This semester, I’m teaching a class on Emergent Technologies and Innovative Practices for students in our new Educational Leadership doctoral program. All of the students are leaders in area schools. Some are principals. A few are assistant superintendents. One is a business manager for a local district. They’re a really smart group who are going to engage in some really heady discourse over how we integrate technology in schools.
We’re entering the fifth week of the semester and I think some of the students are seeing a disconnect. While the class is titled “emergent technology,” we’ve actually spent very little time so far talking about technology at all. While we’ll be digging deeper into technologies later in the semester, we’ve spent most of the class discussing learning theory and broader theoretical constructs like TPACK. So, what gives? Why would I organize the class in such a way? I think my instructional decisions for this class are best captured in a Tweet I came across this weekend.
“We can’t have conversations around technology until we are ready to have conversations around learning.” @justintarte
I don’t know Dr. Tarte but I think we’re kindred spirits. The education community spends a lot of time talking about devices and apps and learning management systems but very little time discussing learning. The larger challenge, however, is that educators, school leaders, parents and other stakeholders hold very different beliefs about learning and we don’t spend a lot of time hashing these beliefs out in public forums. One of the books my doctoral students are reading is Teaching Crowds by Dron and Anderson (2014). In the book, the authors discuss different pedagogical generations and how beliefs of learning changed during these time periods. In the behavioral/cognitive era, pedagogy was focused on teaching the individual. The behavioral/cognitive tradition assumes that “there is a body of material or specified measurable skill to be learned that may be transmitted to the learner.” The focal point of this pedagogical generation is the instructor and the one-to-one or one-to-many delivery system.
The social constructivist era, however, changes this focus. In this generation, social interactions and constructing understanding through experience are the central vehicles for learning. Few people learn in isolation, social constructivists would argue. We learn by interacting with one another and by experience the world around us. These social constructivist beliefs helped to usher in the next pedagogical generation: the connectivist era. In this generation, the focus isn’t solely on the individual but also on the larger community in which one participates. In the connectivist era, learning occurs in groups and is demonstrated in and distributed across people’s ability to participate. Connectivist pedagogy recognizes that “knowledge exists in a social and physical context as well as a personal one.”
These are very short synopses of the larger pedagogical generation described in Dron and Anderson’s text. The larger takeaway, however, is that different people that are involved in decision-making in schools can hold wildly different beliefs on how people learn. Not just because of the influence of these pedagogical eras but also from their own experiences as learners and as educators. These beliefs, however, inform technological decisions, whether through explicit or tacit means. Someone who believes in instructive forms of learning would select and use very different technologies than someone who believes in more social and collaborative processes of learning.
And that’s why I’m spending a large portion of my doctoral class examining learning theories and the research-base behind each. As educators, we need to recognize that technology decisions should not just be based on availability, cost or efficiency but should also reflect our beliefs about learning.