What Are We Looking For When We Measure 1:1 Programs?
@joe_edtech
This is part 2 of what I'm calling my self-indulgence series. In a completely selfish attempt to better understand the research that I want to do in my doctoral program, the posts over the next few Thursdays will focus on getting to meaningful measurement of 1:1 programs. I will provide in text citations for a number of pieces, if you would like a full reference list or links to any of the individual documents, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Does 1:1 Computing Facilitate Learning and Improve Performance?
As instructional technologists, the disconnect between the expectations of a 1:1 classroom and the dearth of supporting data seems to strike at the very heart of what we do. The
Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) concisely defines the field of educational technology as “the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 1). If researchers, instructional technologists, and policy makers cannot provide taxpayers, parents, and even students with convincing evidence that the massive investment in educational technology leads to increased student achievement, then it could rightfully be concluded that we have failed to fulfill any tenet of the definition provided by the AECT. Specifically, though, the problem of providing supporting achievement is drawn from the fact that it is the specific charge of instructional technologists to “facilitate learning and improve performance” (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 1). If we, as instructional technologists, expect continued investment in 1:1 programs because we believe that it helps to facilitate learning and could significantly improve student performance, it is incumbent upon researchers and professionals to conduct studies and develop experiments that support our assumptions.
This really gets to the heart of the matter. In the chapter that explicates the facilitating learning portion of the definition of the field, the authors point out an important change in the way the field is designed. In the past, it might have been logical to consider instructional technologists as support personnel instead of instructional leaders, because our focus was on control and management of the learning environment (Januszweski & Molenda, 2008). However, under the current definition of the field, it is our job to actively work to facilitate learning through the lenses of established and researched learning theories like Behaviorism, Cognitivism, and Contructivism (Januszweski & Molenda, 2008). Furthermore, in the chapter that details the improving performance of the current definition, the authors push instructional technologists even further into the role of instructional leader by explaining that we bear the burden of fulfilling the promise of instructional technology to “help create instruction that is more appealing and respectful of human values, thus aligning instructors and designers with their highest professional commitments” (Januszweski & Molenda, 2008, p. 55).
The descriptions in the Januszweski and Molenda (2008) book match the vision of four key scholars who have pushed the field and the discussion about the 1:1 classroom and student achievement. Before the concept of the personal computer was even fully realized, Papert (1980) was imagining a world where computers in the hands of every student would dramatically alter education and our understandings of student learning. The theory of Constructionism, an offshoot of the larger Constructivist learning theory, was based on the idea that students having the ability to explore and create through the power of personal computing would inevitably transform education. The Constructionist banner, and the belief that putting powerful computing tools in the hands of students to let them create and invent was taken up by Stager (1998, 2011) and pushed by his Constructivist Consortium. However, no one has made more headway in describing what transformative teaching looks like than Dr. Ruben Puentedura and his SAMR framework for integrating technology in classroom (Fabian & MacLean, 2014; Oakley & Pegnum, 2014; Oakley, Pegnum, & Johnston, 2013). All three of the scholars above described a 1:1 learning environment where education was transformed and students achieved at higher levels and all of them have worked towards not only articulating, but also achieving that vision.
Critics of continued investment in 1:1 mobile technology would point out that the disconnect between high scholarly expectations for new technologies to be transformative in the classroom and the realization of those transformational dreams is not a new one. Reiser (2012) carefully traced the history of instructional technology in the United States throughout the 20th Century and concluded that while every innovative piece of instructional technology was introduced to the classroom with bold predictions of changing education, each one failed to achieve the promised benefit to students. To be fair, Reiser (2012) did not conclude that the technology was incapable of achieving the aims of the visionaries who championed it; he concluded that it failed because it was either implemented poorly or it faced resistance by teachers who were charged with implementing the technology in the classroom. Even Stager (2011) seemed to draw a similar conclusion when he wrote that after 30 years of trying, instructional technologists and school systems have been unable to convince teachers to use computers in any sort of broadly transformative way despite predictions to the contrary.
But the belief in 1:1 computing to be transformative runs broadly and deep, and that is especially true with the nearly ubiquitous proliferation of mobile computing devices (Bebell, Clarkson, Burraston, 2014; Gulek & Demirtas, 2005; Lowther et al., 2012; Project Tomorrow, 2014; Russell, Bebell, & Higgins, 2004). In fact, the belief in mobile technology to create better learning environments is broadly held. The “Speak Up” survey conducted by Project Tomorrow (2014) reported that a majority of K-12 principals, teachers, and students reported that the ideal classroom is a 1:1 classroom. And it is no wonder why they feel that way. Gulek and Demirtas (2005) concluded that the simple introduction of 1:1 devices into the classroom led to more engaging, Constructivist teaching methods. Educators, however, must find the evidence necessary to support their beliefs, because a majority of parents, those who must support school district technology purchases with their tax dollars, do not wholly support the integration of technology into the classroom, and only a minority of parents support investing in more 1:1 classrooms (Project Tomorrow, 2014).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point, is it more critical to provide this kind of evidence to taxpayers or educators?
