Microsoft Pty Ltd ICT Scholarship

2007

STUDY TOUR REPORT

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Albert Einstein

Georgia P Constanti

Assistant Principal, Hampden Park Public School

Sponsored by

Table of Contents

Preamble

In 2007 I was selected as the recipient of the Microsoft Pty Ltd Information and Communication Technologies Scholarship. This was in recognition of work done at Hampden Park Public School and in the South Western Sydney Region in integrating information and communication technologies into classroom practice. This resulted in practices that improved student engagement and student learning outcomes, and as well provided support and professional development to teachers in the region on integrating information and communication technologies into classroom practice using sound and quality pedagogy.

Overview of the study tour

The study tour facilitated by the 2007 Microsoft Scholarship consisted of visits to schools, departments of education and universities across the United States and Canada.

The institutions and people contacted are as follows:

• Paul Bentz, Alameda Community Learning Centre, San Francisco

• Rebecca A. London, Director of Research, John W. Gardner Center for Youth and Their Communities at Stanford University

• Daniel Gilbert, Stanford Centre for Innovations and Learning, Wallenberg Hall, Stanford University.

• Julia Simon, Intel Computer Clubhouse, New York

• Intel Computer Clubhouse, Boston

• The Computer School, New York

• Eric Rosenbaum, Lifelong Kindergarten, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Media Laboratory.

• Chris Garrity, Lifelong Kindergarten, MIT Media Laboratory

• Jonas Clarke Middle School, Lexington

• Jeff Mao, Maine Department of Education

• Kathleen Cutler, Principal, Auburn Middle School, Maine

• Mike McCarthy, Principal and Dave Grant, Technology Integration Coordinator, King Middle School Portland Maine.

• LeRoy Vincent and Eric Estabrook, River Valley Middle School, St John, Canada

• Todd Wright, Information Communication Technology, eLearning and Learning Resource Services, York Region District School Board, Canada and his team of specialists

• Jersey Public School, Ontario.

Many online interviews, podcasts and readings also form the basis for the research conclusions and recommendations made as part of this study tour. This includes the oz-nz teachers network on twitter and email forum, ed-tech podcasts, ABC ed-pod podcasts, edutopia magazine, podcasts and website, work/podcasts by Gary Stager, David Warlick, Wes Fryer, Liz Davis, Jeff Utech as well as recent NECC08 conference podcasts, education.au podcasts, K-12 Online Conference sessions 2006 and 2008 and numerous TED talks.

Format of this document

This document presents a synthesis of the learning that occurred during the study tour. It was decided that a detailed recount of the study tour would not be as useful as a synthesis of understandings, recommendations and practical steps for moving forward. Recordings of all interviews conducted as a part of the study tour are available upon request by sending an email to g.constanti@optusnet.com.au. Once this report is in its published form the podcasts will also be available on my blog at http://ictintegration.blogspot.com.

Focus of the study tour

The study began with the following question at its core:

“How do we bridge the technology divide that is developing due to disadvantage and how is equity being achieved for the disadvantaged allowing them the benefit of improved learning outcomes supported by ICT?”

There is a digital divide that has developed along socioeconomic lines. The students with access to technology have a greater opportunity to be prepared for the 21^st century. This lack of access in disadvantaged communities proves to further accentuate and perpetuate the disadvantage. (Lloyd et. al. 2000, Holloway 2005)

As the study tour progressed and a review of the current literature was undertaken, it became obvious that this initial question, although very relevant, had much too narrow a focus.

Efforts are being made globally to get technology into the hands of students, including those from disadvantaged communities. In New South Wales the Department of Education and Training (the Department) has implemented a Technology 4 Learning program over the past 5 years, which delivers a consistent rollout of computers to public schools in NSW. More recently the Department has embarked on the Connected Classrooms project, which is beginning to bring video conferencing technologies to schools. The Australian Federal Government is driving a laptop initiative for students in their senior years of schooling named the Digital Education Revolution. On a more global scale a project being driven by Nicholas Negroponte (MIT Media Lab. co-founder and director) to develop the $100 laptop in the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) initiative and distribute the laptops on a large scale to schools in Brazil, Nigeria, Thailand, Uruguay, Peru and India. (One Laptop per Child Association 2008a, 2008b)

So efforts are being made to get technology into the hands of the students. Large educational organizations are continuously endeavoring to use their buying power to provide these programs. To focus this study tour on merely getting technology into the hands of students would be a ‘low level’ activity - remaining in the very knowledge based stages of thinking.

The big question instead will be, “How will technology be used to improve student learning outcomes, thus moving students into the 21^st century?” There would need to be a paradigm shift. To bridge the digital divide, students need access to technology but then what? Access alone would not be enough to prepare our students for the 21^st century.

The core question therefore of this study tour became:

• “How do we prepare students for the 21^st century?”

Contributing questions would then be:

• “What are 21^st century skills?”

• “What does a 21^st century classroom look like?”

• “What does a 21^st century school look like?”

• What does a 21^st century curriculum look like?

• What are the characteristics of 21^st century educators?

The study tour progressed with these questions in mind. The tour findings will be presented in the following sections. In order to fully understand the perspectives presented, a simple outline of the 21^st century context will be given.

The 21^st century context

The world has changed. Thomas L. Friedman in the book The World is Flat introduced us to a changing world. In his book Friedman used the metaphor of the flat world to describe a way of viewing the changing world economies, suggesting that now more than ever before, the playing field is level - all players have equal opportunity. Friedman suggests that the driving force behind this interconnectedness is the result of the Internet, wireless technology, search engines and other innovations. He suggests, as does Leadbeater (2008), Pink (2006) and Robinson (2006) that there needs to be a shift in thinking if countries, companies and individuals wish to remain competitive in a global market where geographic boundaries are becoming increasingly irrelevant. (Friedman 2006)

On a more local level, in classrooms, before students finish university they would have spent 10,000 hours playing video games (Interactive Videogames 1996), over 10,000 hours talking on a mobile phone and roughly 20,000 hours watching TV (Prensky 2001).

Why are students drawn to these multimodal texts? I am going to suggest that it is because of the richness of the experience. Why not add to your reading of a book about events in history by walking through virtual war zones, becoming a participant in a virtual protest, listening to famous speeches and connecting with friends and talking about the experience?

In this way technology almost guarantees a captive student audience. A simple Google search will uncover many examples of the engaging power of technology. But does engagement really mean deep learning and deep understanding and real progress for our students? It must be considered that in many instances students can be engaged but are they really learning? What do education systems need to do in order to move students from simple engagement to deep learning? What are the 21^st century skills necessary for success?

Findings

It’s not about technology

“Technology needs to be like oxygen. Ubiquitous, necessary and invisible. We need to not think about it. It just needs to be there.” Chris Lehman

To answer the question “What are the 21^st century skills necessary for success?” we need to realize that it’s not about the technology. It should go without saying that technology will be part of our students learning for the 21^st century. The technology is simply the tool, albeit a very empowering, that will underpin or support what is facilitated in the classroom. It is about how we facilitate the use of the power which technology puts into the hands of our students.

Creativity is the Key to successful 21^st century futures

“The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be ignited.” Plutarch

The key skills for the future are those of collaboration, connection, conversation and above all creation.

Through collaboration, connection and conversation it is possible to solve problems and challenges which we face in the 21^st century. Mass creativity is a synergy of minds that comes about when individuals collaborate on projects, where the group is smarter than any one individual. (Leadbeater 2008, George Lucas Education Foundation 2008)

James Paul Gee, a professor at the University of Wisconsin clearly advocates that standard skills can be taught (and are being taught) anywhere in the world now. So for developed countries to progress they need to have innovation and creativity. For this reason school systems need to change and refocus not on a standardised set of skills, but on taking these skills and learning how to solve problems with them and doing this in a collaborative environment. (George Lucas Education Foundation 2008)

So the key to the future, to the 21^st century, is creativity. This ‘skill’ sits at the top of Bloom’s revised taxonomy as the top of the higher order thinking scale (Anderson & Krathwohl 2001). Anderson & Krathwohl (2001) define the Creating level of thinking as “putting elements together to form a coherent or functional whole; reorganizing elements into a new pattern or structure through generating, planning, or producing.”

This is not to say that we forget to teach the foundations, far from it. Instead we don’t stay stuck in simply teaching content or remain at Bloom’s knowledge level. The students who will thrive in the 21^st Century are those who are able to take their thinking further.

Mitchel Resnick from the Lifelong Kindergarten, MIT Media Laboratory research group, whose work will be detailed further in this report advocates:

“In today’s rapidly changing world, people must continually come up with creative solutions to unexpected problems. Success is based not only on what you know or how much you know, but on your ability to think and act creatively.” (Resnick 2008)

Resnick has presented the Creative Thinking Spiral as a way to scaffold and model creative thinking. The Creative Thinking Spiral involves a student imagining what they want to do. The student then creates a project based on their idea. They play with their creation. They share ideas with others and invite comments and feedback and then they reflect on their experiences. Resnick suggests that this then leads to new ideas and the cycle continues. As students go through this process they become comfortable with imagining possibilities and even more comfortable with taking risks to realize their imagination.

To reiterate the quotation that started this chapter, “The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be ignited”. To ignite the fire of our students’ minds we need collaboration from all parts of the education system. We need to reconsider the role and support given by administration, the role of the teacher, the curriculum that is being delivered and even the physical classroom environment. This is the focus of the following chapters.