LUDDITE LITE

Just returned from the Michigan Association of Computer Users in Learning (MACUL) conference in Grand   Rapids. My head has stopped throbbing, but I am still musing about the impact of whiz-bang Web 2.0 “tools” on real kids’ minds, and the principles beneath the heavy-duty commercial pitches that are embedded into every aspect of tech conferences. I had not been to MACUL for 8 years, although attended frequently in the 90s. It’s a big and growing conference—2700 attendees—but what was surprising to me was how little had changed: new playthings, new buzz words, but the same old thinking.

The exhibit hall was swirling with salivating educators and sales teams in matching day-glo polo shirts, a hard-edged 21^st century version of stall marketplaces in third world countries. I wrote “consultant” on my nametag, hoping to forestall a full-bore retail press, but at each booth, the first question I was hit with was—invariably— “Do you buy technology for your school?” No, I would say—I’m just here to get a feel for the, you know, sweeping global transformation of knowledge. That’s a conversation stopper, all right, enough to let me watch any number of generic Smart Board presentations in peace. It was the automatic and facile “connection” between data management products and student achievement made by any number of tech-hucksters that really annoyed me, however.

It is probably unfair to criticize technology sales staff in the exhibit hall—one purpose of a conference is clearly promotion of Stuff You Can Buy. (We were even asked, in the conference evaluations, about the technology budgets in our schools.) Shouldn’t the level of discourse around the intersection of said Stuff and student learning or transformation of schooling be higher, however? Shouldn’t that discourse involve a certain amount of questioning, dialogue and argument—or is it all just about what’s new and jazzy—that “future so bright, I gotta wear shades” thing?

The big-ballroom sessions were all led by high-energy, commercially funded presenters, and every one of them was basically a sales call, even if the products, tools or concepts were available for free. The big draws were presentations about quick-n-easy/new/no-cost stuff—plus, of course, anything data-driven. The conference was a kind of case study writ large for ineffective professional learning—discrete bits of disconnected information; entertaining talking-head format; zero personal interaction (unless you count the hotel bar in the evening); one-hour, rapid-pace information dumps; and the sense that every important idea could be expressed in 140 characters. A colorful, seductive marketplace for people who never give a second thought to who really pays when something is “free.” 

I also went to see Gary Stager speak. There were perhaps 15 people in the room, which surprised me, because Stager is a pretty big name, one of those perennial keynoters. He said two things that really stuck with me. The first was that he’s been attending these conferences for three decades and the technology education “community of practice” has developed less than you’d think in that time. It’s always the same handful of top thinkers plus legions of rank novices—the free/easy/new devotees—who are sticking technology, like shiny stars, on their very conventional thinking about schools, teaching and learning. Where are the layers of educators who are thoughtfully transforming practice and schools, the growing cadre of new creators, contributors and innovators? Good question.

Stager also noted that most schools adopt technologies and send personnel to conferences like MACUL to serve either the system (managing data, for example, or presenting a “21^st century” image) or individual teachers (Web 2.0! Spice up your classroom!). He spoke about the persistent concept of “teacher as priest,” standing in front of the room (next to the Smart Board, presumably) dispensing knowledge, running the show, controlling the use of technology tools. The concept of students being in charge of their own learning was curiously absent: new tools, old thinking.

In the March 10 issue of U.S. News and World Report, author Susan Jacoby says: When you start confusing tools with real knowledge and stop thinking about how you're using it and how much you're using these tools, that's where the danger is in technology.

Amen, sister. And…can I get a web link to your ideas?

Comments

[Bob Heiny]

Luddite Lite? Good post. You appear more open than the conventional use of Luddite indicates.

I've been on both sides of booths in education conference exhibits, as teacher/administrator/scientist and as exhibitor. School buyers and business sellers use different criteria for reviewing products. I suspect teachers already know these differences. For businesses, they leave the politics of education (such as school reform, curriculum strategies, teacher performance pay, learning rates) to others.

In short, companies offer teaching-learning tools that they think educators will buy. That's what you saw at MACUL. They must offer products that yield profits or they will go out of business.

Many Gee-whiz products exist in various stages of development, but may never reach the U.S. education market place, because they do not meet those profit criteria.

A tip: look to products other countries buy for their schools in order to see what tools are available for teaching-learning beyond U.S. education conference exhibits. Many private and charter U.S. schools also adopt these tools yielding hundreds of thousands of more efficient teaching-learning transactions daily.

Suggestion: Offer specific feedback to product developers about what features you want for teachers and learners in your classroom. Interestingly, few teachers provide that feedback, even though most companies solicit it, at least in conference exhibit hall evaluation sheets. Watch blogs for other ways to provide feedback.

[Nancy Flanagan]

Hi, Bob.

Thanks for your thoughtful explanation of the business of tech development and sales for educational purposes. As I said in the blog, it really isn't fair to complain about the high-pressure sales atmosphere in an exhibit hall at any conference. That's what they're there for, and they do serve a purpose for those who purchase equipment for schools.

My observation (and as you noted, I'm not really a Luddite at all) had more to do with the unthinking excitement over and adoption of every single flashy tool that comes down the pike. I was longing for substantive conversation from presenters on how technology is transforming my business: schools. What I got was a parade o' stuff.

One example: in one of the sessions I attended, the presenter introduced us to Blabberize--a nifty little site where you can make photos of people appear to "talk." Very fun. "The kids will love this!" he said. But I'm not in the business of entertaining kids or using tools because they're immediately fun. I want to think about what it would mean to blabberize a photo and change the way the world sees that person.

There's power in these tools. We seem to be so dazzled with the tools that we're not thinking enough about how they're changing our students. Technology works for building up good practice in schools and also for destroying it. I think those conversations need to predominate.

[edudigitalis]

Maybe the problem has more to do with the conference model than the lack of educators who can talk about effective teaching with new tools. Perhaps we need a new kind of conference. It will be smaller, if the "computer in a pad" folks aren't there with their drawings for free prizes. Indeed, it will be a challenge to fund it. Hey, maybe it could take place on the Web. Hey, maybe it's the K12 Online Conference, where many teachers are talking about just these things:

http://k12onlineconference.org/

One question for Bob: how are "curriculum strategies" so easily dismissed as "politics" by vendors of curriculum materials? Should they they not accountable in some way for the impact (or lack of impact) of their products on student learning? I've often wandered the exhibit hall at NECC conferences thinking about the old traveling patent medicine shows. Professor PC's Elixir of Learning! Is that tar I smell?

[Bob Heiny]

I share with you, Nancy, an interest for substantive exchanges with company reps at ed conferences about their products. But, when we want more info about a product, we usually have to go online to review products, or ask for a field rep to contact us with more specific info to make a purchase decision. Yes, it's exhibits are about purchases, sales, ... If we want still more info and exchanges, we may ask for a rep to meet on campus, after we have demonstrated to the company's satisfaction that we might purchase their product. Large companies, especially, rent exhibitors to talk with conference attendees. These rented exhibitors know enough about booth products to introduce them to first time viewers, but not necessarily more. From a view of companies, it costs less to have online and other followup communication with school administrators or tech purchase committee members who have authorization to make purchases for their schools. As part of the purchase process, some companies will arrange for someone to show teachers and other users how to work with their products. Those who have had responsibility to keep a company viable follow the truisms "many things are negotiable" and "nothing's free."

Companies, edudigitalis, in general leave the politics of curriculum content, strategies, etc. to those who make purchase decisions. While each product developer uses a point of view to complete development tasks, they also know that one tool can have many uses, including in different learning political and other venues.