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
