This is a compelling and thought provoking document which provides a framework for the use of technology in education on a national basis to reduce the number of high-school dropouts (currently at 24%, with Latino and African American dropout rates approaching 50%) and increase the number of students graduating from a two- or four-year college degree program from 39% annually to 60% annually. The plan also calls for all students to graduate from high school prepared for college or the workforce.
This ambitious plan examines the educational use of technology as it applies to five domains: Learning, Assessment, Teaching, Infrastructure, and Productivity. The plan examines each of the five domains in depth, confronting pre-conceived notions about education as we know it and challenging us to examine 21st century education and technology in light of real-world applications and private sector practices.
In the domain of Learning, the plan identifies four actions to meet the goal of 21st century learning, which it defines as:
All learners will have engaging and empowering learning experiences both in and outside of school that prepare them to be active, creative, knowledgeable, and ethical participants in our globally networked society.
These actions include implementing new and revised standards and learning objectives to better reflect 21st century expertise and the ways technology can improve learning, developing learning resources, and improving STEM education.
In the domain of Assessment, the plan identifies four actions to meet the goal of measuring what matters, which it defines as:
Our education system at all levels will leverage the power of technology to measure what matters and use assessment data for continuous improvement.
These actions include developing new assessments to give educators timely feedback about student performance so they can improve instruction, using technology to improve assessment materials, researching the use of interactive assessment formats such as gaming, simulations, and virtual worlds to increase student engagement and motivation and to assess higher-level skills, and revision of regulations to allow for assessment data to be shared while maintaining student privacy to improve education.
In the domain of Teaching, the plan identifies five actions to meet the goal of improving learning through connected teaching, which it defines as:
Professional educators will be supported individually and in teams by technology that connects them to data, content, resources, expertise, and learning experiences that enable and inspire more effective teaching for all learners.
These actions include using technology to create learning communities where teachers can collaborate for better teaching, using technology to provide pre- and in-service learning opportunities to teachers to make them more fluent in technology, using technology to create career-long personal learning networks , provide access to teaching and learning resources via technology, and prepare teachers to teach online instruction.
In the domain of Infrastructure, the plan identifies five actions to meet the goal of having the people, processes, and technologies needed for learning, which it defines as:
All students and educators will have access to a comprehensive infrastructure for learning when and where they need it.
These actions include adequate broadband access and wireless connectivity on and off campus, a one to one ration of internet-accessible devices per student and teacher with appropriate software availability both on and off campus, increased use of open educational resources, increased state and local education agency capacity to evolve infrastructure, and the establishment of definitions, goals, and metrics to define the term “meaningful use”.
In the domain of Productivity, the plan identifies five actions to meet the goal of improving learning outcomes while managing costs, which it defines as:
Our education system at all levels will redesign processes and structures to take advantage of the power of technology to improve learning outcomes while making more efficient use of time, money, and staff.
These actions include creating a common definition of productivity and measures of effectiveness, using technology to manage costs, encouraging inter-operability to allow for data-sharing and improve decision-making, rethinking assumptions about education that limit the way technology resources are used beginning with the organization of students around “seat-time” instead of demonstrated competency, and develop technology driven programs that ensure students complete their education prepared for the workforce.
The plan is fascinating and holds many ideas which educators should take a serious look at. For example, the success of home education is a classic demonstration of how traditional models of grouping children by age and grade level, teaching subject areas in isolation, and teaching within a rigid time-table is not necessarily the best and only method of viable instruction. Home educators have long discovered that they could teach the same curriculum to multiple grade levels of children, adapting it to the ability of the child. They have also discovered the benefit of cross-curricular educational units of study. Rather than teaching a separate history, language arts, and science course, home educators have discovered ways to teach project-based units which incorporate activities across all these subject areas, and students are far more likely to be engaged in this type of learning. Home education also allows for a much more flexible education schedule, centered around the family’s routine and the children’s extra-curricular activities. These differences account for the high performance rates of home educated children, and why colleges are finding these students better prepared for the demands of higher education.
While the plan holds many viable ideas and should be closely examined for what can be implemented, I do foresee some issues with several of the plan’s recommended actions. One in particular is in the area of Infrastructure. While dissemination of technology on an equitable level to every student is an admirable goal, without considerable Federal funding I do not see that as a real possibility. The schools which have the highest dropout rates are often the ones in the most socio-economically disadvantaged communities. The plan does not account for how schools in these communities are to raise funds to provide the technology for every student. It is likely that the students most at risk are also the students least likely to own their own internet capable devices – the use of which was a suggestion made by the plan. These schools are also likely to be in the lowest property tax zones, which is a primary source of school funding. This leaves the schools with the least resources with the greatest burden of technology provision. Free and reduced student lunches are paid for with subsidized funds from state and federal government programs. If students are going to qualify for free or reduced cost technology and internet access, there will also have to be government subsidies established to assist schools in providing this service.
Another problem I foresee is in the problem of online education credit. All online education is not created equally. Some courses are offered on a self-paced basis, while others are rigidly paced. Some require regular submission of work online, while others provide simple multiple choice assessments of student progress, even allowing the student access to the same assessment repeatedly until the content is “mastered” (or the student has guessed all the answers until he or she has revealed the correct one). Others do not even provide for student testing but leave students accountable for their own learning. If schools are going to offer credit for such learning, a standard will need to be established which defines what the course content will have to cover and how learning will be measured to ensure equitable award of credits to all students.
The final problem I see with the plan is the failure of the plan to specify what it expects of institutes of higher education when it asks them “to remove barriers to postsecondary education and put plans of their own in place to decrease dropout rates.” This can be interpreted in any number of ways, from providing better information to students while still in school about the admissions process and advising students on courses to take that would best prepare them for a post-secondary education, to lowering admissions standards so more students would qualify for admissions with fewer credits and a less rigorous academic preparation. I think the plan needs to be more specific about the barriers it wants removed, especially in light of the plan’s ultimate goal of preparing students for the workforce. While it is true that America is falling behind other nations in producing college graduates, and college is becoming increasingly important in preparation for careers in many fields, we do not want to encourage the lowering of standards just to get more students to enter college or to remain in college. We need to apply the same high standards for learning to higher education that we have applied to K-12 education, ensure our high school graduates are prepared to handle their post-secondary education, and then apply what we have learned about education and how students learn to higher levels of education to ensure student engagement and motivation at the college level.
No comments:
Post a Comment