American Educator
publishes new piece by Dan Willingham (in pdf. form), piece
promptly gets criticized on Net (on a blog).
There's something in that, methinks.
I've got no problem with a cognitive scientist talking about the brain all he wants. I think there's a lot to learn about learning in the work of Willingham and other academics. I actually like Willingham and have chatted with him occasionally about issues in education. And I think we should be thankful to have someone in the cognitive sciences with an interest in what we do as educators.
But, I think that just as we need the help of cognitive scientists to help us better understand the brain, they also need us to help them understand the context and reality of the classroom. And this has to be a conversation, not a series of diatribes. Otherwise, we create something analogous to a music journalist telling a musician how to play better and the musician turning around and saying the journalist doesn't know how to write. And that's useless.
So with the intention of creating discussion, I do embark...
One of the first things Willingham says is that "new technologies do not represent a silver bullet", and on that front he's absolutely correct. And I don't think any proponent of ed tech would argue with him. And I don't think any teacher with any amount of experience whatsoever in dealing with kids would think that there's a silver bullet for anything.
Where Dan starts to lose me, however, is in completing that thought by saying that "Just using a new gadget does not guarantee student learning". It's not that I disagree with that statement in and of itself, but rather I disagree with what the statement assumes: that technology is about gadgets.
We have to be really careful to explain what we mean by "tech" and what we mean by "gadget". An iPad is a gadget, but it allows for the operation of technology. A laptop is a piece of hardware, it's a gadget; but it allows access to the greater operation signified as the technology of the Web.
I'd say there are passive devices and active devices. Passive devices give you content; they simulate in digital form what we've come to expect of the physical world. I'd put a Kindle in this category; the screen on a Kindle attempts to simulate the page of a paper book. Active devices, on the other hand, are open and promote sharing -- by design. Active devices allow you to get onto the Web and do stuff, make stuff, create stuff, share stuff, and -- most importantly -- learn by doing. Active devices have the capacity to allow the user to manipulate the content of the Web from the point of view of creator and editor, author and reviewer -- all while breaking down the traditional hierarchies and top-down corporate models of content production.
So in the same way that there is a difference between a gadget and technology itself, there are also differences among types of gadgets.
I'm not sure from this article, however, exactly what it is that Willingham is defining as a "gadget" and what he defines as "tech". He seems to equate Web 2.0 tools and computer hardware in some odd way. For example, in a list of possible downsides to several devices, he suggests that Twitter isn't very useful because it is "limited" to 140 characters (granted in an entire article on tech and learning, that's all the attention he gives to Twitter). But, as anyone who has spent any time with Twitter soon realizes, the technology is not "limited" to 140 characters. Nor is Twitter really a "device".
Allow me to conceptualize here.
Twitter is a searchable network format for sharing and searching info and links in real-time. I think Willingham may be thinking about Twitter as a "gadget", whereas it really represents a "form" of communication, not a "device" for communicating. In a way, "tweeting" as a communication technology has transcended the device of "Twitter" -- and it did that long ago (in relation to how long it has existed). That distinction -- between tech and device -- is understood only once one becomes fluid in the application of the technology to a variety of working problems: from direct communication to sharing links to following conversations via 3rd party apps to using Twitter specifically for pedagogical purposes like hashtagging classes or searching in real time to gauge mass response on a current issue.
Tweeting, therefore, does not represent the act of using a new gadget, but rather represents a mode of communication unique to the current cultural paradigm. By analogy, the telephone was a gadget; but the act of telephoning was a form of communication technology in action.
Willingham writes a very compelling section of this paper on interactive whiteboards; and he says that the mere presence of an interactive whiteboard does not mean that students will learn better. And he is 100% correct. But he and the other researchers could have asked any experienced teacher and they would have given you the same answer. Because the whiteboard is a tool/device/gadget. And no gadget will produce any significant result on its own accord. Rather, the whiteboard has to be used in an effective way by the teachers and students. If the whiteboard is used in a passive way, you'll get passive learning (if any). If the whiteboard is used in an active way, you are more likely to get active learning.
Willingham makes a strange case concerning overhead projectors in comparing them to chalkboards -- or more specifically, what is written on a chalkboard. Citing a study of Japanese math teachers who prefer chalkboards, he says that the reason why is because the notes written stay up on the board and can be referred to later. But the comparison of overhead projectors to chalkboards denies the reality of what a projector actually does. A projector projects. That's it. A chalkboard, on the other hand, captures handwriting. The more apt comparison would be between a chalkboard and whatever program or app one is using. So, if a teacher is concerned about 'saving info' on the board, just use a program or app where the info is saved, open multiple tabs, use a backchannel, and by all means in any 1:1 situation: let your students access the information and notes you are creating in real-time; the blackboard, by contrast -- I can't believe I'm actually blogging this -- can be erased. And that info is lost forever. And it is so much more difficult to share.
In a way it seems to me that any teacher who would prefer the blackboard -- for the reasons stated -- just hasn't taken the time to figure out how to use the technology. For the record, it's actually easier than programming the time on a VCR.
Now, those are examples where I think Willingham's arguments don't really jive with the reality of an experienced tech-savvy teacher/learner. There's a lot in Willingham's work that really does work. His criticisms of multi-tasking ring true for the most part, and his observations that brain research can and should apply to teaching are not things I'd argue with. But I think Dan needs a bit of an immersion lesson in ed tech.
And so, I suggest we thank Dan for the good stuff he's been doing and offer to help him understand where many of us are coming from. After all, Dan writes about Twitter (sparsely), but -- and I say this as a person who has spent his fair share of time sharing and learning through tweets -- I don't think Dan really gets it; because I never see him there. I never see Dan in #edchat. I never see Dan getting into Twitter conversations (and that's actually one of the great things about the format: you can watch other people's conversations develop in public). I never see Dan sharing links. And when I look at the bibliography of his article, I see lots of peer review journals cited, but I don't see any sign that Dan has done any of the dirty work -- I use that term endearingly -- of ripping into the real live 24/7 conversation that's happening in the Ed Tech community every single day.
He's not there.
So how could he possibly understand? He's busy referencing articles by a lot of other folks who aren't there. And don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of academia and I think there is an enormous contribution to be made to intellectual life by the writing and reading of peer review journals. But Willingham's article makes recommendations to teachers about technology -- and Willingham himself isn't even adept at the technologies that he's writing about.
Some of my favorite twitterers are academics -- from
Alec Couros to
Jay Rosen to
Ira Socol -- who've come to use the format as a perfect place to share ideas and engage in debate with the public.
But Dan's not there.
So let's help Dan. Let's get him into our PLN. Let's help him understand what this is about -- not by reading a book about it, but by actually doing it. And I'm serious about this. I may have disagreements with Willingham on many issues (his thoughts on learning styles come to mind), but I respect that he's taking part in a dialog about teaching. I just wish he'd take part in that discussion in a more open and perhaps less sheltered way.
