First off - don't jump to the conclusion that I reject research altogether. Don't get me wrong - I find value in research. The issue for me is a simple one: research is contextual. Research is also conducted, by necessity, within the existing framework - the functions, structures and processes - of the current educational paradigm. We are at a point in history where I believe it absolutely critical and necessary to create and implement a new educational design. The simple fact is that you cannot continuously improve into something new - something new requires design or re-design. Research is about finding ways to improve within the current constraints and frameworks - great when you are actively trying to improve what you have. But what happens when we have a model we don't want anymore?
Research, even emanating from the old paradigms, can be instructive. Let's just be careful that we don't simply "follow the research." The game is new, it is uncharted, and we must create and design - sometimes without a lot of research. Research - most published today is already years old - is indeed like trying to navigate the road by using the rear-view mirror. A fairly safe bet on a straight and low-traveled desert road, not so easy when the road is hilly, twisty, and full of traffic - like the context of education we now find ourselves in.
Research, even emanating from the old paradigms, can be instructive. Let's just be careful that we don't simply "follow the research." The game is new, it is uncharted, and we must create and design - sometimes without a lot of research. Research - most published today is already years old - is indeed like trying to navigate the road by using the rear-view mirror. A fairly safe bet on a straight and low-traveled desert road, not so easy when the road is hilly, twisty, and full of traffic - like the context of education we now find ourselves in.
Recent blogs I've followed related to the 1:1 initiative have debated about the research on 1:1. The above applies - when applied in the old paradigm as a more efficient way to teach disconnected, episodic, and de-contextualized content, of course the research is going to suggest that 1:1 doesn't work - because it doesn't. The introduction of the computer to schools (circa 1979) didn't affect school either. It wasn't the technology, I'm afraid to report, it was (and is) the system of school. In Seymour Sarason's book, "The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform" he says, "I came to see what should have been obvious: the characteristics, traditions, and organizatoinal dynamics of school systems were more or less lethal obstacles to achieving even modest, narrow goals." p 12 - like the few schools who aren't focused on changing the system of learning and instead hoping that changing the tools available will somehow make things better. A mistake that the leaders of 1:1 schools in my Twitter network are NOT making.
Don't be lumping me in...oh, I guess I'm ok with that :)
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in what folks have to say about the last paragraph of my first comment. Tech use can change our philosophies in unexpected ways. For instance, consider how we use the metaphor of computer for the brain. This may not be healthy as a computer doesn't "think & create" it stores & processes. Our metaphors, which are affected by our tech, affect the philosophy that russ speaks of. So, the tech matters in very subtle & implicit ways.