Are computers in class a scandalous waste of money?
A top Australian school has banned laptops in class, warning that technology “distracts’’ from old-school quality teaching.
I’m in rather furious agreement with the opening statement to the 26 March article in The Australian entitled “Computers in class ‘a scandalous waste’: Sydney Grammar head” by Natasha Brita (if the article is blocked, search for “computers are a scandalous waste”)
And that is where the bulk of agreement ends. One would rather hope that “old school” teaching with its emphasis on rote learning, teacher centred practices and note taking by hand would be challenged by more student centred teaching that enables students to think, engage and explore by leveraging digital learning to gain a deeper understanding of a topic. It is quite illuminating to see the bow tied teacher in the article’s photo with the Year 7 students in their rows with the ultra short throw Interactive whiteboard (IWB) in the background. No one other than the Headmaster of Sydney Grammar, Dr Vallance, is suggesting that such equipment is being “jettisoned”. Rather, as IWBs reach their use-by dates, they are being replaced by digital panels in classrooms that will have a much longer life cycle as well as better resolution and more versatility. The Head of Sydney Grammar would seem to be at odds with alumnus and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s agenda on national innovation that seeks to build on the “extraordinary technological change… transforming how we live, work, communicate and pursue good ideas” (http://www.innovation.gov.au/)
Like Dr. Vallance, I was a Specialist Reviewer for the Coalition Government’s Australian Curriculum Review (F-10) but whereas he reviewed the Arts Curriculum, I reviewed the Digital Technologies curriculum. While he may voice the thoughts of some school leaders and teachers, it is hardly accurate to equate Sydney Grammar’s “lab only” approach in their Middle School with their clear success in achieving strong ATAR results. “Lab only” means computer skills are taught out of context and in isolation. Surely socio economic privilege would be a far greater indicator than a “lab only” approach in their Middle School? How do students develop their skills in using a laptop productively if they do not have the opportunity to use a mobile device in their school work? How do teachers improve their teaching with ICT if they don’t hone their routines and strategies by using ICT with students in class? Good teaching is not about banning mobile devices but identifying when is the optimum time to use them and when is the right time to have students close a lid or turn off their device. Good teaching is about teachers making the right choice at the right time to promote effective learning. If we were to replace “laptops” with “ball point pens” and re-read this article, we can then see how reductionist many of the comments are.
Most of us would be aware that we are in the middle of a revolution that is transforming the way we work and live. The Australian Curriculum and in particular the ICT General Capability represents the most contemporary response by an education system anywhere in the world to meet the challenges and opportunities presented by the use of digital resources in learning and teaching. It is ironic that countries such as Finland, China and Singapore seek to emulate our approach to digital learning while many Australian commentators and politicians focus on the need to improve scores that rely so heavily on rote learning and didactic teaching.
Singapore is conspicuous for its high results in international educational benchmarking and for embracing the use of technology to make learning more engaging. Over recent years, the Singapore Ministry of Education has promoted a shift from instruction based on teacher lectures and student memorisation to one that emphasises student engagement and creativity.
In Finland, the National Plan for Educational Use of Information and Communications Technology (2010) acknowledged that while it has been at the top of international comparative assessments of learning outcomes for almost ten years now “the factors that have led to this success are not the same ones that will keep us at the top for the next ten years. In order for Finland to retain its position as a top country in education, schools need to make diverse use of the opportunities provided by ICT”. Finland has also dropped handwriting from its national curriculum, according to a recent ABC “Future Tense” episode. This is the world Australia is part of.
Elsewhere, Denmark is introducing online exams. NAPLAN is going online as a precursor to Australia moving to online exams for the senior years. This will have important implications for schools that insist on promoting handwriting at the expense of allowing students opportunities to demonstrate their understanding with computers. It is not difficult to see why Dr Vallance would be against such an initiative. Sydney Grammar hardly seems to be embracing the use of technology to make learning more engaging.
Education systems around the world such as Singapore, Finland, South Korea, Canada and even Japan are all grappling with the rate of change accelerated by the use of technology. The Australian Curriculum is well placed to meet those challenges through both the ICT General Capability that integrates learning technologies and the Digital Technologies curriculum.
David Price, in his brilliant book “Open”, believes that digital technologies no more solve the problems in education than air bags stop drivers from having accidents. Price points out that what digital technologies are doing now is to dramatically accelerate the rate of change in behaviour, values and actions which then transform the way we learn.
In her article, Natasha Bita is right to highlight from the OECD report (entitled “Students, Computers and Learning — Making the Connection” released September 2015) But part of the introduction on the OECD web site more accurately encapsulates the findings: “The report highlights the importance of bolstering students’ ability to navigate through digital texts.”
Some other points raised in the OECD report:
- Australia had the lowest percentage of students out of 64 OECD countries whose internet browsing was unfocused.
- In digital literacy, we rank 9th in the world where student performance was higher than their expected performance.
- We rank second only behind Singapore in task oriented internet browsing and fourth for the highest focused browsing activity.
- Australia ranks only 6th in the world for student access to computers at home.
Despite the prevalence of computers in schools, access to ICT is still largely inequitable in Australia compared to other countries (such as Scandinavian countries) that also have a high standard of living. There are obvious implications for Dr Vallance’s assertions about the availability of laptops at home for students across Australia. Our response to the OECD report should be to highlight and address the inequities in socio economic status of families around Australia — as so eloquently advocated by another notable alumnus of Sydney Grammar, David Gonski, in his plan to distribute funds on a needs basis. Sadly, his visionary plan has died the death of a thousand cuts and changes that only really maintains the status quo rather then the original idea.
Previous PISA studies have found that with the right skills and conditions, student learning is accelerated by regular computer use. And this is where many schools continue to fall down: using ICT is not an “add-on”. To achieve the “right skills and conditions” is complex and requires a commitment from teachers and leaders alike to gradually bring this about. This is not a quick fix or a silver bullet but a process that takes years to bring effective change. We know that reducing such change to visiting a lab once or twice a week is not part of the answer. The real challenge for school leaders is to provide quality Professional Learning for teachers to understand what those “right skills and conditions” are to meet the opportunities for teaching in the 21st century.
Simply put, good teaching and therefore learning can be enhanced by the use of ICT. Part of this is because digital learning can promote discussion and encourage formulation of original questions that deepen understanding. While we may have previously over estimated the impact of ICT in education in the short term, we run the risk of seriously underestimating the impact that digital learning will have in the long term. There is no turning back by yearning for an education past that is gone. We need to keep improving in what we do with digital learning. Just as Finland and Singapore do, we need to ensure that we are attracting and retaining the brightest and best to the teaching profession and that they enter schools with the skills and pedagogical understanding to make the most of the opportunities afforded by the use of ICT.
