Planning technology for schools: A design methodology
Simon GipsonDean of Studies
Guildford Grammar School
Planning technology for schools: A design methodologySimon GipsonDean of Studies Guildford Grammar School | |
Perhaps one of the strongest drivers for educational reform comes from the demand for schools to access and incorporate information technology in their programs. Yet, the missing link in most educational technology planning decisions lies in an absence of clear definition of what is going to be done with the "goodies and gadgets". As a result, too often the technology is never really utilised to support and enhance teaching and learning. At the heart of this is the fact that technology is simply grafted on to the existing program and against the existing school design and infrastructure. Consequently, technology often either exists as a tangential activity occurring in discrete computer labs, or as an ancillary activity in some classes..This paper reviews the context of the drivers for educational technology and the broad thrust of the school reform movement, and offers a brief overview of a design methodology - the School Design Model - for the effective implementation of information technology in schools. In so doing, it suggests a direction for taking the next steps in acquiring and deploying information technology and in developing strategies for further planning along the way.
In order for schools to address the next steps in educational technologies, they must first retrace a few, especially in the light of the calls for more accountability, greater efficiency, and the demands for clear demonstrations of "value-addedness" in individuated learning environments. Given the nature of many schools, this suggests a rethinking of school design: how education is delivered; how classrooms are designed; how teaching and learning is constructed.
This paper reviews the context of the drivers for educational technology and the broad thrust of the school reform movement, and offers a brief overview of a design methodology - the School Design Model - for the effective implementation of information technology in schools. Central to this is the notion that schools need to become more tightly coupled, intentional learning organisations focussed on the core business of schools - teaching and learning.
Yet, though schools continue to invest huge amounts of money they receive little demonstrable return in improved student outcomes. Furthermore, successive technology leaps have meant that school computers are often seen to be obsolete as soon as they are installed. This has led to a widespread reaction against the further implementation of information technology. This backlash, coalescing around characters like Clifford Stoll, author of Silicon Snake Oil (1995), has led to a sometimes polemical, but often justified, questioning of the educational value of information technology and the ways in which it is currently utilised in education. At the same time, too, it can be seen that successive waves of reform have led to little real change in pedagogy and practice. Schools are fundamentally little different from those of a hundred years ago.
In the mid-1800s, operating on the functional principle that the factories needed a better skilled work force, schools developed in such a way that they mirrored the kinds of imperatives that governed industry: the technical interests of control, efficiency and economy based on competition (Smith & Lovat, 1993). Furthermore, they so evolved for the very pragmatic reason that mandated schooling ensured that parents were free to work in the factories (Midwinter, 1977). Hence, schools were organised along lines that emphasised conformity, discipline and efficiency. They were at a "'factory stage' in which students are turned out by the educational machinery to fit predetermined roles in a mass production system" (Wirth, 1972; p.142). The needs of industry were reflected in the organisation of schools and the behavioural expectations of children.
The disturbing thing, though, is that around the world, schools generally do not seem to have moved very far from this model in terms of function or organisation. Professor Stephen Heppell of Anglia Polytechnic University's Ultralab, in a telling illustration, often begins his presentations on school reform and curriculum change by projecting a photograph of a classroom. The classroom has the teacher's desk at the front; the students desks are arranged in rows facing the blackboard. He then asks his audience to determine when the photograph was taken. Invariably, the answers span decades, from the twenties through to the nineties. His point is that the very fact that there is debate suggests that fundamental shifts in classroom organisation have not really occurred and that pedagogy itself has remained largely the same. If this is the case, he further argues, then what is taught and what is learned- the curriculum - is also unchanged. As Smith and Lovat in Curriculum: Action on reflection assert:
Schools to a large extent, have been and still are, based upon ideas of mass production and economies of large scale. As such, we find large schools with high numbers of students grouped together according to age, in large classes, with each class basically following the same set of resources and activities, learning the same information and sitting for the same examinations (Smith & Lovat, 1993: pp.205-6).Characteristically, education is still described with the language and metaphors of manufacturing, and school organisation reflects the practices and beliefs of industry.
In Education for the Twenty-first Century, Hedley Beare and Richard Slaughter (1993) argue that we are on the verge of a major paradigm shift in our industrial world-view. Characteristic of this paradigm shift is, simplistically, a questioning of values, attitudes, beliefs and assumptions about our current industrial model and the suggestion that we are in need of a new paradigm consistent with a post-industrial, information age. This sense of paradigm shift is reflected in Alvin Toffler's The Third Wave (1980). Toffler argues that there have been three waves of civilisation: the first wave was the domestication of animals; the second wave, the Industrial Revolution. He suggests that we are now in the throes of entering the third: the Information Age. Many writers believe that the industrial model of education, characterised (albeit in an exaggerated manner) by the didactic pedagogy and content-driven curriculum of Thomas Gradgrind in Hard Times, is in need of a significant reform.
David Dwyer, formerly of Apple and instrumental in the development of Apple's thrust into education through Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow, argues that we are currently experiencing:
... a global shift every bit as significant as the one which took the workers off the farm and placed them in factories. The world's most developed countries are moving towards information-based economies, while some agriculture-based countries are trying to leapfrog the industrial age altogether (1995, p.21).A view endorsed by a range of writers such as Miller (1995), Bain and Kasciewicz (1995) and Hallinger (1996) amongst many others. And, as McLintock and Taipale (1994) suggest in their grandly named Educating America for the Twenty-first century: A strategic plan for educational leadership : "Entering the 21st century , we embark on an era of historic change in which the new communication, computing and information technologies have the potential to renovate education and society fully for the betterment of humankind" (p.2). And there are resonances too in the Thai National Information Technology Policy, Social equity and prosperity: Thailand IT policy into the 21st century, which is predicated on the view that:
How well an individual, an organisation and an entire society can harness, access, share and make use of available information will ultimately decide their ability to generate economic growth and enhance the quality of life for all (p.1).Hence, one can see evidence of a global concurrence that we are experiencing a fundamental shift in the very nature of our society. The hackneyed terms of "post-industrial" and of "information age" do nevertheless reflect an accompanying concern that as society changes, so too must our education system. An industrial model of education will not educate people to take their place in a post-industrial, information-based society.
Against this backdrop, there are of course the pundits that would see the death of schools as the institutions as we currently see them. In any number of speculative and highly rhetorical works, futurists such as L. J. Perlman advocate "hyperlearning: the new technology and the end of learning" (1995). He is not alone, either, from the feminist perspective in Australia, Dale Spender argues for a similar decline in the place and position of schools (Spender, 1994). These critics argue that the increasing use of information and communication technologies will enable students to spend more and more time at home as telescholars, commuting to school by modem, meanwhile having access to the best international pedagogues and best and most authoritative information by way of the World Wide Web. This reconfiguration of the purpose of schools as simple conduits for the delivery of information is in itself of concern, for it takes a narrow view of the role and function of schools. Arguably schools are imbued with much more than a narrow academic focus and encompass learning in a range of social, moral ethical, civic and indeed spiritual domains more effectively acquired in an environment of community than in an electronic cloister of individually accessed information.
Hence, there are inordinate pressures on schools to change, to restructure, in order to provide more appropriate programs suitable for students moving into the 21st century. At the extremes, there are arguments that would see the school disappear altogether.
Yet, one of the other forces shaping the agenda for reform comes from demands for accountability of the educational process. Without going deeply into the area of Quality Assurance and the current climate of standards, benchmarks and accountability, it is apparent that in all areas of public and private sector endeavour, there is the demand for organisations to demonstrate value addedness. This is evident in education around the globe, and governments and government authorities are developing a range of strategies to evaluate schools' successes in determining whether value has been added to a student's attainment through their educational experience. The Office of Standards in Education (OFSTED) in Britain, and the inspectorial institutions such as the Office of Review in the Department of Education in Victoria, are examples of these approaches.
In this way, too, Thornburg argues that schools need to reflect on what it is they are doing in the way of providing appropriate and effective education for the 21st century within this context of value added. He suggests that if schools do not confront these issues of relevance and accountability, then they will be disintermediated. By this he means that schools will no longer occupy the central ground as agencies for education; instead they will become peripheral to the educational enterprise and will be supplanted by some other, more effective model:
Schools that ignore the trends shaping tomorrow will cease to be relevant to the lives of their students and will quickly disappear. We must transform all formal institutions of learning, from pre-K to college, to ensure that we are preparing for their future, not their past (Thornburg, 1994)Given the kinds of drivers for reform alluded to above, the imperatives for change, and the dangers of remaining the same, are evident.
In most cases, schools would be incapable of answering these questions for rarely do they maintain an accurate record of the student and their presenting learning and intellectual characteristics on entry and then accurately and appropriately measure the progress that they make until graduation. Certainly all schools maintain longitudinal qualitative and quantitative records, but it would be difficult for schools to truly and accurately assess how effective they have been in adding to each student's educational experience at the school. And, presumably that is the business of schools.
The realities are that few students use computers often enough in meaningful ways to expect achievement effects, despite significant reductions in student/computer ratios and significant increases in expenditure. As a result, very few schools have technology embedded systemically in their curriculum - that is, technology permeating all the activities of the school: from learning activities through to the administration through to the communications within the school. Hence, despite all the investment and all the expense, little demonstrated value is being added. Furthermore, with the increasing leaps in technological innovation, schools are becoming more and more reluctant to take the technology plunge. There is a kind of fascinated inertia as the chips become faster, the software more complex and sophisticated - we would all love to have them, but we know that around the corner there are going to be even better ones which will render all that we covet now obsolete. So, the rationalisation is, let's get the next generation, not this. Arguably, this becomes a convenient rationalisation at times to avoid the difficulties of confronting the issue. But it is an issue that does need to be confronted and dealt with.
If the reluctance of a generation of teachers unfamiliar with the uses of information technology is factored in, then the inertia is seen to be compounded further. In Australia, for example, the average age of teachers is around 42 years old. Many of these teachers have grown in the profession empowered by the idea that they are the repositories of canonical wisdom, that they control the knowledge base in the classroom. If it is suggested that this no longer the case, if on the basis of the introduction of information technology the position and power of the teacher is fundamentally revised, then it is not surprising that there is reluctance. If, too, teachers are placed in a vulnerable position where the key teaching and learning strategy is something that they are novices in - that is the practical use of information technology - and many of their students experts, it makes it even more difficult.
Furthermore, opinion such as this is reflected in a recent Market Data Retrieval Survey (1997) of US teachers which suggested: "only 13.4% believe the Internet helps students achieve better grades". Yet, as this example indicates, the pressure is increasing for schools to ensure that they address the explicit use of technology as a teaching and learning tool:
Areas identified for specific attention are the use of technology as a tool to enhance learning and provide access to information and the development of skills in collaborative learning (The Western Australian Curriculum Council, 1998).Hence, though it may be seen that some teachers themselves acknowledge and value the importance of information technology in enhancing student learning, there is little evidence of comprehensive and wide scale reform. The combination of rhetoric, expense, unfamiliarity and fear of disempowerment all contribute to an absence of real change in the classroom.
School change, school reform, has been likened to redesigning a jumbo jet in flight, or changing the wheel on a moving car (Dimmock & O'Donoghue, 1997). So how can real change and sustainable reform be effected? It is true to say that many attempts at reform have been top down driven, dictated by policy makers at the highest level, and as a result they seldom make an impact in the classroom itself. What is needed is a methodology which anchors concepts of efficiency and effectiveness in classrooms with teachers.
Arguably, too, there is a real need to develop quality education that provides a more personalised education for all students regardless of ability, one that specifically and professionally addresses their learning histories, intellectual characteristics and learning style preferences (Bain, 1997). In order for this to occur, schools need to become more viable learning organisations by becoming more tightly coupled, intentional and professional places.
The School Design Model was originally developed by the faculty at Brewster Academy, New Hampshire, under the leadership of Dr Alan Bain. Brewster Academy is now regarded as a lighthouse in educational innovation and reform. Its intentional approaches to teaching and learning, extensive professional development program for faculty, unique classroom design, and ubiquitous use of information technology embedded within the life of the school cohere around a commitment to maximising individual achievement. The School Design Model has now been utilised by a number of schools around the world, including: Tridhos Three Generation School Village, Chiang Mai, Thailand; Lyford Cay School, Nassau, The Bahamas; Good Hope School, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong; Boston University Residential Charter School, Granby, Massachusetts.
The School Design Model is a strategic methodology or process for restructuring and/or designing schools which is capable of embracing different philosophical and conceptual approaches to teaching, learning and curriculum. The methodology is predicated on the assumption that all schools must become more intentional, tightly coupled professional places that reflect the changing demands of education and our growing awareness of learner needs and characteristics. The model seeks to embrace both the structure and phenomenology of change (Fullan, 1991) by reconciling both a strategic/system orientation (Evans, 1996) with a human, phenomenological focus. The net result is an approach that fuses the moral and the technical dimensions of school change and reform (Fullan, 1997).
While the School Design Model approach brings an uncommon level of definition to school design, the focus of that definition is so elemental in nature that the approach is amenable to broad application within and across cultures, as evidenced by its application in Asia, North America and Australia. The School Design Model is a highly detailed framework that will assist school change agents and system-level reformers to articulate their vision and frame it within a longitudinal process of strategic activity for school design and restructuring.
The School Design Model is a comprehensive program for restructuring, comprised of four developmental phases entitled Preparation, Design, Implementation, and Evaluation. Within the phases, each of the following elements are addressed:
A fundamental assumption drives the School Design Model and the reforms at Brewster: students of all abilities deserve a more personalised education, one that specifically addresses their achievement history, intellectual characteristics and learning style preferences. And, this kind of statement is almost a "mantra" in educational reform. At a philosophical level, it encapsulates the intent and mission of most schools and the personal agenda of those of us who were drawn to teaching as a vocation. What is proposed in the School Design Model is the extension of the philosophy of individual difference beyond its traditional association with exceptional populations to a broader spectrum of student aptitude and achievement. The model is predicated on the view that any approach that recognises individual difference be addressed within an inclusive, integrated learning context.
Hence, for technology to realise its power and potential, it must be rigorously embedded in a clear and intentional program and be ubiquitously accessible across the school. But, for many schools this may be financially out of the question.
Beare H. and Slaughter, R. (1993). Education for the twenty-first century. Routledge, London.
Caldwell, B. (1997, March). Why school reform is not working: An international perspective on the need for coherence in planning large-scale change in education. Paper presented at Designing Schools for the 21st Century: Considerations for Hong Kong school leaders, Chinese University of Hong Kong,
Chou, L., McClintock, R., Moretti, F. and Nix, D. H. (1993). Technology and education: New wine in new bottles - Choosing pasts and imagining educational futures. New Lab for Teaching and Learning, New York.
Curriculum Council (1998). Professional Development Guidelines for Sectors, Systems and Teachers. Curriculum Council, Osborne Park, WA.
Dimmock, C. A. J. and O'Donoghue, T.A. (1997). Innovative school principals and restructuring. Routledge, London.
Dwyer, D. (1995). Finding the future in the past: Readying schools for the 21st century. In Ron Oliver and Martyn Wild (eds), Learning without limits: Proceedings of the Australian Computers in Education Conference 1995. ECAWA, Perth.
Evans, R. (1996). The human side of school change. Jossey Bass, San Francisco.
Fullan, M. (1997). Emotion and hope: Constructive concepts for complex times. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), Rethinking educational change with heart and mind, 216-233. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Fullan, M. (with Stiegelbauer, S.) (1991). The new meaning of educational change. Teachers College Press, New York.
Hallinger, P..(1996, August). Taking charge of change: Surrender! Paper presented at the International Symposium on Human Resource Development, Center for Leadership Research and Development, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
McClintock, R. and Taipale, I. (1994). Educating America for the twenty-first century: A strategic plan for educational leadership. New Lab for Teaching and Learning, New York.
Miller, M. (1995). Learning without limits. Yes, we can. In Ron Oliver and Martyn Wild (eds), Learning without limits: Proceedings of the Australian Computers in Education Conference 1995. ECAWA, Perth.
Perlman, L. J. (1995). School's out. Doubleday, New York.
Smith, D. L. and Lovat, T. J. (1994). Curriculum: Action on reflection. Social Science Press, Wentworth Falls, NSW.
Spender, D. (1994). Electronic scholarship: The implications of the information revolution for knowledge and academics. In John Edwards (ed), Thinking: International interdisciplinary perspectives. Hawker Brownlow, Victoria.
Stoll, C. (1995). Silicon Snake Oil. Doubleday, New York.
Thai Department of Science and Technology (1995). Social equity and prosperity: Thailand IT policy into the 21st Century. Bangkok.
Thornburg, D. (1994). Education and the communication age. Starsong, New York.
Toffler, A. (1983). The Third Wave. Pan, Melbourne.
Wirth, Arthur G. (1993). Education and Work: The Choices We Face. Phi Delta Kappan, 74 (5), January, 361-366.
| Author: Simon Gipson Dean of Studies Guildford Grammar School 11 Terrace Rd, Guildford WA 6055 sgipson@iinet.net.au Please cite as: Gipson, S. (1998). Planning technology for schools: A design methodology. In C. McBeath and R. Atkinson (eds), Planning for Progress, Partnership and Profit. Proceedings EdTech'98. Perth: Australian Society for Educational Technology. http://www.aset.org.au/confs/edtech98/pubs/articles/gipson1.html |