Radical change to disrupt the school ecosystem
Posted by jtravers on June 10, 2007
I have always liked to describe school systems in terms of a natural ecosystem, where the various players play roles that they have worked out over time that allow them to ’survive’ in the system. The technologies of the classroom have evolved to support the needs of the players, like desks for students to write on, store books and stationery and keep the student in fixed in one place so that they can be easily managed! There are a thousand other components, human and material, in the system that have evolved to do the business of teaching in a particular way.
Regularly, over the last few decades at least, new ideas (and technologies) come along and challenge the balance in the ecosystem. Bright sparks in the ’70s in South Australia changed desks into tables that can more readily be placed in groups, moved and did not provide storage. The Open Space teaching model did a lot more than this little example. So to continue my little story, teachers had developed teaching methods that relied on students having immediate access to their work-books, stored in their sturdy desks. When tables came along, books were stored in book trays around the walls of the classroom. So the teachers had an organisational problem caused by the innovative tables. I’m not interested in whether having work-books on hand is a good thing or not, but am making the point that every innovation has lots of negative implications because it does not fit all the existing components in the school ecosystem. It is difficult to change one thing without changing lots of things.
So this is why I thoroughly agree with the point Bill made in a comment on my previous post that incremental change is unlikely to work in getting new technologies embedded in the school ecosystem. Change needs to be bold, as he points out Papert has been urging for a long time. New technologies, be they tables, ballpoint pens or internet access pose a threat to many existing activities. If they are introduced into the environment incrementally, a bit of equipment here, a bit of training there, they will be ‘nibbled to death by ducks’ (Garth Boomer). Radical change recognises that we are not introducing the new technologies to tweak the existing ecosystem but to change it in fundamental ways.
That’s another reason for sparing a thought for those planning the introduction of new technologies into classrooms. Radical requires courage and lots of confidence.
I don’t think it is blaming teachers to say that most have not had strong experience in teaching in an open style, or have a clear ideology towards this type of teaching. Why should they? They have been working in a system that has placed priority on other approaches to learning. They have not had technologies that allow remarkable access to information or efficient collaborative tools. I do not have strong experience in they openness that web 2.0 tools will encourage and allow (and I am a baby of the open space years and the open education revolution of the ’70s!).
I think we young radicals can take some heart, though, because the web 2.0 tools are in the main free, easy to use, only need an internet connection, available from home, and most of all, can be introduced subversively by individual teachers (who can get the filter blocks removed).
June 10th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Encouraging comments about the futility of incremental, duck nibbling change
Thanks also for clarifying your remark about teachers. All you need is 50 or so innovative teachers and put them in one school. But of course our system doesn’t work that way. Keep the radicals diluted and under control. Leadership needs to come from the leaders but it isn’t happening.
It seems to me vanishingly unlikely that the radical change required will come from the government system with its focus on uniform standards and a strong conformist culture. Alice is running as fast as she can but the world is standing still. Individual radicals with sympathetic Principals can establish great niche environments but you have to move past that and scale it at some stage.
In Australia, to my surprise, one lead is being provided within the Catholic System. See 21st Century School . Now, that’s interesting but I can’t see the government system copying that.
America has Charter Schools and other such beasts that give some chance for a radical approach to be tried out. For instance Alan Kay has trialled his Squeak / Etoys software at Los Angeles Charter School for some years now.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
A Few More Ducks.
I dont believe there is ‘one-way’ to achieve the transformation in learning and teaching that new technologies can enable.
My grandaughter attends a lower middle class public primary school. Last year the school invested in, wait for it… electronic whiteboards for every class room. Most stayed in their plastic wraps till after a PD day was held mid-year. After the PD day my grandaughters teacher decided to try to use the technology as much as he could with his year ones and twos. He made wonderful progress and by the end of the first term of 07 had been able to utilise the whiteboard in almost all his teaching. It was and is awesome.I could never had contemplated, even after a good read of the literature, many of the applications the teacher and the students developed. All the other teachers have now unwrapped their whiteboards!! After the July break the school has decided to invest in him having a day a week to work with the other staff on ways to change their practice.
One small step…
I think the mix of requirements for a transformation of learning and teaching include: Whole of school and or whole of system leadership; champions at the school level; support; rewards; a portfolio of readily available teaching techniques and strategies that actually work; and good infrastructure.
Of all the investment in ICT and learning over the past decade the least effort has gone into teaching techniques and strategies that work. Why would an individual teacher or whole institution bother changing their practice unless there was at least some evidence that change works to enhance and enrich the learning experience?
Sorry for the sermon.
Educators know that change is afoot.My feeling is that if examples like the new Catholic school in Parramatta is a success there will be many others across all systems clamouring to join.
June 16th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
You are right of course, Greg, that there are many ways to successful implementation. Maybe radical is not the best word for me to use – bold or comprehensive might fit many situations better. Is sounds like your grand-daughter’s teacher was bold and comprehensive in the steps he took.
Interactive Whiteboards have been particularly good at stimulating this level of change, where the arrival of the equipment and a little bit of training sets quite a few teacher off on a genuine exploration. But I understand that there are many not so happy stories about their use.
I think incrementalism has focused on technical skills and equipment, and not on the different sort of outcomes that are possible. Take video making for example. It is relatively easy and cheap to create digital stories (such as with PhotoStory 3 with still images) but there is little incentive to do this unless the teacher is excited to engage with the potential. It is a big (radical?) step to value, understand, and teach the skills of digital story-telling. I’ve seen a lot of teachers really open their eyes to the possibilities of PhotoStory 3 because it is dead simple and the stories can be quite powerful. The technology has become a trivial increment and the outcome of powerful stories a darn big increment.