The presentation slides below are the basis for a talk I’ll be giving this Thursday as part of my study toward a Graduate Diploma in Learning and Teaching. The aim is to analyse the Digital Education Revolution (DER) and identify any shortcomings and strengths (hint: I found it heavy on the former and light on the latter). The talk is being done in Elluminate to other students. Don’t know the connection details, but if you wanted to participate I could chase that up. Let me know.
In summary, my conclusion (which is not likely to be all that novel) is that the DER is pleasing in that it represents a fairly significant engagement (in terms of money) by the Federal Government with the question of teaching, learning, schooling and technology. The trouble is, however, that because of various flaws I think it unlikely that the DER will achieve its goal. At best it will remove some of the first order barriers – mostly student access to computers – for the next few years. Though even that will be somewhat limited – depending on how schools implement 1:1 – and is likely to cease in the near future when the DER funding ceases and other factors (tightening budget constrains, potential change of government, likely limited outcomes from the DER) play out.
The biggest problem with the DER is that it is based on the assumption that the coming “digital world” requires new approaches to teaching and learning and it believes this can be done solely by adding technology for students. It seems to assume that the coming “digital world” can be served well by the current industrial model inherent in schools and being reinforced by other Government policies such as the National Curriculum.
Given the huge number of possible perspectives that could be brought to bare on the DER, the presentation is by no means complete. But it is also a bit more complicated than I would like. The trouble is that other assignments are calling and time has run out.
ANAO. (2010). Digital Education Revolution Program – National Secondary Schools Computer Fund. Education (p. 148). Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Boehm, B., & Turner, R. (2003). Using risk to balance agile and plan-driven methods. Computer, 36(6), 57-66.
Brews, P., & Hunt, M. (1999). Learning to plan and planning to learn: Resolving the planning school/learning school debate. Strategic Management, 20(10), 889-913.
Bush, M. (2009). The Transformation of Learning with Technology: Learner-Centricity, Content and Tool Malleability, and Network Effects. Educational Technology, 49(2), 3-20. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=EJ829873&_nfls=false
Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. New York: Teachers College Press.
DEEWR. (2010). ICT strategic planning guide for Australian schools (p. 16). Canberra, ACT, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/DigitalEducationRevolution/DigitalStrategyforTeachers/Documents/ICTStratPlanGuide.pdf
Ertmer, P. a. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61. doi:10.1007/BF02299597
Geoghegan, W. (1994). Whatever happened to instructional technology? In S. Bapna, A. Emdad, & J. Zaveri (Eds.), (pp. 438-447). Baltimore, MD: IBM. Retrieved from http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10144/
Hutchins, E. (1991). Organizing work by adaptation. Organization Science, 2(1), 14-39.
Introna, L. (1996). Notes on ateleological information systems development. Information Technology & People, 9(4), 20-39.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/general/article1.cfm
Kurtz, C., & Snowden, D. (2007). Bramble Bushes in a Thicket: Narrative and the intangiables of learning networks. In M. Gibbert & T. Durand (Eds.), . Blackwell.
March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on Management, Inside our Strange World of Organisations. New York: Free Press.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Moyle, K. (2010). Building Innovation: Learning with technologies. Educational Research. Camberwell, VIC, Australia. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=aer
Papert, S. (1984). New theories for new learnings. School Psychology Review, 13(4), 422-428.
Prestridge, S. (2010). The alignment of digital pedagogy to current teacher beliefs. In D. Gronn & G. Romeo (Eds.), ACEC2010: Digital Diversity. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Computers in Education. Retrieved from http://acec2010.info/proposal/252/beliefs-behind-teacher-influences-their-ict-practices
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169.
Saettler, P. (1968). History of Instructional Technology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Santayana, G. (2010). The life of reason: The phases of human progress (Vol. 1). Charleston, SC: Forgotten Books.
Seely-Brown, J., & Hagel, J. (2005). From push to pull: The next frontier of innovation. The McKinsey Quarterly. McKinsey & Company. Retrieved from http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_page.aspx?ar=1642
Stager, G. (2008, June). What’s a Computer For? Part 1. District Administration Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.districtadministration.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=1604
The National GAP. (2009). Key issues to consider in the renewal of learning and teaching experiences to foster graduate attributes. Sydney: The National Graduate Attributes Project.
Trigwell, K. (2001). Judging university teaching. The International Journal for Academic Development, 6(1), 65-73.
Truex, D., Baskerville, R., & Travis, J. (2000). Amethodical systems development: the deferred meaning of systems development methods. Accounting Management and Information Technologies, 10, 53-79.
Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The ‘grammar’ of schooling: why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453-479. Retrieved from http://aer.sagepub.com/content/31/3/453.short
Ward, J., & Daniel, E. (2006). Benefits management: delivering value from IS and IT investments (John Wiley.). Chichester, UK.
Weick, K., & Quinn, R. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361-386.