black friday vs cyber monday

I do not like to shop. As a kid I remember being dragged to various stores to shop for new clothes that were starchy, itchy, and never as comfortable as the ones I was presently wearing. I had no interest, zero, none. The only way my two brothers and I could manage any joy on these ventures was to stand next to the mannequins and mimic their statuesque poses. Actually, I may have been the only one to do that, much to the deep embarrassment of my brothers (bonus points for that in my book) and to the consternation of my mother (sorry mom). With a dislike for shopping ingrained since my youth, then why was I going to venture out last week on Black Friday at 5:30 in the morning to join the mad crush at the stores and retail outlets? Simple answer…technology. I wanted a new 21 inch monitor and a sporty little Netbook. It is the 21^st century and it is all about what gadget you got (I apologize for the grammar, it is just that I have an affection for alliterations).

In his book, The New Basics: Education and the Future of Work in the Telematic Age, David Thornburg promotes an educational paradigm with technology as the key component. Thornburg bemoans the current emphasis on testing because the assessments address a set of antiquated content and process standards. Obviously, procuring competence with technology is a fundamental skill for the 21^st century and we can all nod our head in agreement. But, a close examination of how Connecticut addresses the practice of technology and school leadership may cause you to shake your head.

The Connecticut State Board of Education (2004) has a position paper promoting technology and they have created extensive sets of technology standards for students, teachers, and administrative leaders. However, and this is a big however, as in HOWEVER, there is limited connection between the standards and the expectation of school leaders to focus on them. The School Leadership Categories for the Connecticut Administrator Test lists 88 standards, but there is only one vague reference to technology (Category 2, curriculum standard #5). One out of 88! To make matters worse (although how much worse can you get compared to one out of 88?!) The Educational Leadership Self Inventory, which is based on the Connecticut State Board of Education Standards for School Leaders, lists 69 statements describing qualities of leadership; yet not one (not one as in zero) of the standard mentions technology. Clearly there is a need to operationalize the technology standards.

The youth of America certainly have operationalized technology. Pearson, Ferdig, Blomeyer, & Moran’s (2005) meta-analysis of 20 research articles on digital tools and literacy acquisition state that students use the internet and media as their primary text, and that schools are woefully behind. On the opposite end of the spectrum are teachers. An article published by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) states that only one third of teachers felt well prepared to use computers or the internet to assist instruction and the NCES National survey results (2005) show that less than 40% of the teachers feel that the use of multimedia in the classroom is essential to their teaching. I believe that this is what is referred to as a generation gap. More like a generation Grand Canyon. Even Evel Knieval wouldn’t attempt to jump this gap.

So, how valid is technology to education? An exhaustive review of the research funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation found; “The fact is that at the present time there is not a satisfactory way to measure what or how technology enhances learning, even though many believe that it does.” (Fouts, 2000, p. 38). Please don’t tell the Luddites that the research sponsored by Bill Gates does not verify the positive impact of technology on student performance outcomes! It certainly would be ironic if the value of technology in education relied on gut feelings instead of research. However, more current research in the form of a meta-analysis of 42 studies involving 7000 students finds that the use of technology to assist teaching and learning has a small, positive effect on the cognitive outcomes of students (Waxman et al., 2003). Whew.

So it seems like the students are the experts, most teachers are lackadaisical in enthusiasm or have low rates of competency, and administrative leadership standards are phantom objectives. Not a real positive outlook. The good news is that expertise in technology can be acquired independent of the formal education system. Students can procure the expertise on their own. There are always a few teachers with local expertise. In addition, I have worked in two separate school systems and both have had very able and personable technology staff, eager to share the wonders of technology. Therefore, tap into the talents of these outliers and you can find a rich resource base to help build a technology-rich program and culture.

And for me, next year I will skip Black Friday and shop from the comfort of my home by surfing the web to get my new set of gadgets on Cyber Monday.

Make a good day

Tod

PS. Evel Knievel’s jump at Caesar’s Palace: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTGGCVE2IKY

PSS. References

Fouts, J. T. (2000). Research on computers and education: Past, present and future. Retrieved (n.d.) from www.esd189.org/tlp/images/TotalReport3.pdf

Pearson, P. D., Ferdig, R. E., Blomeyer, R. L., & Moran, J. (2005). The effects of technology on reading performance in the middle grades: A meta-analysis with recommendations for policy. Retrieved June 25, 2006 from NCREL website.

Thornburg, D. (2002). The new basics: Education and the future of work in the telematic age. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Waxman, H., Lin, M., Michko, G. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes. Retrieved June 25, 2006 from http://www.ncrel.org/tech/effects2/

PSSS. National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Computer technology in the public school classroom: teacher perspectives. Retrieved (n.d.), from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005083 ,

National Center for Educational Statistics (2000). Teacher tools for the 21^st century: A report on teachers’ use of technology. Retrieved (n.d.) from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2000102

PSSSS. Connecticut’s technology standards: Connecticut State Board of Education. (2002). 2001 Connecticut teacher technology competency performance indicators. Retrieved July, 2005, from http://www.state.ct.us/sde/dtl/technology/technology.htm ,

Connecticut State Board of Education. (2002). 2001 Connecticut prekindergarten through grade 12 computer technology competency standards for students. Retrieved July, 2005, from http://www.state.ct.us/sde/dtl/technology/technology.htm ,

Connecticut State Board of Education. (2002). 2001 Connecticut administrator technology standards. Retrieved July, 2005, from http://www.state.ct.us/sde/dtl/technology/technology.htm ,

Connecticut State Board of Education. (2004). Position statement on educational technology and information literacy. Retrieved May 1, 2005 from http://www.state.ct.sde/dtl/technology/technology.htm