In Solomon, Allen, and Resta, the first chapter does provide an interesting and abbreviated over view of the evolution of the computer in education spaces. There’s some good information in there.
But here’s my problem with the set up:
Barrier one - “Access to up-to-date hardware, software, and connectivity.”
As you read about this in detail next week, consider what the term “up-to-date” means. There is no barrier to “up-to-date software.” Go to http://portableapps.com and download everything you need. It’s free. You’ll need a $10 usb drive to store it on.
How new is “up-to-date hardware”? We tend to focus on cpu clock speed and drive space, but the reality is that for educational purposes, the basic five year old desktop machine is more than adequate. Memory upgrades are easy and inexpensive and even outdated Microsoft operating systems can be purged in favor of free, high performance replaceents which can make some of those old machines dance rings around much newer and faster models.
Connectivity? More is better of course but I would submit that the problem with online resources is not the bandwidth but the time. Dialup is purgatory at times, but some simple tuning - and a willingness to offload heavy network use to podcatchers, bittorrent, and other time shifting technologies can get around some of it. ANY connectivity is better than NO connectivity, but the specific educational benefit of fat pipes over skinny ones is open for debate. If we continue - as educators - to design for the Lexus crowd, then people on public transportation have every right to complain it.
Barrier two - “Access to meaningful, high-quality, and culturally responsive content along with the opportunity to contribute to the knowledge base represented in online content.”
This is one of the artifacts of the radical change in outlook that’s occurred over the last five years. I can give you access to buildings full of meaningful, high-quality, and culturally responsive content by sending you to the local library. That’s not exactly a barrier to educational access. It’s also not terribly useful if you don’t know what you need to look for. Google doesn’t work on the library shelves and, frankly, LC and Dewey don’t do that good a job at abstraction, but that’s a side issue.
The best way I can demonstrate the flaw in this supposed barrier is to ask you to answer the following question:
“Do you want a book that explains whatever-it-is or do you want to connect to the person who can explain the book to you?”
I’ve long maintained that the value of the internet is not to connect people to content but to connect people to people. The latest spiffy Mike Welsch video maybe interesting, intriguing, or amusing but until you actually connect with somebody else over it, it remains a private conversation which may or may not have taught you something. Like the author of a book, the video has been broadcast into the present, and while it’s a powerful message, having access to Mike rather than his video might ultimately be more useful.
Barrier three - “Access to educators who know how to use digital tools and resources effectively.”
This is a “Duh” moment for me. Teachers need to know how to teach. We don’t consider that teachers who can’t use an overhead projector in their classrooms are barriers to education because they use the tools they know fluently to reach their students. The *big* problem here is that the majority of educators operating in online environments don’t know how to teach there. At all. Period. One single fluency would be enough.
Barrier four - “Access to systems sustained by leaders with vision and support for change through technology.”
There’s so much wrong with that statement, I don’t know where to start. To begin with, we need a good understanding that the “system” in this context is “a school.” We need to acknowledge that the leaders in question are not actually IN the school, but are the hands on the switch at the school district. We need to realize that the “system” is becoming irrelevant in most meaningful ways.
The largest problem and the biggest obstacle to equity represented in this barrier is that the system is designed to be inequitable. Changing the design to promote equitable access will take a lot more than technological change. It will require a rethinking of the political and fiscal underpinnings before any meaningful “change through technology” can occur.
Further, each of these barriers carries a presupposition that “access” is a necessary and sufficient condition. If we only had *access* to tech, content, teachers, and administrators, then all would be well. The reality is that we already have access to most of this and even five years later, it’s not doing a whole lot of good.
In defense of the authors, a lot has changed since the first days of the new millenium. Unfortunately, while the technology has changed radically, the re-defined culture has not yet been uniformly perceived by the people who live in it.
January 26th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Dr. Lowell, I wrote my post about this before I read yours. I guess I didn’t understand the context in which the author was speaking. Ignorance might not be bliss, but I thought of you as a “leader with vision for change”, and I was thinking about your “system” of learning that we do in this class. I didn’t realize that they were referring to school administrators or politicians or other policy makers.
January 26th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
There’s lots of interpretations.
This is mine and it doesn’t invalidate yours.
I think about this stuff differently than other people
January 27th, 2008 at 2:02 am
[...] issue of up-to-date, hardware, software, and connectivity, I understand some of the points made in http://durandus.com/phaedrus/2008/01/26/four-barriers-really/ . It is possible for students, teachers and others to find free software on the internet, but up [...]
January 27th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
[...] stated; “consider what the term “up-to-date” means” in his most recent blog entry: phaedrus » Blog Archive » Four Barriers? Really? As educators, we focus on wanting the most current “up-to-date” technology but what [...]
January 27th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Even though there are avenues out there for accessing technology; that doesn’t mean most people know how to access it. I am a prime example of that.
I feel the biggest barrier in my community is a lack of teacher training in the area of technology. It seems that you agree with this also for the most part?
January 28th, 2008 at 1:35 am
[...] Four Precepts I take a look back at Solomon’s for precepts in chapter 1 and phaedrus’s blog I’m trying to be more critical of the [...]
January 28th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Actually, I think the biggest barrier is political, Rachel.
Education in the US is being driven by a political agenda that has - for about the last two decades - been dedicated to “getting control” of the process. The cynic in me says its purpose is to keep the populace dumb and compliant, but that attributes a greater skill and awareness than I believe our elected officials have demonstrated.
I believe that the political barriers prevent teachers from being trained. The political barriers restrict access to the content and technologies that could make a difference. The political barriers enforce a kind of short sighted, “bottom line” oriented thinking in educational leadership.
So, yea, it’s true, I believe that a lack of teacher knowledge is a factor. The reality is that so long as teachers have a “student mentality” — that’s the one that starts with “just tell me what I need to know. I don’t have time to think” — we’re not going to get anywhere. Any professional who waits for mana-from-management to enhance, improve, or otherwise expand their abilities will be sorely disappointed — teachers included. Right now, in this course, you’re learning how to learn with the technologies.
The question is, “Will you continue to learn when the course is over? Or will you go back to waiting for ineffectual, outdated, and limited training?”
February 3rd, 2008 at 7:38 am
Hi Nathan,
I love this post. There are so many subparts to discuss. Wondering if you’d like to try the experiment of posting it (or another entry, such as “Old School New School) as a forum (not blog) on fireside. It would be a parallel experiment to having the post up here for comments. I’m interested in seeing what happens when some bloggers move into the forum arena; there’s an overlap in form that many people aren’t aware of–not you, you’re “way up there” in knowledge and experimental edge–
I want to jump off with the point that even given every possible access, even given a gold mine of tools and accessibility, teachers I know mostly don’t even take the time to TRY to learn. There’s a cut-off. “Oh, I’m not a computer person.”
And many of the ones who WILL take the time to try often think that there are some tools to learn and put in your pocket; you can have them (and be done) and show off to others something that looks really fancy (or not) yet not have any reflective two-way learning going on; it’s a static sort of thing. You talk a good deal about this– and have supported me when I say the things we need to know are process goals, not learning of specific tools.
I’d like to know what we can actually do to get teachers moving in the right direction with 21st century teaching. Unlike many, I refuse to give up on the “dinosaurs” who are brilliant teachers but remain isolated and unknowing about what they can to interact in a more dynamic way with a greater whole.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:55 am
[...] I wrote Four Barriers? Really?, Connie Weber invited me to take the same post over to Fireside [...]
February 10th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
[...] the conversation stream of his Four Barriers? Really?post on his blog Phaedrus to the conversation stream of the same post on Connie Weber’s Fireside [...]
May 6th, 2008 at 11:59 am
[...] http://durandus.com/phaedrus/2008/01/26/four-barriers-really/ if they are concerned. addthis_url = ‘http%3A%2F%2Fahinson7.edublogs.org%2F2008%2F05%2F06%2Fethnography%2F’; addthis_title = ‘Ethnography’; addthis_pub = ”; Posted by ahinson7 Filed in 1 [...]
January 27th, 2009 at 8:20 am
[...] subject, I wanted to share my take on what I think is wrong with our text’s take on barriers: Four Barriers? Really? In Solomon, Allen, and Resta, the first chapter does provide an interesting and abbreviated over [...]