New Times Demand New Ways of Learning

New Times Demand New Ways of Learning

---

Recent research builds a powerful case against what used to be accepted "truths" about learning and technology. First, there is strong evidence that traditional models of learning, traditional definitions of technology effectiveness, and traditional models of the cost effectiveness of technology don't work. In place of these old assumptions, researchers are positing new ways of looking at learning that promote:

• engaged, meaningful learning and collaboration involving challenging and real-life tasks; and
• technology as a tool for learning, communication, and collaboration.

This section details the indicators that educators and policymakers can use to measure the effectiveness of technology in learning.

The traditional learning model is not relevant to real student needs

Today's workplaces and communities - and tomorrow's - have tougher requirements than ever before. They need citizens who can think critically and strategically to solve problems. These individuals must learn in a rapidly changing environment, and build knowledge taken from numerous sources and different perspectives. They must understand systems in diverse contexts, and collaborate locally and around the globe.

These attributes contrast sharply with the discrete, low-level skills, content, and assessment methods that traditional ways of learning favor. The new workplace requirements for learning are incompatible with instruction that assumes the teacher is the information giver and the student a passive recipient. The new requirements are at odds with testing programs that assess skills that are useful only in school.

The traditional mechanisms for evaluating the effectiveness of technology programs don't work

Traditionally, we have determined the effectiveness of a technology program vis-a-vis a "regular" program by comparing student outcomes on standardized tests. Numerous researchers, however, question the utility of this method. When the North Central Regional Education Laboratory (NCREL) surveyed experts about traditional models of technology effectiveness, respondents said:

• "Effectiveness is not a function of the technology, but rather of the learning environment and the capability to do things one could not do otherwise."
• "Technology in support of outmoded educational systems is counterproductive."
• "[The reliance on] standardized tests is ludicrous... Technology works in a school not because test scores increase, but because technology empowers new solutions."

Similarly, the typical way to determine a technology's cost effectiveness is to compare the costs of the technology-enhanced program against the costs of the traditional program. Some researchers decry this approach, pointing out that such cost analyses assume that we should continue teaching the same things, rather than change with changing times. Additionally, cost-effectiveness data could constrain development of innovative applications of technology.

---

Why Keep Asking the Same Questions When They Are Not the Right Questions?

There are no definitive answers to questions about the effectiveness of technology in boosting student learning, student readiness for workforce skills, teacher productivity, and cost effectiveness. True, some examples of technology have shown strong and consistent positive results. But even powerful programs might show no effects due to myriad methodological flaws. It would be most unfortunate to reject these because standardized tests showed no significant differences. Instead, measures should evaluate individual technologies against specific learning, collaboration, and communication goals.

---

Where do we go from here?

What we have learned from these reactions to traditional ways of learning and evaluating technology is that we must change the questions and the processes. Specifically, we must establish a clear vision of learning and goals for a school, district, or other unit. Without this vision, there can be no criteria for evaluating technology effectiveness or costs.

What is effective learning and how can it be measured?

Our framework builds upon a framework developed by Barbara Means of SRI International. Means identified seven variables that, when present in the classroom, indicate that effective teaching and learning are occurring.

These classroom variables are:

• children are engaged in authentic and multidisciplinary tasks
• assessments are based on students' performance of real tasks
• students participate in interactive modes of instruction
• students work collaboratively
• students are grouped heterogeneously
• the teacher is a facilitator in learning
• students learn through exploration

We took these variables and reorganized them into a set of eight categories of learning and instruction: vision of learning, tasks, assessment, instruction, learning context, grouping, teacher roles, and student roles. We then expanded the definitions of Means' variables with information from recent research on learning and instruction and added many new variables. In all, there are 26 variables or 26 indicators of engaged learning. ... (Article cited from http://www.netc.org/cdrom/plug_in/html/newtimes.htm).

---------------------------------------------

What's interesting about this article is the new shift from standardized assessments to a more collaborative focus of learning and the role of technology in helping students learn better. The question for further consideration is: Learning-aid technology is quite expensive, and cutting-edge techno-rich schools (like the CMU) are usually very unaffordable to the poor. Can we model cheaper tech with similiar functions and make them available to the poor?