I just started reading an “older” (1996) educational technology book called “Computers in the Classroom: Mindtools for Critical Thinking” by David H. Jonassen. Initially, Jonasson organizes the educational technology world in three parts. Technologies that we learn “from” (drill and kill, automated tutors, etc.). Technologies we learn “about” (the parts of a computer, how to use Photoshop, etc). And, technologies we learn “with” (software tools that force a user to think deeply using higher order thinking skills). The majority of the examples focus on the “with” category.
I think Jonassen’s model for organizing technologies in education is smart and will allow for easier sharing and classification of new technologies as educators explore new and innvoative solutions for students.
As I picked this book up and started reading it, I also made a connection with a discussion I was having at ACES with our Tech Council. It was brought up that the new NAEP 2012 Tech Assessment will assess three areas. They are:
- science, technology, and society
- technology education
- information and communications technology (ICT)
The concern raised in the article (and during our discussion) was that many school districts are focusing on number 3, the ICT approach, and when schools are assessed they will fail on numbers one and two. I could argue how educational technology should be defined or what exactly should be assessed. However, even though these topics are important, I will leave them for another day.
My concern is that even when all three of these areas are included in the public school district curriculum, the mix of instructional types (from, about, and with) are not evenly or appropriately used. It has been my experience that too many leaders mistake learning “from” technology as adequate “integration” or “use” of technology. Others focus on the “about” technologies approach (which I see as valid) but often at the expense of the use of technology. Ultimately, to be successful in all three areas, it is my belief that we must work “with” the technology to allow students to construct deeper understanding through activities that force critical thought. “With” as opposed to activities in the “from” and “about” approaches that promote important but typically more superficial types of learning.