Breaking the Chains of the Past:

The Flexible Future of Education

I came across an article by Sharon Kopyc . The title of Sharon's article captured the ultimate question many of us are wrestling with in today's movement to change the face of education. Entitled Enhancing Teaching with Technology: Are We There Yet? Sharon addresses many of the institutional challenges both K -12 and college academics face in this ever changing educational environment.

As a member of a Technology Action Planning Committee (TACP) in the Iroquois Central School District, I found many of her observations a reaffirmation of the struggles we will all face, as we try to recognize the value of technology in changing the instructional environment within today's classroom.

In her article, Sharon references

"Faculty claim that a lack of time, a lack of skills, and a general discomfort with the educational technology culture impede their use of it (Gustafson 2003-2004) "

We must begin to ask ourselves how the institution of education can overcome these impediments. As an active member of the educational profession, trying to implement these new technologies, we can no longer simply qualify an individuals discomfort with these technologies as a lack of professionalism. These technologies take an large amount of time to effectively master and implement. Furthermore, there is such a large number of technologies that compliment each other. How can an educator, working within the realm of the traditional institutionalized educational system of standards based education, be expected to effectively achieve those standards, while practicing non-traditional modes of technology based instruction? It may be safe to assume that political pressures will not afford the academic freedom to develop a truly dynamic educational environment in the near future, so we must develop some plan that affords educators and students the necessary opportunities to develop intellectually in this current academic environment.

What complicates this problem is something Sharon points out as a troubling gap between the promise and reality of technology-related innovative instructional and learning practices in much of higher education (2004).

She points out that this gap is partially caused by the simple fact that the technological cart was put before the academic horse, and a strong shift to flip this around is desperately needed. In other words, pushing technology on academics, the drivers of education, will not get technology into the classroom unless academics first understand the technology and its relevance in the classroom.

So what does this all mean for education? I believe that the technological revolution in education is well underway. I also believe that a system must be devised that will promote the use of these new technologies in meaningful ways, that have a productive impact on curriculum, while enhancing student engagement. To avoid the famous educational stigma of calling technology the favor of the month, districts must construct within their school systems, a flexible partnership that allows the teacher to become instrumental in developing these technologies. These technologies cannot be pigeon-holed into a rigid framework that constructs a false formula for success. Technologies must be married to instructional pedagogy, giving value and relevancy to their usage. In the past, instructional reform, whether instituted on a state or district level, seems to have been a top-down initiative. Such a program will promote uncertainty amongst the educators, and create reluctance on the part of the teacher due to historical stigma. Rather, teacher initiative should drive technologies development. These initiative should take the form of professional development groups, that include a flexible group of teachers, administrators, technologists, and most importantly, students.

The professional development group will look different from place to place, due in part to the many different types of individuals participating. For example, at Iroquois, we currently have a group of teachers who have begun to initiate the infusion of technology into our daily instruction. The meetings and in-service being held, take on more of the look of a best practice sharing session. As new technologies are learned, they are modified to the individual curriculum, then shared amongst the staff. Staff members are offered several different opportunities, and the atmosphere is designed to bring awareness of the potential of the technology. Administration is also providing a tremendous amount of support, supplying the growing demand with new technologies, and continuously stressing the focus of all progress toward instructional pedagogy. The next step for our professional development would be to introduce the technologist element. Here, we can begin to re-engineer the design of traditional tech-support. No longer should tech-support be simply the programmer, rather, there should be the introduction of both the curriculum expert with technological experience. Finally, the student element completes the group. Students must begin to become a part of both the planning and learning of these technologies. Students should sit in on the planning process, giving insight into the characteristics of student engagement. Students should also become a part of the educational process, taking on a role as a peer-learner with the teacher. This portion of the group has truly an unlimited potential for expansion.

Sharon Kopyc in her article attributes the modern educational environment as a lab. I like that analogy the best. Education should become a continuous learning lab, where student, teacher, administrator, and technologist, continuously strive to better the academics within the educational environment, without traditional stereotypes, without traditional roles, and without traditional limitations.