Deep Soul Searching

 

This week has seen me doing quite a bit of soul searching.

I seem to be responding negatively to technology and it’s use.  Why?!?!

I use technology every day all day.  Banking; navigation in my car; communicating with people by text, video, phone; e-commerce; presentations with technology visuals; social media to connect and learn; Rocket book to take notes; etc.  I have a teaching certificate in computer science.  I have taught programming.  I have lead technology purchases and integrations in multiple districts.

So why so negative?!?!

Am I too old?!?  No.  I try new things all the time.

Am I stuck in my ways?!? No.  See above.

So what is it?!?

After much contemplation and talking to others, I was still unsure.  I know that part of it is that despite all of the technology integrations in schools we still have what Venkatesh and Davis, refer to as the “productivity paradox”.  This is the “troubling problem of underutilized systems” (Venkatsh and Davis, 2000) that was written about over 20 years ago!!  It still persists.  I get an email at least once a week from my daughter’s Geometry teacher that says cell phones are not allowed in her class and to please remind our children (high school students) to put them away.  Talk about a underutilized resource!!  So I do have the frustration that we tend to implement a number of things that really never give us the bang for our buck that we need.  Schools have so few resources that we can’t afford to spend money on ones that are not being used.

In further reading Venkatsh and Davis’s work, I found the TAM 2 model to be very powerful and added to my understanding of my own feelings.  In very general terms the TAM model says that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use will affect a learners’ intention to use the technology which has a direct effect on the usage behavior.  In the TAM 2 model this is expanded in the following diagram that is copied from Venkatsh and Davis (2000) and pasted below.

Without realizing it, I was using this model when I worked with a district implementing SMART boards.  SMART boards are a brand of interactive white boards that can be used in classrooms.  The district was adding a SMART board into every classroom with the requirement for teachers to use them.  The district wanted learners to use the take on mentioned in class of “trying it out”(Kang, 2021).  Teachers were told to play with it and see what they could figure out.  Professional development was provided to use the board, but it mostly was how to run it – buttons to turn it on, how to use the pens, etc.  Teachers were not given any information in the very important take on of “determining how the technology will fit into existing knowledge/skills/competencies” and knowing “what and how the teacher would benefit from the technology” (Kang, 2021).

So when I joined the district, there was very little use other than what the SAMR model would indicate as substitution (Terada, 2020).  I could not find a single case of a teacher using it beyond the very basics.  So I set out to learn about tech integration and found the SAMR model.  I introduced it to teachers and we talked through the levels, but no one could see beyond the basic level. 

I went back to the drawing board and started asking teachers why not.  They cite reasons like the following:

·       I didn’t ask to have it.

·       What I was doing before was good enough.

·       This was a waste of money. (This was when they were new – and $3,000 each)

·       I am only using it because I have to – it covers my whiteboard.

·       It is probably useful, but I have no idea what to do to make it useful.

Using the TAM 2 model, they did not see the usefulness, for all of the reasons listed in the diagram.  How I wish I had the diagram at the time!  So I set out to do more research to find examples in every discipline that I could find.  I asked teachers to try the lesson and then for us to get together to talk about what they found and if we could figure out ways to get to augmentation and modification (Terada, 2020).  Slowly we started to build ideas of how this could be useful.  Eventually, we built a culture to use the SMART boards but by then they needed to be replaced and the district didn’t have the funds to do it.  So frustrating.

We were back to the “productivity paradox” that was mentioned above.

In reflecting and learning this week I was struck by this quote: “Good technology integration isn’t about using the fanciest tool, it’s about being aware of the range of options and picking the right strategy – or strategies – for the lesson at hand” (Terada, 2020).  I know that this quote speaks to me because it is how I operate.  What is the goal?  What do I need a learner to know and be able to do?  What is the best way to do this?  I find that all too often we get tied up in new, but usefulness is lost.

Here is an example that happened during the pandemic – I was not leading this initiative, but did help clean it up.  When we moved to online learning everyone was trying to figure out how to do it.  A few teachers found that teachers were creating Bit emoji classrooms and “liked it”.   So my teachers started creating them.  They felt like it was something they could do.  There seemed to be this informal contest to one-up each other.  At first, I was excited to see their self-directedness.  Then a got a little worried about the competition but decided that was ok.  So I looked into Bit emoji classrooms.  They are just fancy outlines and links to resources.  Ok.  Teachers could add their personalities and have fun so it all seemed harmless.  But then the phone calls started.  One teacher was in tears and told me she needed to resign.  I was horrified.  This teacher is a 30-year veteran and is amazing.  Super-high levels of student achievement every year.  In talking to her she said that she just couldn’t keep up with the Bit emoji classrooms.  I asked her the purpose of them and she said she had no idea but they were required.  I explained that first, they were not required; and second, if it was not useful to her don’t use it.  She was relieved.  (As was I since we were keeping an amazing teacher.)  The next phone calls were from teachers who needed more time to plan.  I asked how they had spent their time and they had put 20+ hours into their Bit emoji classrooms.  I was horrified.  They had fancy shells, but nothing in them!!  UGH.

So as I think about my negativity, I see these two examples.  But I am realizing that if the technology theories of TAM 2 and SAMR could be the foundation of understanding for people, then the self-directedness of adult learners could be harnessed in useful ways.

I find that in the words of my colleague, "I am an early adopter – with a purpose".  That has been liberating for me.  I am very critical of technology use because I have seen poor usage too many times. With SAMR and TAM 2, I have found the words to explain my thinking.  Purpose first – and if it hits my purpose I am 100% on board.  This helps with my own paradox of using technology all the time and yet being critical.  This is helped me tremendously.

 

Kang, H. (2021). Successful Technology Integration - Learner's Take-Ons. Kansas State University | EDACE 765 | Week 4 Study Guide (2021Fall). Retrieved November 10, 2021, from https://k-state.instructure.com/courses/114982/pages/week-4-study-guide-2021fall?module_item_id=3213779.

A Powerful Model for Understanding Good Tech Integration. (n.d.). Edutopia. Retrieved November 10, 2021, from https://www.edutopia.org/article/powerful-model-understanding-good-tech-integration

Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F. (2000) A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science 46(2):186-204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

Photo from unsplashed.com