Is Technology Integration a Choice?

(Photo credit: Dominik Schwind via Flickr.com under the following Creative Commons licence)

I have often heard this question asked, especially in the Edu-Twito-Blogosphere, "Is it okay for a teacher to choose not to integrate technology in their classroom?" Sometimes it is worded differently but the affect is the same. Questions like these miss the point.

In my post yesterday I wrote about how new technologies allow us to have more choices and chief among those is the choice not to use the new technologies. Kevin Kelly says that it is precisely because of the existence of new technologies that minimalist cultures such as the Amish can exist. In essence, the Amish benefit from the existence of the same technologies they reject and as long as the government does not oppress them with forced adoption they are free to self-repress. This self-repression is a big part of their identity. However, even though the Amish choose not to use certain technologies it doesn't mean that their lives are somehow not effected by them. The Amish may choose not to use cars but they still have to deal with other people driving automobiles on the roads, they still have to deal with the environmental damage done by other people's exhaust fumes, they still have to live with the noise pollution the internal combustion engine creates, but they also benefit from the trade goods that come from far away and the use of smooth paved roads. The Amish may choose not to use electricity but they still have to deal with it's effects and affordances in the world around them and they often benefit from other people's use. Choosing not to use a technology does not prevent it from impacting your life.

The same is true in schools with new and emerging forms of information technology. One school will give laptops to all students, another will give all students iPads, another might allow BYOD, and others might reject these tools and prohibit their use. The same is true with Internet filtering. Some schools might have an incredibly open filter and others might have an incredibly closed filter. Either way, both schools have to deal with the existence of Facebook. If your school chooses to limit technology use, greatly restrict the Internet, and ban students from using devices in the classroom, or if a teacher in a school chooses not to integrate technology in the classroom this doesn't mean that they are not effected by it. It only means that they have slowed the adoption process. You may ban Facebook in your school but you will still have to deal with the social dynamic it creates among students who use it at home. You can ban personal devices in the classroom but you still have to deal with the access students have to these devices outside your walls.

The Internet, as well as many other technologies, profoundly change what it is we need to teach students. Just as the calculator made it less necessary for students to need to be able to do complex calculations by hand allowing them to focus more on math concepts rather than math calculations, so too the existence of the Internet change the nature of what students need to know. You don't have to use the Internet in your classroom to be effected by this. And, you don't have to use technology to respond to this shift in the technium. Its existence in the world outside your classroom is enough to force you to do things differently.

Technology is not a gadget or gadgets, it is the embodiment of ideas. One doesn't have to have the physical manifestation in their classroom to integrate the ideas. Technology integration includes at the most fundamental level a shift in the structure of the environment. That environment consists of far more than the things we use. It consists of how we interact with one another, it consists of the content of our discussions, and it consists of the the curriculum we employ. The greater shift is among these more fundamental elements of the technology of school. In this way it is entirely possible for me to be integrating technology in my school without ever having one device or allowing students access to online resources. I can repress those things while still doing a very good job of reacting and responding to their existence. Its not about the gadgets, it is about the technology.

That act of reacting and responding to changes in the technium is technology integration and it doesn't matter how many devices, gizmos, and gadgets I have at my disposal. This is what many schools who try 1:1 programs don't immediately understand. You can't just take the same old school, with the same old curriculum, with the same old bell schedule, with the same old assessment tools, and just add on technology. Technology integration is not an add-on. Technology integration is an ecological change and it will happen whether or not you choose to bury your head in the sand. You can choose to ban devices, ban websites, not use computers, repress the technology, but you can't escape it. If you choose not to use then you still have to make changes to remain relevant in light of the existence of these other technologies in the world. In this way all schools are 1:1.

All schools and all teachers integrate technology. What matters is which technologies we choose to use and which ones we choose not to use. Technology can be used to liberate or it can be used to oppress. We need to be aware of when we are using technology and when it is using us. We need to be aware of when we are integrating a technology that improves learning and when we are integrating a technology that simply makes schooling more efficient. If you have used technology to increase testing, maximize surveillance, and streamline the delivery of a scripted curriculum you are integrating technology but you have done so at the expense of student learning. Not all technology integration is equal. And when the use of any of these technologies is mandated, when the option to opt-out is prohibited, their forced adoption is oppressive and destructive. Conversely, if you use technology to foster creativity, to expand student access to information beyond someone else's curriculum, when you use technology to empower students to take control of their own personal learning, when you use technology to make visible the abstract and the complicated so students can focus on the core ideas, when you use technology to empower students to think critically about what they are learning and think critically about the world around them you have integrated technology in a way that is profoundly liberating. The question is not whether or it is okay for a teacher not to integrate technology, the question is what technologies are appropriate for a teacher to use.

The Invisible Technology of School

I am currently reading Kevin Kelly's new book, What Technology Wants and am finding it a fascinating read. One interesting thing he talks about is how technology was here before we knew it existed. Meaning, before we had a name for technology or even recognized that there was this category of what we do or what exists out there that we now call technology it was there and coexisting with us. It was an invisible force. People sharpened flint into knives, made spears, built shelters, harnessed fire, domesticated animals and farmland, sew clothing, made fish hooks, and developed language all without having a name for this embodiment of human ideas. In the early stages of the evolution of technology it was invisible to us even though it made itself present all around us. And, every time a new technology was developed it completely changed the human environment.

Trying to define technology is hard. Two years ago I sat on an interview committee hiring a technology teacher. The principal asked if there were any questions I would like to add to the list before we began the interviews. I told him I had only one, "What is technology?" He had a strange reaction to my request but this proved to be one of the more decisive questions in our search. We interviewed three candidates that day and got three very different definitions. The teacher we hired took the broad definition and said that technology was the term used to describe how people manipulate their environment to achieve something they couldn't otherwise achieve. The other two candidates gave the narrow definition which unfortunately is also currently the common definition that technology was anything that used electricity.

If you take the narrow definition of technology then it is very easy to disregard the ecological effect introducing a new technology will bring. If you take the broad definition these considerations are unavoidable and obvious. Problem is, I think most people only consider the narrow definition and in so doing render all non-electronic technologies invisible.

One definitive characteristic of technology is it is constantly in a state of evolution and change. Rendering a technology invisible blinds us to this key attribute and locks us into a mindset about it. This is how sacred cows are born. This is how we become rigid and this is how we become irrelevant.

When a new technology is introduced into an ecology everything changes or becomes irrelevant. According to the broad definition language is a technology. Our languages are in a constant state of evolution as evident by the annual list of new words added to the dictionary each year. Language changes to adjust to the introduction of new technologies. If it didn't change how would we even be able to discuss things like wikis, friending, m-commerce, or tweeting? This is one major problem with content standards for schools. Content standards take something fluid like language and treat it like its constant. What would happen if we used content standards from a time in our distant past to drive all curriculum and assessment in our schools? And, just like language, schooling is a technology rendered invisible by the narrow definition.

Failing to see schools and all their trappings (grade systems, standardized tests, bell schedules, etc.) as a form of technology sets any technology initiative up for failure. Introduce laptops or iPads into a classroom and still run everything else the same way and one or both of two things will happen: 1) The devices will prove to be nothing but a distraction and get in the way of schooling causing people to claim the program was a flop; or 2) The technology will take over many of the purposes the school was originally designed to serve, making students view the school as irrelevant. The school whose teachers and administrators embrace the broad view will see schooling as a technology and understand that the introduction of another technology will require changes to curriculum, teaching strategies, room design, schedules, assessment, and teacher evaluation metrics.

When you start to view schooling as a technology you start to question its purpose. You start to question how it has changed the ecology it was introduced into. You start to question how it might evolve into something else. You start to wonder if or when it will become obsolete.

Technologies always have pros and cons. Early industrial technologies laid waste to our environment in exchange for cheap goods. When you start to consider school as a technology you start to see what school lays waste to and you start to see its biases.

The Many Faces of Technology Integration

My partner in crime, Scott Schwister, and I gave this presentation to a group of district professional development specialists, curriculum specialists, and district administrators from members of Northeast Metro ISD 916 districts on Friday. 916 is an intermediate district and is comprised of many different districts from around St. Paul. This presentation was meant as a launching pad for discussion that followed.

The Many Faces of Tech Integration from Carl Anderson on Vimeo.

So, I'll pose the questions to you:

1. What does technology integration look like in your district?
2. What faces do you see?

Technology Integration Specialist Field Guid: Strategy #5 - Show your vulnerabilities

In a previous Twitter Book Club post I discussed four strategies I believe work well for working with teacher professional development where the goal is to bring teachers from assimilation to accommodation of new learning, something I believe is extremely necessary with technology integration. I believe I have stumbled upon a fifth and powerfully effective strategy to add to this list. This strategy will also probably work for anyone working with others to deliver professional development in a coaching setting but it seems to be especially relevant for tech integration since many teachers are often reluctant to come ask for help for any number of reasons. To explain this strategy let me tell you about how I came to it.

Last April I bought a used car that doesn't have automatic headlights. It is the first car I have owned since I began driving in 1992 that didn't have this now basic feature. So far this has not been a huge problem. The length of the days in the summertime mean that I rarely need to use them on my to or from work. However, now that the days are starting to get shorter it is dark enough when I leave my house in the morning that I need them on and my drive is long enough that by the time I get to work I have long past the time when I need them. Consequently, since school started there have been four times when I forgot to shut off my lights after I parked my car and went into work. By noon my battery is drained and I need help jump-starting my car.

It seems like it is always a little bit embarrassing to ask someone to help you jump-start your car, especially when you know the reason is because of your own absent-mindedness. You have to put your tail between your legs and ask someone to help you fix your own mess. In my case the people I asked help from, at least for three of these four times, were people who I had not yet built a strong collegiate relationship with. Asking for help and then receiving it is a bonding experience between both parties. Since these bonding experiences I have noticed the people who helped me have been more likely to approach me at school with problems they have with technology or to ask for suggestions for how they might improve something they are doing in their class. They have also been more comfortable with me coming into their classrooms and assisting them with their classes or even just observing them teach.

I don't know why this never occurred to me before as a necessary strategy to use. In fact, I don't know that it would necessarily work if these were not authentic situations where I needed help. I used to use this strategy all the time when I taught at-risk learners at an alternative learning center. In that setting I saw a disproportionate number of students who for one reason or another had built a wall between them and those in authority, especially those who represented "schooly" authority like teachers and principals. I always found that to reach these kids I had to show them a little bit of my vulnerable side, I had to ask them for help with something. Usually, once removing my teacherly authoritative facade they removed theirs and often they became model students in my classroom. In fact, thinking back on every year I taught art in the face-to-face classroom this was the case.

Given the fact that among sectors of the economy education ranks last in its use of technology and so many teachers report being uncomfortable with it, maybe it makes sense to think of teachers as "at-risk" learners. Maybe, on this topic, it makes sense to apply some "at-risk" pedagogies to teacher professional development. But then, what I found worked well with "at-risk" students worked well with mainstream students as well.

So, what should we call this strategy?