No Proven Effectiveness, No Sustainable Change

No Proven Effectiveness, No Sustainable Change

Proposal for strategic approach to the computerization of education on the basis of 30 years of experience

Assessing the effects of ICT in education: Indicators, criteria and benchmarks for international comparisons


Ben-Gurion University

Center for Futurism in Education, Ben-Gurion University

2

I. The problem

* Five big waves of computerization of education



* Failure to meet the expectations

Center for Futurism in Education, Ben-Gurion University

3

Expected results:

* Integration of ICT in regular learning processes and curricula
* Change of teaching/learning processes according to desired theories/methodologies
* Higher achievements in standardized tests
* (Higher level of equality in education / "closing the digital divide")

Center for Futurism in Education, Ben-Gurion University

4

Technologies / guiding theories:

* 1980-1990: Personal computers / behaviorism, constructionism
* 1900-1995: CD ROMs, multimedia / constructivism
* 1995-2000: Internet / social constructivism
* 2000-2005: WWW / social constructivism, distributed learning
* 2005-present: Web 2.0, mobile terminals / social constructivism, distributed learning

Center for Futurism in Education, Ben-Gurion University

5

Results – school level:

* Integration: low or instrumental (increases as teachers naturally become more ICT literate)
* Change of teaching/learning processes: no ability to scientifically measure pedagogic changes (certainly not beyond specific contexts, pedagogical terminologies, and valuation methodologies)
* Higher achievements: difficulties in measuring beyond specific contexts, definition of goals, curricula, and while showing meaningful sustainable increase
* At the same time, growing discrepancy between schools and the "outside world"

Center for Futurism in Education, Ben-Gurion University

6

References

* “Most schools in most countries, however, are in the early phase of ICT adoption, characterised by patchy uncoordinated provision and use, some enhancement of the learning process, some development of e-learning, but no profound improvements in learning and teaching.” (Balanskat et al. 2006)
* “Currently, it seems that ICTs are used as tools to support and improve the existing learning process and its administration more than for their transformative potential. ICT has not (yet) been able to revolutionise learning and teaching.” (Punie et al. 2006)
* “Evidence seems to point to an impact on attainment where ICT is an integral part of the day-to-day learning experiences of pupils, although the weight of evidence is insufficient to draw firm conclusions. . . . the volume and consistency of evidence tends to lead to tentative conclusions rather than firm ones.” (Condie et al. 2007)
* “. . . only a few studies – mainly UK studies – actually establish a direct link between the use of ICT and attainment.” (Balanskat et al. 2006)

Center for Futurism in Education, Ben-Gurion University

7

Results – discourse / research / policy level: patchy, uncoordinated

* Lack of common ground supporting commensurability or rational discussion across:
o Various educational goals
o Various terminologies characterizing communities of professionals/researchers or influenced by changing fashions
o Various hierarchies among first, second and third level pedagogical processes, i.e. between pedagogical strategies, tactics and techniques
o Various worldviews/theories/methodologies and sub-methodologies
o Various evaluation methodologies
* Few longitudinal evaluations (regarding sustainability and transferability)

Center for Futurism in Education, Ben-Gurion University

8

Prevailing explanations for low results on school level:

* Lack of systemic long-term approach
* Teachers' fears/resistance
* Irrelevant teacher training
* Frequent changes in policies, projects…
* …

Center for Futurism in Education, Ben-Gurion University

9

Explanations on discourse level:

* Why assume it should happen?
* Lack of thinking frameworks that could systematically deal with:



o The chaotic nature of the discourse
o Conflicts between macro policies and local goals and initiatives (e.g. standardized achievements and requirements vs. constructivist or constructionist approaches that many change agents adopt)
o Conflicts among local initiatives (opposed theories or educational goals applied at the same time in the same place)



o Lack of knowledge and hypotheses about relevant past experiences (to prevent the “ever recurring reinvention of the wheel” syndrome)
o Lack of knowledge and hypotheses about the double edged nature of relevant digital tools and environments

Center for Futurism in Education, Ben-Gurion University

10

o The "predictable failure of educational reform" syndrome
o The fact that real sustainable and transferable educational changes requires at least 8 years of support
o The clash of the book and digital civilizations




o Lack of long term rigorous evaluation and feedback loops concerning both adequacy of goals/theories to processes and results

Center for Futurism in Education, Ben-Gurion University

11

II. Suggested responses

1. Concerning the desired framework for research, educational and change processes and discussions:

o Move from pre-paradigmatic stage of multitude of “patchy” computerization efforts to reliance on paradigms consisting of “long”, “thick” and “large” strategic thinking leading to ongoing developing discourse, based on:
+ clear and coherent terminology
+ clear and coherent definition of goals (from the ultimate educational goals to the operational goals of computerization), theories, methodologies
+ central questions acknowledged universally (within the paradigm)

Center for Futurism in Education, Ben-Gurion University

12

2. Concerning the definition of goals of the computerization projects:

* Change focus from attempts to enhance standard achievements to adaptation of the book-based school to the digital culture
o Change focus from PC/laptop orientation to Internet/Web 2.0 orientation
o MINDFUL reliance on the modes of thinking and acting characterizing the Google generation

Center for Futurism in Education, Ben-Gurion University

13

3. Concerning the approach to educational change:

* Change focus form short term (1-3 years), limited, inclusive and rigid projects to long term (5-10 years), encompassing, exclusive, flexible processes
* End of naivety – reliance on systemic change management and risk management methodologies that are essential to the change process, and accompanying it closely over an extended time period

Center for Futurism in Education, Ben-Gurion University

14

The desired framework:
Strategic thinking on policy formation

The ideal – template for defining any policy:

* Defining clear goals, operationalizing and prioritizing them
* Defining the processes needed to realize these goals, based on research
* Analyzing the conditions needed to implement these processes



* Analyzing the relevant impact of potential ICT tools and environments on their users
* Analyzing the impact of potential ICT tools and environments on education within the normative model
* Locating (or developing) ICT functions that have an edge for promoting the desired conditions



* Analyzing risks based on failures of past educational reforms



* Making policies to encourage these ICT-based processes

Center for Futurism in Education, Ben-Gurion University

15

How can we approach the ideal of strategic thinking?

Center for Futurism in Education, Ben-Gurion University

16

III. Examples of strategic thinking on integrating ICT and Education

* The goals:



* Enhancing self-regulation
* Enhancing personalization

Center for Futurism in Education, Ben-Gurion University

17

2. The processes needed to realize these goals:

* Self-regulation:
o Planning
o Monitoring and controlling during practice
o Reflecting
* Personalization:
o Leaning based on higher level of ownership by the learner
o Exploring during the learning process
o Making real choices in the learning process based on mindfulness and meaningfulness

Center for Futurism in Education, Ben-Gurion University

18

3. The conditions needed to implement the processes:

* Openness and open-endedness in the learning process (commitment of schools and teachers)
* Environment supporting perceptions of autonomy, relatedness, competence
* Tools supporting teachers and students in:
o Planning
o Monitoring
o Reflection
o Choosing
o Exploring
o Communicating
o Collaborating

Center for Futurism in Education, Ben-Gurion University

19

III.a. Concerning using existing tools:
the case of Google tools for educators

* What do we know/assume about the positive and negative impacts of these tools as far as the desired goals are concerned?
* What do we know about their previous use in education?
* So how can we optimize the educational impact?
* What are the expected obstacles for change?
* What leverages can be used for overcoming the obstacles?
* So how can we bring about the desired educational change?

Center for Futurism in Education, Ben-Gurion University

20

III.b. Concerning developing new tools:
the case of iClass

* Learning Plan (enhanced calendar):

support for planning (self-regulation)

Center for Futurism in Education, Ben-Gurion University

21

* Personal Profile (enhanced user profile):

support for personalization

Center for Futurism in Education, Ben-Gurion University

22

* Scaffolded Exploration (enhanced search):

support for personalization

Center for Futurism in Education, Ben-Gurion University

23

* Structured Learning Journal (enhanced blog):

support for reflection (SRL)

Center for Futurism in Education, Ben-Gurion University

24

* Personal Space :

support for reflection + monitoring (SRL)

Center for Futurism in Education, Ben-Gurion University

25

* Tips & Alerts:

support for self-regulation + personalization

Center for Futurism in Education, Ben-Gurion University

26

Related policy:

* Accompanying methodologies:
o Classroom pedagogy methodology
o Content development methodology
o School change management methodology
o Evaluation methodology



* Teacher Handbook:
o explaining the benefits of openness and open-endedness
o explaining how to manage an open teaching environment