Thanks, Andrew, for pointing out some great questions and proposals. If I can try to summarize the thesis of your post it is this: technology is perhaps better used or best used as a creative tool that fully engages student interest and more open-ended learning, rather than mere rote learning.
First, I think we agree more than we disagree! Creative and open ended learning that maximizes student interest is the pinnacle, it is the ultimate goal, and we need more of it. Technology can help here, but it need not be the focus. Good old fashioned Socratic discussion, group work and hands on or other project based learning opportunities are at least as beneficial and should exist alongside meaningful uses of technology to create, synthesize and explore.
This form of teaching and learning, if done well, can do a great deal to respond to one of the major challenges in education, student motivation. Unleashing student creativity and curiosity in open-ended, creative, self-directed learning situations that requires the use and integration of multiple skills nourishes student intrinsic motivation. Too much of what happens in modern classrooms kills natural curiosity and creativity ( Sir Ken Robinson’s TED talk And here). Furthermore, such learning opportunities tend to be deeper and more lasting and more conducive to complex and higher level thinking.
But what about the other great question of modern education: How do we ensure an adequate education for all children? We are failing too many of our students in achieving even basic mastery or proficiency. The achievement gap for minority and low-income students, who are pushed through the system despite major learning deficiencies, is well documented. What about the students who need more time to get the basic concepts, and for whom the cohort model of education is not working well?
Deepening their creativity is important, absolutely, but so is ensuring that they can read on grade level, write effectively, and possess basic mathematical competency. These are the foundations of learning and their mastery is more important than learning to use Prezi (I know this is not really what you are saying, but you know what I mean).
That is why – though interested in using technology to create and foster open-ended and social learning – I have focussed on blended learning, which I think is the strategy in the Ed Tech arena for addressing the problem of mastery for all.
And also, I disagree heartily with Gary Stager’s article, contrasting standards-based curriculum and assessment, which he caricatures as the interests of “the system”, with open-ended and creative uses of technology as the ideal. Standards that tell us the skills that all children should know are extremely important to ensuring that we are not leaving major gaps in learning for large portions of our students. And rigorous assessments, aligned to those standards, allow us to differentiate instruction appropriately and come far closer to mastery for all students.
Far from being dehumanizing, I think blended learning is actually more human. It addresses the reality that not all children learn at the same time, in the same way, or struggle with or excel at the same concepts and skills. It does not treat all children with the same approach and hope that all “get it,” but allows space for those that need more time, more attention, more review, more practice, and it gives teachers a means of monitoring this and intervening in a customized and targeted manner.
But here is where we really agree. We can’t stop with mastery of the basics or this will be a dumbing down of education, which is a serious risk. Blended learning must use the creative and open ended. See Sal Khan discussing this point. This is the very virtue of blended learning as opposed to virtual learning. It allows the continued and vital role of the teacher and community of learners to provide the critically important opportunities for deeper, richer, more creative and complex learning experiences, while also supporting mastery of the basics for all students, and better data for teachers on the results. Thus the “blend.”
I’ve got a question which I’ll pick up on another post: is Khan Academy getting unnecessarily harsh treatment from its critics? More to come…