Written Response

A colleague of mine asked me to help him out with a grad class by writing a response to one of many articles that he has been inundated with. I would have included the link to the original article, but I found that it has been pulled from the web - possibly because of the sh@# storm it created. Anyway, I thought I'd share my response with all of you:

Jim Holland's article - When Teachers Don't Get It: Myths, Misconceptions, and other Taradiddle - certainly merits some animadversion (n 1. Harsh criticism or disapproval). Although it would be easy to dismiss this as a laughable piece of metaphor-soaked rubbish, unfortunately, I suspect Mr. Holland's beliefs are shared by many otherwise intelligent teachers and administrators. For this reason some commentary would seem prudent. Mr. Holland makes his case by offering a rebuttal of four reasons for not using technology, purportedly from anti-technology teachers, while providing examples of what he considers to be sound tech-pedagogy and the liberal use of the Oxford comma.

The first reason for resistance that he explores is lack of time. He lauds elementary school teachers for their hard work and ability to multitask, then claims that they simply do not get "it" without bothering to explain what "it" is. He maintains that using technology is not something extra (perhaps this is "it"), invokes a cholesterol-laden literary device, and then promptly contradicts himself with his example of what he sees as a success. Richelle Brady's use of a digital camera to teach the difference between fact and opinion is absurd. It serves only to litter school hallways with the sort of high-tech graffiti that principals love to point out to starry-eyed parents who are foolish enough to mistake it as the byproduct of real learning, rather than the window dressing that it truly is. This is exactly the kind of self-gratifying practice to be avoided if meta-cognition is sought and time is indeed valuable.

With an average development life cycle of three months, any digital device currently sold is obsolete before the consumer opens the box. Due to the constant wrangling by competing manufacturers over standards, in an effort to win market dominance, each device has a unique interface that necessitates a corresponding learning curve unique to that device. The teacher must master the basic use of the peripheral device, establish connectivity with a computer (assuming one that works is available), then explain at least some of the basic functions of the device to those tasked with using the device. This knowledge will be of little or no use when applied to the myriad devices that students may have at home or subsequently purchase. It is wasted time.

If the intention was to create an experience that would appeal to visual learners, Ms. Brady could have explored the rich history of self portraits as a tool for self exploration, perhaps starting with Rembrant's famous 1640 self portrait and the later increasingly honest self portraits done by the aging master. Students could have created their own self portraits using poster paints and paper (version 1.0) with no learning curve at all. In addition to learning the difference between fact and opinion, a curriculum area (art) that has been sadly excised from most school budgets could have been explored.

Mr. Holland's is partially correct in his criticism of the "no good software" objection to technology. The proliferation of web-based productivity applications is a trend that is likely to spell doom for products like Microsoft Office, and they are in fact free and easy to use. There are (at least) two important ideas, however, that he has failed to consider. First, in order to take advantage of these free tools students must often be relocated to some kind of a "lab" (if one exists) thus making the spontaneous use of this technology impossible. It also serves to render one of the basic tools of education, classroom geography, impotent. Second, Mr. Holland assumes that everything will work.

A quick check of our "state-of-the-art" computer lab this morning revealed that fifteen machines out of twenty-four were functioning well enough to run their Windows 95 operating systems (it is 2007, I checked). These machines are able to connect to the Internet only by using about half of their hard drive space as virtual memory and not one has a USB port. The carcasses of seven more machines sat piled in a corner in various states of dis-assembly, having been cannibalized for replacement parts. One of the fifteen working machines has since died and gone to the computer graveyard, somewhere in Africa if memory serves. I have a class of twenty-five students.

Although I am from a generation that still thinks ATM machines are a pretty nifty idea, I agree with Mr. Holland's assertion that "I'm not a computer person" is not a valid objection, as we do in fact live in a digital age. I do, however, find fault with his claim that professional development is the answer. The woeful state of these programs is a topic that is far too vast to explore here, but suffice it to say that I have learned far more about technology from hanging around BestBuy than from any professional development workshop or training.

By the time he got to his points on rewards and punishments, it was obvious that Mr. Holland was running out of steam. I could see no point to this section other than to create an opportunity to use the phrase "specific curriculum objectives" twice, and for Mr. Holland to place it in italics (thereby demonstrating his mastery of the italics button) just in case we missed it. Everything that a teacher does from the time the day begins to long after the school day has ended is for the sole purpose of meeting specific curriculum objectives.

In my opinion, the most relevant failure of Mr. Holland's catastrophically myopic commentary involves the very definition of technology. A ball-point pen is a piece of technology. A chalkboard is a piece of technology. A piece of paper is a fabulous piece of technology that took humanity thousands of years to develop and perfect. It is the very technology that our entire civilization is built on and without which computers would never have existed. These basic technologies have yet to be fully utilized, but Mr. Holland would have us discard them for window dressing, smoke and mirrors, catapults and ball-joints, and mother boards and IP protocols.

It is only time to integrate new technology when the existing technology does not meet our demands, when newer technologies offer increased efficiencies or tangible advantages, or when the stated outcomes that we desire for our students change. If what we really want for our graduates is as banal as the ability to lull a group of middle managers into a somnambular state with passe PowerPoint presentations then we are certainly headed in the right (if incredibly pathetic) direction. If not, it would be wise to keep in mind that a little technology goes a very long way.