Technology is transforming our world. Learning theory points towards ways to improve student achievement. How will education respond? What could school be in the future?
Any realistic picture of the future of education includes more widespread use of technology. As the world around us is transformed by the power of the internet, combined with mobile technology, we cannot help but see schools, teaching and learning transformed as well. The question is not whether technology will be used in the classroom, or even what technology will be used in education, but how it will be used.
Any realistic picture of the future of education includes more widespread use of technology. As the world around us is transformed by the power of the internet, combined with mobile technology, we cannot help but see schools, teaching and learning transformed as well. The question is not whether technology will be used in the classroom, or even what technology will be used in education, but how it will be used.
Designing educational experiences around technology is a foolish chase. You cannot possibly keep up with the technology. The paradox of technology enhanced education is that technology changes very rapidly and human beings change very slowly. It would seem to make sense for proponents of e-learning to begin with the students. At least that is a relatively slow moving target.
- Jack Wilson, CEO of UMassOnline (Bates & Poole, 2003: xiii)
Change in education comes slowly. It is clear, however, that student-centered learning - beginning teaching by asking, "How will these students learn this?", rather than "How will I teach them this?" - is becoming a goal for all educators. How will teachers - and students - adapt to the new roles and the new ways of teaching and learning? What will schools look like as they are designed around this central principle?
These are some of the questions facing education today. There are many possible ways forward. It is clear we need to change in order to remain relevant and to best serve the needs of our students.
On the next page I reflect on four ideas encountered during the Masters program that could impact the future of education. Some focus on technology; others move towards student-driven learning in some form.
These are some of the questions facing education today. There are many possible ways forward. It is clear we need to change in order to remain relevant and to best serve the needs of our students.
On the next page I reflect on four ideas encountered during the Masters program that could impact the future of education. Some focus on technology; others move towards student-driven learning in some form.
Sidebar: Standardized Testing
In recent years, there has been a shift in Western education towards standardized testing. In the US, the No Students Left Behind legislation has been a key driving force behind this change. Here in Ontario, students in Grade 3, 6, 9 and 10 undergo EQAO testing; in some US states, students are tested at every grade level.
I and many of my colleagues have reacted to this trend with dismay. Part of this is a natural reaction to a perceived increase in accountability. Much of the reaction, including my own, stems from more objective pedagogical concerns. Some teachers are worried that test scores will be used to rank schools (they are already), or even individual teachers. Others find the time constraints involved in preparing students for the tests limit their capacity for innovation. It is generally agreed that the testing adds stress to the classroom for teachers and students alike. Some teachers have gone so far as to cheat when administering the tests.
My concern with standardized testing is that it is being used to define education. When innovations are evaluated based on whether or not they improve test scores, or when programs are shut down to maximize time to prepare for tests, then the tests are being held up as the benchmark against which all educational endeavors are to be measured. What follows is not just teachers 'teaching to the test', but schools and whole educational systems shaping education to fit the test.
This would be fine if the tests promoted the very best that education has to offer. But they don't. Standardized tests fail on several fronts:
1) They focus only on 'core' subjects, sidelining (among other things) the arts. "Testing has become not only more routine but also increasingly influential and focused on core content domains" (Partnership for 21st Century Learning, 2007:2).
2) They focus more on product than process.
3) They do not assess 21st century skills such as collaboration, critical thinking or creativity. "The tests are not designed to gauge how well students apply what they know to new situations or evaluate how students might use technologies to solve problems or communicate ideas" (Partnership for 21st Century Learning, 2007:2); "standardized assessments are simply not capable of either evaluating or reporting on the elements that reflect students’ achievement of 21st century skills (communication, collaboration, creativity and innovation, and critical thinking)" (Jensen et al, 2012:13).
I and many of my colleagues have reacted to this trend with dismay. Part of this is a natural reaction to a perceived increase in accountability. Much of the reaction, including my own, stems from more objective pedagogical concerns. Some teachers are worried that test scores will be used to rank schools (they are already), or even individual teachers. Others find the time constraints involved in preparing students for the tests limit their capacity for innovation. It is generally agreed that the testing adds stress to the classroom for teachers and students alike. Some teachers have gone so far as to cheat when administering the tests.
My concern with standardized testing is that it is being used to define education. When innovations are evaluated based on whether or not they improve test scores, or when programs are shut down to maximize time to prepare for tests, then the tests are being held up as the benchmark against which all educational endeavors are to be measured. What follows is not just teachers 'teaching to the test', but schools and whole educational systems shaping education to fit the test.
This would be fine if the tests promoted the very best that education has to offer. But they don't. Standardized tests fail on several fronts:
1) They focus only on 'core' subjects, sidelining (among other things) the arts. "Testing has become not only more routine but also increasingly influential and focused on core content domains" (Partnership for 21st Century Learning, 2007:2).
2) They focus more on product than process.
3) They do not assess 21st century skills such as collaboration, critical thinking or creativity. "The tests are not designed to gauge how well students apply what they know to new situations or evaluate how students might use technologies to solve problems or communicate ideas" (Partnership for 21st Century Learning, 2007:2); "standardized assessments are simply not capable of either evaluating or reporting on the elements that reflect students’ achievement of 21st century skills (communication, collaboration, creativity and innovation, and critical thinking)" (Jensen et al, 2012:13).
"[C]lassrooms today typically lack 21st century learning and teaching in part because high-stakes tests do not assess these competencies. Assessments and tests focus on measuring students’ fluency in various abstract, routine skills, but typically do not assess their strategies for expert decision making when no standard approach seems applicable. Essays emphasize simple presentation rather than sophisticated forms of rhetorical interaction. Students’ abilities to transfer their understandings to real world situations are not assessed, nor are capabilities related to various aspects of teamwork. The use of technological applications and representations is generally banned from testing, rather than measuring students’ capacities to use tools, applications, and media effectively. Abilities to effectively utilize various forms of mediated interaction are typically not assessed." (Dede, 2012:3).
|
I agree that teachers should use data to direct their learning; the more I know about my students' academic abilities and levels, the better I can guide their learning. I also see merit in governing bodies using test results to provide extra assistance to populations of students with consistently lower test scores. But evaluating education based on these 'snapshots' creates a narrow view of what school could be - "as if test scores were good proxies for the quality of education" (Eisner, 2004:3). It implies that students learn by absorbing and repeating information. It promotes shallow, wide learning: knowing a little about everything. It pushes teachers, under pressure to 'cover the curriculum' and prepare students for these kinds of tests, to use teacher-focused methods; there is little time for student-driven inquiry-based learning when EQAO is next month. It strips back the wider educational experience to the '3 Rs', and damns everything else that makes up education - deeper thinking, social development, teamwork, a sense of belonging, engagement with learning, metacognition, and more - to be unreported, unimportant, and underfunded.
That is why none of the following models for the future of education feature standardized testing.
That is why none of the following models for the future of education feature standardized testing.