Читать книгу The Power of Unstoppable Momentum - Michael Fullan - Страница 8

chapter one

LEARNING IS NOT ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGY

As of 2017, the transition to technology-infused classrooms has failed to significantly impact student learning in the United States and in most systems. The digital world surrounds students outside of school and, to an increasing degree, inside of school, but they have not become better learners. For example, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OCED, 2015) report finds no correlation between the amount of money spent on technology by countries and their success in student learning. Deep learning, by contrast, does make a difference because it alters pedagogy in ways that engage students in their own learning and links this to global competencies like the six Cs: character, citizenship, collaboration, communication, creativity, and critical thinking (New Pedagogies for Deep Learning, n.d.). As we show in this book, strong new learning partnerships between students, teachers, and families must shape and propel deep learning for students to become better learners today, and for the future.

We aim to show how learning can be radically different and fulfilling for a majority of students and educators—stratospheric is the word we like to use—and how this kind of successful technology-based change can be implemented on a whole-system basis (districtwide and schoolwide). We also hope to pave the way for states, provinces, and countries to move in this direction.

This chapter discusses the siren call of technology and its limited impact on educational progress. We write about the importance of building change knowledge and avoiding digital dabbling to generate a growth culture that uses technology and professional capital together to build unstoppable momentum.

The Siren Call of Technology

Many states and districts across the United States have fallen for the beckoning sirens of digital nirvana. Just as the sirens of Greek mythology, with their beautiful voices, lured sailors to crash on the reefs, the siren songs of technology have lured educators and students into a sea of confusion and wreckage. One such example involves the Los Angeles Unified School District, which entered a $1 billon contract with Apple and Pearson to supply curricula-loaded iPads to teachers and students only to abort the contract within one year because it didn’t fully understand how to implement the technology (Blume, 2014). Eric Sheninger and Thomas C. Murray (2017) document countless other examples of false starts.

These kinds of problems arise when educators use technology as the starting point. Technology appears concrete and sexy, and human beings tend to take the path of least resistance and go with the latest toys—a kind of shiny object syndrome. Even from a budget standpoint, one-shot computer purchases are appealing because the expenditure does not necessarily go in the base budget.

When schools buy or upgrade technology platforms, they often think they have moved into 21st century learning. But many have not developed the culture and environment that are equally necessary for student success in the 21st century. Now that the digital movement is fully underway, schools are generally adopting an acquisition strategy. They believe they are moving forward just by the act of buying machines. However, just as many golfers and tennis players have found, if their fundamentals are not sound, the latest equipment does not guarantee improvements in expertise and performance.

The state of technology use in many U.S. districts amounts to little more than digital dabbling. This is understandable given the explosive nature of digital innovations and plethora of options, but digital dabbling, as we write about in more detail later in this chapter, often represents a significant waste of resources and opportunities. Most school systems use technology superficially or wrongly because they are attracted to the quick fix of purchased modernity without realizing the fundamental foundation work that must underpin the effective use of digitally related solutions. Many districts put the focus on hardware when it should be on heartware, that is, on the human infrastructure rather than the technical infrastructure. Often school leaders look for a quick tick rather than the long lift that complex and systemic change requires. Getting it right is not easy. In this book, we outline the new thinking and actions that must underpin the use of technology in order to achieve the goal of improving learning for all students.

The problem is especially pressing because traditional schooling is increasingly boring as students go up the grade levels, with barely one-third of students engaged in their schoolwork by the time they reach grade 9 or 10 (Jenkins, 2013; Sheninger & Murray, 2017). This leaves teachers worse off as well, because teaching bored students is not fun. Every year, Pew Charitable Trusts (www.pewtrusts.org) releases a report on student attitudes about high school, and every year a stunning majority of students tell us they see no connection between their school experience and their future.

In Stratosphere, Fullan (2013) laments the lack of integration of three potentially powerful learning forces—(1) technology, (2) pedagogy, and (3) change knowledge. For a long time, educators tried to keep technology at arm’s length, but eventually there was no choice—digital technology is relentless and ubiquitous. But it’s not sufficiently integrated. When technology deployments are not integrated with sound pedagogy and a wealth of change knowledge, its benefits are severely limited.

Limited Impact

It comes as no surprise that our most comprehensive educational researchers repeatedly find that technology has little impact on student engagement and learning. In Visible Learning for Teachers, John Hattie (2012) analyzes approximately nine hundred meta-research studies of instructional practices, calculates the effect sizes of more than two hundred teaching practices, and consistently finds that technology has an effect size of 0.15 (impact effects of 0.40 and above are significant). And Stanford University researcher Larry Cuban (2013) shows that the impact of technology on classroom practice has been insignificant since the 1970s.

Although the digital explosion is far more powerful than anything we have ever seen in education, Alan November (2012) reminds us that computers don’t make people smarter, just as electric typewriters didn’t make people smarter. Having access to all the information in the world does not make us better problem solvers. Technology per se does not create learning, and technology in and of itself is not the solution. A saying often attributed to Grady Booch, chief scientist in software engineering at IBM Research, goes, “A fool with a tool is still a fool.” In short, technology as solution puts the cart before the horse. Pedagogy and culture are the foundations, as we show in the rest of this book.

To express our theory of action up front, we incorporate student engagement and learning impact, and the causal pathways to such impact, inside our model. We do this not for accountability reasons (although it serves that purpose), but rather because if you do not know your impact or how to get there, you will inevitably remain at the surface level. Many early large-scale deployments of laptops and efforts to transform the culture of learning and teaching showed exuberance and promising expectations, but fell flat over time.

Henrico County Public Schools in Virginia, for example, launched the first major districtwide one-to-one laptop program in 2000. The district gave every middle and high school student a laptop (twenty-six thousand in total) and implemented wireless connectivity in all schools. Visitors from all over the United States made their way to Richmond to see what this digital revolution looked like. The National School Boards Association even hailed it as a success (Sellers, 2002).

The state of Maine followed in 2001, deploying laptops to all middle school students in the state. Despite implementation challenges and logistical barriers, most observers saw great promise and opportunity in this bold initiative (Gravelle, 2003). Dozens of individual U.S. schools and a few districts launched similar programs.

Despite numerous efforts like these, we don’t know of any districtwide digital programs that have altered teaching and learning or produced true accountability indicators of success. This is not to insinuate that none of these programs have experienced success, but rather that even in the most committed situations, with full digital coverage, the measurable learning impact has been small. Henrico was lauded for the bold initial effort, but change in leadership resulted in a systemic backing off from the implementation with inconsistent and spotty use. This is an important lesson that a lack of coherent direction will kill most, if not all, efforts for district transformation.

Although there are examples of carefully planned and orchestrated technology, very few have paid attention to corresponding pedagogy and culture that are essential for success in learning and student achievement. Technology becomes an end to itself and overlooks the real drivers—engaging pedagogy and collaborative cultures that build change knowledge and efficacy of results.

Time and again, districts are looking for solutions in the wrong places. When pressure mounts for results, as it has increasingly since No Child Left Behind (NCLB; 2001–2002) in the United States, and when shiny objects grab the attention of leaders and sponsors, it is inevitable that people want tangible solutions. Even though the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; 2015–2016) replaced NCLB in the United States, there is no indication that the system has learned its lesson. It is becoming very clear that the pedagogical transformation of deep learning requires a cultural foundation that provides for the systemic coherence that is necessary for this work.

In sum, despite the millions of dollars invested and the hundreds of schools embracing digital resources and new instructional practices, there is an absence of models that indicate long-term, improved student outcomes and significant evolution of teaching and learning practices. This book aims to provide such a model of successful transformational change.

Change Knowledge

To say that technology has a limited impact on learning is not to deny the power of technology. Technology works when partnered with a professional capital framework, pedagogy, and change knowledge. Pedagogy is at the heart of learning, and change knowledge deals with motivating and supporting large numbers of people throughout the change process. The solution must focus on the whole system—all schools in a jurisdiction, sound pedagogy, and a link to measurable outcomes. Cutting across these three dimensions is change knowledge. Change knowledge involves what educators need to know to navigate the change process effectively, as a participant or leader, leading to greater ownership and impact.

According to David Cote, the former CEO of Honeywell, the most important thing about leadership is to be right at the end of the meeting, not the beginning (Solomon, 2014). To be right at the end of the meeting means that the group has processed complex ideas—developing clarity, capacity, and commitment in relation to an important goal and figuring out the best way to address that goal throughout the change process. An effective change process is one that shapes and reshapes good ideas as it builds capacity and ownership. There are two components to the definition. First, there is the quality of the idea. Second, there is the quality of the process to build new capacities. Change leadership involves bringing these two aspects together. For educators, integrating good ideas with capacity building is at the heart of our coherence framework solution to system change (Fullan & Quinn, 2016). We have found that when this is done well, the change process becomes voluntary but inevitable, as you will see in the following chapters. For example, although people in MGSD never imposed deep change, it occurred, and virtually everyone in the district came to embrace it.

In a good change process, people value each other and the ideas because they have had a say in the matter and because the ideas work. When the change process fails to attract buy-in from its stakeholders, it is often because the process involves digital dabbling.

Digital Dabbling

Unfortunately, superficial change in technology use, where the devices appear but teaching doesn’t change, seems to be the norm. We have seen district after district purchase tablets using a plan that boiled down to just putting some stuff out there and seeing what happens. In these cases, usually not much happens, or the lack of deep conviction for sustained learning from educators generates messy and incoherent results. We believe educators and districts are increasingly realizing that technology adoption alone is not working. They are worried about the limited impact and lack of results we discussed earlier in this chapter and are seeking new approaches to address these problems. Our goal is to help provide a road map to enable the transition from technology’s false promise to establishing learning as the foundation. Next, we summarize the babble problem and, in subsequent chapters, move toward a systematic solution.

Dabble Babble

Stories abound of digital initiatives in schools that soon fade. Doing the “laptop thing” achieves little, except to tell students that schools are not the places to learn. Students know that mere knowledge acquisition is not learning, and that they can get the content answer to almost any problem with the push of a button. Too much focus on using technology to quickly get easy answers all but guarantees a superficial or inconsequential outcome and manifests among students and staff as a lack of long-term interest in real change.

You can often immediately tell the difference between a well-planned and implemented technology rollout from one that involves dabbling. We have heard these comments from education leaders indicating the dabbling problem.

• “We are focused on a smooth deployment.”

• “Choosing the right device is first and foremost.”

• “We have completed our plan.”

• “We are rolling out carts and can’t wait to see the change.”

• “We are focusing on innovation and fun.”

• “We don’t send the laptops home.”

• “This will make life easier for teachers.”

• “We have a six-year rollout plan.”

• “We are rolling out to everyone in the first year.”

• “We are debating bring your own device (BYOD) and other alternatives.”

These sorts of statements are indicative of reliance on jargon in place of a crafted implementation plan. For example, “We are focusing on innovation and fun” provides no concrete details for how a device rollout will benefit teachers or students. It’s a litany of nonspecific platitudes rather than a plan of concrete processes to achieve results. If your district often communicates in this manner, it is time to stop and consider how to address the dabble deficits in your technology rollout plan.

Dabble Deficits

Devices are essential to the change process but only one part of a long journey, and the other parts are often overlooked. Districts often buy a little bit of this software and a little bit of that, hoping that something good will happen. But dabbling—without commitment to and focus on pedagogy and the culture; without investing in a sense of team and family in the classrooms, schools, and district; and without attention to the following common deficits—will guarantee limited progress.

• Lack of short- and long-term learning goals

• Lack of alignment and coherence

• Leader turnover or lack of leadership

• Goal changes midstream

• Acceptance of mediocrity

• Politics and institutional resistance

• Financial and resource issues

• Lack of human capital

• Lack of social capital

• Lack of decisional capital

• State and federal mixed messages about priorities

• A poor or weak culture

• Lack of collective will

• Lack of momentum

• Lack of communication with stakeholders

• Lack of professional development for teachers and administrators

From the beginning, it is important to realize that, even with the most carefully laid plans, the change process is complex and messy; people will make mistakes. But a stream of unconnected initiatives, avoidance of problems, and fear of the unknown are hugely detrimental to any efforts to innovate and change.

A lack of coherent information and dialogue with students, teachers, administrators, school board members, parents, and community members usually means that bad information infects the culture. Issuing directives or presenting plans without formative dialogue leaves individuals and teams with a sense of helplessness when working through challenges. Worst of all, when bumps and turbulence occur, avoiding the work or becoming cynical has a hugely negative impact. It doesn’t have to be this way. It is time to put culture and technology together.

Culture and Technology Together

Digital content is loaded with great new functionality that can potentially benefit students, teachers, and administrators. Many times, however, schools build the professional development around the use of the technology without allowing for personal and collective growth. For example, supporting principals to grow in leading change, as well as inculcating teachers in leadership, are essential and vital to digital innovation work. The real digital energy comes from the opportunities to connect learners to their work and constructing collaborative projects that mirror real-world work.

Neglecting the important work of building human, social, and decisional capital is at the root of widespread mediocrity and dismal progress in many digital initiatives, as Andy Hargreaves and Michael Fullan (2012) so thoroughly document. The working conditions that support the new pedagogical dynamic we see on the horizon require a level of systemic alignment and leadership continuity that constantly lifts and reflects on classroom work. In the rest of the book we show how one district—Mooresville Graded School District in North Carolina—got it right, and how other districts are taking up the lessons it learned. There is nothing mysterious about implementing the strategies and processes leading to success. It requires a strong sense of moral purpose to serve all students, but more than that, it involves a clear and persistent approach to change and mobilize a collective culture devoted to adult and student learning linked to measurable impact.