the mobile technology for school and home. If parents can be assured that an investment in Grade 4 will carry their child through for four-to-six years with their learning, many will make this choice. I am often stunned by families that buy their child a cell phone, but don’t have a computer. I am also quite comfortable in saying that if they are investing in a cell phone and not a computer there are better options to support their child’s learning. We need to help guide families with what technology will have the greatest impact in supporting their child’s learning.
- Of course, not all students will supply a computer up front, this could range from a few students to the entire class depending on the school or district. The second option would be a lease-to-own option for students. There are a number of options available with price points around $20 per month. This picks up on the cell phone argument, and a more affordable device with more value for student learning. Families could be assured their child would be getting a device that would be ideal for learning for a number of years, and could be used at school and home.
- Finally, there are students that, for many reasons (financial and otherwise) won’t embrace the first two options. We need to find ways to supply these students with a comparable technology to use at school. Many schools have class sets of laptops that could be repurposed for this project; in other cases investments will need to be made. The challenge is that the investments will be uneven (and this is difficult to do) with some schools requiring a greater percentage of investment than others.
The uptake on the first two options will determine the speed at which the program could grow. There is also a belief (as evidenced) that devices will continue to come down in price over the next few years and the $100 Internet device for schools is hopefully soon at hand. We can take the approach that laptops may likely be what calculators were for me in senior math, something that I could bring, rent or borrow.
I realize that we are far from coming to terms on the question about whether the future is every student with a device, but I do think many see that as being part of schooling in the not-so-distant future. If that is true, we need to begin test models.
If we believe this is what we want for all learners in public education, we need to find ways to make sure it is available to all learners. If we believe that all students should have a level of access, given our economic and political realities, we need to engage and explore ways for this to happen.
This is a great discussion starter piece … much better than some I have sat around a table with a bunch of principals to read. One thing that stands out for me is that it doesn’t have a single (Researcher, 1995) reference in it 🙂
There is a struggle around what would be the purpose of a BoD programme and I note that you seem to be focussing on laptops as opposed to other mobile devices such as tablets, smartphones and the like. In another discussion I was having (in a Mac district) I was talking about the iPad vs the laptop – but that mostly at the primary end of the spectrum. Laptops would certainly be my choice of BoD.
And yes, there are teachers who are amazingly comfortable with the laptops, do some very worthwhile projects and make use of the not always available COWs. There are others who are more tentative, and some who one thinks might never make the leap. For the first folks, full day access to BoD would be wonderful and for the tentative folks, inservice training is so important – and that of course brings up the political issue of ProD vs Inservice and costs.
Technically, the BoD plan would be very hard to make work with a single platform – the parental decision about the platform would so much come into play. Again, that gets to your point about making the learning powerful and not simply driven by what applications are available on the devices and servers.
Another technical factor is service and support and I know for some organizations beyond education with many fewer “clients” that can be a real issue. A 12 year old with a broken (hardware or software) device cannot reasonable wait until the money surfaces to get it fixed.
Again… lots to talk about and thanks for presenting ideas that get me thinking.
Thanks Bob – hoping we have more conversations on this. We are moving quite quickly in West Vancouver in grades 4-7, and we need to keep coming back to our learning goals around the initiative. There is value is every student having an internet appliance – but we can do so much more. It is interesting with the growth of iPads – maybe I am just showing my age, with my lack of comfort of them. I love my iPad to consume information, but any point like now, when I want to produce content – I pull out my laptop.
Thanks Chris for reminding us about the advantages of a laptop over a tablet or phone – output is important, too – and that the cost trajectory will only help matters as this process evolves over time, a nice contrast to other expenses in education. Cheers, PJ
Thanks Peter. I would be interested in what you are seeing in your part of the province- is there a particular approach to “BYOT” that is taking hold?
Hi Chris and Bob,
First of all, agree with every word.
I would raise one more topic/problem and it is the district ability to provide internet service to schools. The infrastructure and its readiness should be checked and improved.
Hi Bess – no doubt there are infrastructure assumptions built into any argument like this. With our province’s diversity, bandwidth,wireless access and even sometimes internet access are not always givens. We not only need to think about equity of devices but also infrastructure.
I think this is exactly where the conversation needs to be right now. Too many dialogues are happening around what needs to be done to support technology in schools and it is disjointed at best.
I think there really has to be clarity around the purpose of what we are doing. Lots of initiatives sound great and are, but do they take us closer to our goals. From my perspective, we are trying raise students who critically think and express themselves and technology can definitely help us in this.
However, we have some key assumptions that, if not addressed, can turn technology into a gimmick which is ineffective. One of these assumptions, like the “they all have access,” is that our students understand how to use the technology they supposedly have. During a Pro-D discussion last week, this exact issue was brought up that we believe students automatically know iMovie, but as many teachers expressed, the students did not. Classes are given the opportunity to work with mobile labs, but they do not actually get any instruction as to how this tool can help them express their ideas.
This is why if we want to have teachers working with students and technology, schools need to equip teachers to do this. Chris, you have brought up a number of important points on this and I particularly appreciate the idea of starting in focused, small ways, building success and then expanding.
Great post.
Thanks Dave – I find that are assumptions about what kids know or don’t know are way off base, and even if they technically “know” how to use the tools, they need support in how to use them as part of the learning process. It tremendously exciting, and amazingly complex. And I agree, we need to support teachers to lead this!
Hi Chris –
This is a very helpful perspective – we need the issues around equity to be addressed head on — and we need to make sure that the arts are well supported too. Too often the arts are traded off for new “devices” and our society loses the creativity and engagement the arts bring with them.
Thanks Linda. Having had the chance to see work from High Tech High and the Calgary Science Academy recently I was so impressed how the rich the arts experience was for students. Yes, both schools are technology rich, but they are not obsessed by the gizmos, but by doing things that wouldn’t be possible without the technology.
Our K-3 students at Eagle Harbour just finished working in groups writing their own scripts, based on their own ideas and learned to use imovie to make films…everything from a comedy to adventure…even a horror movie! They learned to edit, use sound and visual effects and insert graphics. First annual Film Fest Wed eve 🙂 Lots of creativity and engagement incorporating the arts and digital literacy!
Hi Val – that is fabulous. I am very curious what digital literacy looks like at k-3 and it is great that schools are experimenting with what makes sense. Sounds like a fabulous activity!
Chris
Love the dialogue! I think you’re right in the thick of it with the discussion that “technology” is not the end goal but the tool. Also love your comment that “This is not a pilot project — this is the first step in a strategy.”. I think we need to be extremely strategic with this and can’t jump into the middle with a discussion of ipad vs. laptop vs. smartphone. The technology needs to be a tool…but for what?? We first need to discuss the “what” before we discuss the tool.
Thanks Paula – I am a little tired of pilot projects. If we want it for all kids we need to plan for that. The ipad vs. laptop vs. smartphone debate is the new version of the IBM vs. Apple conversation and a distraction of our goal of improving student learning.
Oh so much to comment on…
1. Laptop over tablet. For the moment. With that said however, I am impressed with how my iDoc project is going and I am looking forward to see what the kids produce using (Primarily) the pad. Creating these mini documentaries couldn’t be done with quite the same ease with a laptop.
2. Price point is key. Even as a 1.5 income family, I balk at the thought of buying my Grade 7 daughter a laptop for use in high school. I have enough difficulty negotiating a new laptop for myself using money from the household budget.
To make matters worse my, daughter has expensive tastes and wants a Mac Book Air and I sure as shootin ain’t paying for that. As a result she is working diligently reffing soccer and babysitting to earn it for herself and she isn’t allowed to go begging to Grandma either. This is actually a FANTASTIC life lesson so it is all good but what about families who don’t live in a community where a kid can make money for themselves?
With the move to more cloud type computing, devices like the Google Chrome Book show some real promise but I don’t think the configuration is quite right yet and for some, even it with its bargain basement price, is too expensive.
3. All this talk about equitable access to devices, is moot if we don’t get kids using the technology appropriately. West Vancouver is an excellent example where access to a digital device is not all that much of an issue, yet there are some significant differences in ability to use and behaviours around appropriate use.
I am working on this with my own children. I am drilling it into their heads that technology is great for playing on but YOU HAVE TO KNOW HOW to use it effectively as a “work” tool as well. My oldest daughter wants to start a blog and she uses google docs to collaborate on school work with other kids in her class. My youngest daughter is just learning to keyboard but I have her creating a “Clibe” sketchbook where she keeps her drawings and we will publish them when she has a collection she would like to share.
Teaching kids to use digital tools, for creating a positive digital footprint is CRUCIAL but it can’t all happen at school.
I get 80 minutes every other day with my students, to try and get this idea across but I know the majority of them go home and use their time on their digital devices either gaming or social networking. For far too many kids, beyond the walls of the school they get very little exposure to using technology in a productive manner.
This is where the inequity of significance resides. It isn’t the hardware, it is how the software at the keyboard is using it.
Sorry. I will stop now.
Thanks Keith – and I know the issue of parenting is an important one to you, and is key to this and all other discussions around education. It is interesting as we see an explosion of informal learning opportunities (free courses from MIT or Khan Academy etc.) how the formal sector will evolve.
Have you had a chance to look at the SET BC projects for this year? Re:implementation. What if it was based on a goal to first address the students who do not fit the current education system? Aren’t they the ones who have the most to gain from the seemingly limitless diversity that technology can offer?
Hi Elyssa – it is a great point. I agree another interesting approach is to address those who may have the most to gain. What I have seen with iPads is that primary students and special needs students gain the most. I think some of the early examples with autistic students using iPads is amazingly powerful.
Great addition to the conversation.
From Promoting to Supporting:
Thank you, Chris, for encouraging dialogue on the topic of Technological Change and Access in our schools. It is an exciting time to be an educator, and I really appreciate your guidance and leadership in West Vancouver! I chose to comment on ‘where is the money coming from?’ because I believe we need a long term financial commitment from the Provincial Government if the elements of this plan (including the technology goals) are to be successfully implemented and supported over the longrun. I am sending my comments to the Plan’s website as well.
As a teacher, I am thrilled to hear about the province’s commitment to support teachers and students in their access to technology, and to increase flexibility in educational programming. I appreciate some of the points brought up in BC’s Education Plan http://www.bcedplan.ca such as the need for our system to be more adaptable and flexible.
“We need to build on the many strengths of our existing education system while modernizing education so it can adapt and respond to students’ needs.” (BC’s Education Plan, 2012. Pg. 3)
I think school boards (and schools) will welcome the opportunity to individualize their programs and calendars to reflect the needs of learners in their community. But I wonder where the money is going to come from to ‘legislate’ some of these changes, especially when there isn’t enough money to support the ‘class size and composition limits’ the teachers have been advocating for the past 10 years and are on strike for right now. As it stands, much of the technology purchased in my children’s school has been through PAC fundraising, and the existing computer-to-student ratio in every school across our province is different, based at least in part, on the fundraising abilities of individual schools.
BC’s Education Plan makes the point that we are going to build on our strengths. One suggestion I have is, rather than rewrite existing curriculum, which costs time and money, identify overarching principles of technology that can be easily integrated into any number of curricular strands. In 21st Century Learning, we need to keep the criteria relevant and simple, flexible and adaptable. In my classroom, I have access to laptops (almost) every day that I need them, and I integrate them across all subjects. My students use their (district initiated and supported) blogs to communicate, collaborate, and present daily writing and research projects. I don’t believe we need a new prescribed curriculum for our subjects, rather a common vision for implementing basic technological skills and tools for todays’ learners (teachers and students alike).
I applaud BC’s Education Plan for recognizing the need to support teachers in their continued professional growth, including technology goals. I am looking forward to a greater ‘professional knowledge and discretion (autonomy)’. However, I have a concern with the Plan’s focus on provincial assessment. With increased decision-making at the school board level, increased flexibility at schools, and more personalized learning for students, individual educational goals and assessment become more important. Why is there an emphasis on ‘rigorous province-wide assessment’? Certain forms of provincially administered assessment are very costly, and questionable in their merits by many educators. Perhaps another cost saving measure would be to eliminate some of these province-wide assessments.
BC’s Education Plan states that a new agreement with a major telecommunications corporation (for all government telecommunications services) will help improve Internet access in all schools. What about spreading the wealth, and giving individual boards (or schools) the ability to create contracts with other corporations? I have concerns about keeping all of our telecommunications contracts with one private vendor, especially with the volatile and dynamic nature of the technology industry and our free-market economy. Increasing the selection of companies we partner with exposes our staff and students to a broader spectrum of tools and resources. Historically, in a free-market economy, creating competition has been good for keeping costs down.
If the BC’s Education Plan’s basic principle is that ‘every learner will realize their full potential and contribute to the well-being of our province’ (pg. 5), we must support learning conditions such as class size and composition limits that foster environments in which the needs of all learners are met. Before promising money to deliver on some of the elements in BC’s Education Plan, I hope the province can promise money to support class size limits and composition, and reinstate collective agreements with its teachers. Only then, can teachers and learners maximize on their potential and achieve the goals outlined in BC’s Education Plan.
Thanks Donni for the thoughtful response. I appreciate your comments.
[…] I have to give this post my usual preface that these slides are part of the presentation I am giving on innovation in K-12, but only one part of the story. Today, I am part of an event hosted by Simon Fraser University, Targeting Technology for Maximum Student Benefit. I won’t cover the ground I have covered before as the scenario and other background on the event is available (here), as well as from a substantial post I recently wrote on the appeal of one-to-one devices in the classroom and equity (here). […]
[…] Chris Kennedy – ‘Bring Your Own Technology – And Thinking About Equity‘. […]
[…] our economic and political realities, we need to engage and explore ways for this to happen. Chris Kennedy, Superintendent […]