Me a skeptic? I hope you have proof!

It was a nice surprise to be informed of the opportunity to participate in the ISB C.O.E.T.A.I.L. shortly after accepting a teaching position there. "21st century literacy", "technological competency" and other buzz words have been floating around IS Beijing (the other ISB and my current employer) for a few years now. I remain a self described "digital immigrant" (but unfortunately one with an inane aversion to blogging) as I am too old to be a "digital native" (the kids we teach) but also somewhat of a skeptic - hoping somebody, somewhere, will cut through the fluff, the undeniable sociological relevance and "show me the money" with regards to solid connections between the integration of technology in classrooms and improved learning.

I think I can say this is my principle goal from this certificate program. I am also hoping that I can learn a few nifty things along the way and further develop my knowledge base and finally, what a great opportunity to network in advance with future co-workers.

So I began my course readings in earnest, open to new ideas but must admit, predisposed to others. By all means, I can see the benefits of "engaging", through technology, otherwise "enraged" learners, but there are many pitfalls to negotiate and I somewhat hesitantly find myself occupying the role as bearer and waver of a big caution flag.

We read in Ito et al. (2008) about “hanging out” being one of three “genres of participation in the new media” and I cannot help but to imagine myself at the age of the students I teach and what I was doing. At the time, “teen phones” were becoming quite popular in my home town, in the sense that parents were installing second, what we now call, “land lines” (is it me or does the term often come across with some disdain?) for their kids to use in order to prevent their “hypersocial” behavior from disrupting the less frequent parental requirement to use a telephone. My point is that teens today are not much different than when I was a kid but I absolutely concede (in line with the descriptions given in the paper) that HOW today’s teens conduct their (not so different) social relationships has certainly changed.

I internalize this briefly along with the point Prensky (2005) tries to make and all I can come up with is that new approaches to teaching that integrate the types of technology kids are using today are necessary in order to keep students motivated to learn in an otherwise disconnected environment (i.e. our schools). “No kidding” I say to myself as I ponder what the grounds are to contest this obvious argument. I wonder how successful I would be if I still used a slide rule in my physics class in today’s age of graphing calculators (each containing enough computing power for 10 Apollo moon missions) – this reminds me of another ironic observation regarding “engagement” which I hope to remember to address later (add link here).

In my mind, the laptop computer, internet etc of today are the binders, pencil cases and libraries of my day in school. Failure to acknowledge this is not just supposedly ignoring potential learning but is also dramatically unfair to today’s students who will need a specific skill set (I am not sure if cursive writing is part of that) to function effectively in the world we do/will live in. Their (the students’) technological competency is a necessary component of education in any of today’s schools worth their salt, and how fortunate we don’t have to convince them that “learning to use computers is good for you” (my mother forced me – I so wanted to take wood shop - to learn to type in my first year of high school).
In this I am very specific, first and foremost to ask, "am I contributing to developing a useful skill set in my students?" Second, "is this application etc actually enhancing their understanding of physics?", and finally, "is the implementation of the new strategy etc more efficient?"

I am a skeptic, and I ask these questions because I worry about what I call "educational window-dressing". Today's international (and probably other schools) are in competition for students and marketing initiatives such as glossy annual reports full of numbers and photos of students using computers prey on the conception that (kids + computers) x school = quality education. Administrators and educators buy into the game as well but I'm not biting, all things considered equal, the impression that the level of IT integration in a classroom is an indicator of good teaching.