The January, 2010 edition of the Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment is dedicated to research on U.S. 1:1 (or one-to-one) laptop programs, i.e. school programs that supply a laptop to each and every student and teacher in the school. It’s an interesting series of articles with a lot of data and information on a costly and hotly debated intervention. The articles cover three case studies of 1:1 programs, a review and response to critics of 1:1 programs, and a summary of research on 1:1 programs.
The most interesting article for me is Weston & Bain’s “The end of techno-critique: The naked truth about 1:1 laptop initiatives and educational change”. In the article the authors respond to critics of technology use in the classroom, primarily Larry Cuban, who has been one of the more vocal critics over the years. Essentially, the authors’ criticism focuses on highlighting the difference between the success of an intervention, ex. 1:1 laptop programs, and organizational change within educational institutions. In this, the argument is a familiar one – educational institutions are generally conservative institutions and change, when it happens, is slow. The authors suggest that criticisms of 1:1 laptop programs are really criticisms of educational institutions unwillingness to change to accommodate innovative practices. I think the authors make a very valid point.
One of the articles focuses on a topic that I’ve been increasingly interested in recently, “ubiquitous computing” in schools (Drayton, Falk, Stroud, Hobbs & Hammerman, “After installation: Ubiquitous computing and high school schience in three experienced, high-technology schools”). To me, the use of the term “ubiquitous” in this sense suggests that technology is freely accessible throughout the school system to everyone involved. In a ubiquitous computing environment I would expect that students may make use of any technology that they choose whenever they see fit to do so. Ex. students taking an exam come across an unfamiliar term and whip out there smartphones and look it up on the Internet. That’s what “ubiquitous” means to me. What it means to the authors is not entirely clear other than that it does not mean the same as it does to me. The authors fail to define the term but the examples given suggest that “ubiquitous” means that technology is omnipresent but not necessarily being used or able to be used by everyone. Sort of reminds me of my math classroom in the 8th grade back in the early 1980s. We could say that there was ubiquitous computing in that classroom because there was an Apple IIe sitting in the corner. Nevermind that no one had any idea what to do with it, except for an occasional student (mostly me) who would do something astoundingly simple and get vast amounts of extra credit because the teacher had absolutely no clue what was involved.
In their summary of the articles, “Educational outcomes and research from 1:1 computing settings”, authors Bebell & O’Dwyer claim that “Recently, 1:1 computing has emerged as a technology-rich educational reform where access to technology is not shared–but where all teachers and students have ubiquitous access to laptop computers.” (pg. 5). I really do not see evidence of ubiquitous computing in any of the articles. It seems that what we do see is an example of what I think Weston & Bain are criticizing in their article – that interventions are introduced but do not necessarily produce significant change, rather that terminology (or something else) is altered to produce a semblance of change. What we need, and would hope to see, is real qualitative change.

George Siemens, at the Connectivism blog, has written an interesting article that highlights several of the difficulties associated with open approaches to education. Siemens focuses on the policy changes needed to make open resources viable for education. There are especially two points that Siemens makes that I think are most relevant and I agree with entirely. First is the systemic nature of education, and especially, that education is made up of complex systems within systems. Second is the need for more future oriented thinking in education. This latter point is one that I highlighted in a recent post, although I put it more in terms of the tendency for reactive policy making in education. Siemens’ point (at least one of them) is that change in education tends to be incremental because these two points are seldom addressed.
I am in total agreement with Siemens regarding the issues of the systemic nature of education and the need for future oriented policies. However, I think there is another equally important issue that Siemens misses and that is often left unmentioned, especially in discourse about technology and educational change. This is that policy making is a very difficult process and changing educational policy even more so because education is so closely tied to society, culture, and individuals’ value systems. Siemens says, “When trying to change a complex integrated system that includes numerous stakeholders – such as universities – a seat is required at the power table.” This is certainly true, but I would argue that in the case of education, especially when significant change is involved, a “seat at the power table” is not enough. The type and level of change we can expect to achieve will also depend on the social values of the broader stakeholders, which in the case of education includes the general public. Before we can expect considerable change in education, we have to ensure that those changes are consistent with society’s values.
Ensuring consistency with social values can take at least two routes. The first is that expectations for change are modified. This is the most common process and usually results in lesser expectations. The second is to change the value system. This can be a lengthy and complicated process but is most likely to result in significant change. There are some successful examples of the latter. One of the most talked about (and that I tend to mention a lot) is Finland (See for example Hargreaves, 2008). Finland has radically transformed their educational system over a couple of decades. What I think are a couple of the key developments in Finland that have facilitated these changes? First, the social status of teachers was raised considerably to one where they are a trusted authoritative voice on educational matters. Second, educational policy is closely integrated with several other policies that have to do with social change and economic growth. Thus, they have created a society that values and promotes change and is able to bring about change fairly rapidly based on expert authority.
Many people point out that a country like Finland has it fairly easy in this regard because it is a largely homogenous society. This is certainly a viable point, but I still think that the Finnish experience can provide valuable lessons for any society, including multi-cultural societies. True, greater cultural diversity will probably make the change process more difficult, but it’s still a reasonable goal.
Hargreaves, A. (2008). The coming of post-standardization: Three weddings and a funeral. In C. Sugrue (Ed.), The future of educational change: International perspectives. (pp. 15-33). New York, NY: Rougledge.