Roni Aviram Center for Futurism in Education Ben-Gurion University

1. No Proven Effectiveness, No Sustainable ChangeProposal for strategic approach to the computerization of education on the basis of 30 years of experienceAssessing the effects of ICT in education: Indicators, criteria and benchmarks for international comparisonsIspra, April 27-8 2009 Roni Aviram Center for Futurism in Education Ben-Gurion University

2. I. The problem • Five big waves of computerization of education • Failure to meet the expectations

3. Expected results: • Integration of ICT in regular learning processes and curricula • Change of teaching/learning processes according to desired theories/methodologies • Higher achievements in standardized tests • (Higher level of equality in education / "closing the digital divide")

4. Technologies / guiding theories: • 1980-1990: Personal computers / behaviorism, constructionism • 1900-1995: CD ROMs, multimedia / constructivism • 1995-2000: Internet / social constructivism • 2000-2005: WWW / social constructivism, distributed learning • 2005-present: Web 2.0, mobile terminals / social constructivism, distributed learning

5. Results – school level: • Integration: low or instrumental (increases as teachers naturally become more ICT literate) • Change of teaching/learning processes: no ability to scientifically measure pedagogic changes (certainly not beyond specific contexts, pedagogical terminologies, and valuation methodologies) • Higher achievements: difficulties in measuring beyond specific contexts, definition of goals, curricula, and while showing meaningful sustainable increase • At the same time, growing discrepancy between schools and the "outside world"

6. References • “Most schools in most countries, however, are in the early phase of ICT adoption, characterised by patchyuncoordinatedprovision and use, some enhancement of the learning process, some development of e-learning, but no profound improvements in learning and teaching.” (Balanskat et al. 2006) • “Currently, it seems that ICTs are used as tools to support and improve the existing learning process and its administration more than for their transformative potential. ICT has not (yet) been able to revolutionise learning and teaching.” (Punie et al. 2006) • “Evidence seems to point to an impact on attainment where ICT is an integral part of the day-to-day learning experiences of pupils, although the weight of evidence is insufficient to draw firm conclusions. . . . the volume and consistency of evidence tends to lead to tentative conclusions rather than firm ones.” (Condie et al. 2007) • “. . . only a few studies – mainly UK studies – actually establish a direct link between the use of ICT and attainment.” (Balanskat et al. 2006)

7. Results – discourse / research / policy level: patchy, uncoordinated • Lack of common ground supporting commensurability or rational discussion across: • Various educational goals • Various terminologies characterizing communities of professionals/researchers or influenced by changing fashions • Various hierarchies among first, second and third level pedagogical processes, i.e. between pedagogical strategies, tactics and techniques • Various worldviews/theories/methodologies and sub-methodologies • Various evaluation methodologies • Few longitudinal evaluations (regarding sustainability and transferability)

8. Prevailing explanations for low results on school level: • Lack of systemic long-term approach • Teachers' fears/resistance • Irrelevant teacher training • Frequent changes in policies, projects… • …

9. Explanations on discourse level: • Why assume it should happen? • Lack of thinking frameworks that could systematically deal with: • The chaotic nature of the discourse • Conflicts between macro policies and local goals and initiatives (e.g. standardized achievements and requirements vs. constructivist or constructionist approaches that many change agents adopt) • Conflicts among local initiatives (opposed theories or educational goals applied at the same time in the same place) • Lack of knowledge and hypotheses about relevant past experiences (to prevent the “ever recurring reinvention of the wheel” syndrome) • Lack of knowledge and hypotheses about the double edged nature of relevant digital tools and environments

10. The "predictable failure of educational reform" syndrome • The fact that real sustainable and transferable educational changes requires at least 8 years of support • The clash of the book and digital civilizations • Lack of long term rigorous evaluation and feedback loops concerning both adequacy of goals/theories to processes and results

11. II. Suggested responses 1. Concerning the desired framework for research, educational and change processes and discussions: • Move from pre-paradigmatic stage of multitude of “patchy” computerization efforts to reliance on paradigms consisting of “long”, “thick” and “large” strategic thinking leading to ongoing developing discourse, based on: • clear and coherent terminology • clear and coherent definition of goals (from the ultimate educational goals to the operational goals of computerization), theories, methodologies • central questions acknowledged universally (within the paradigm)

12. 2. Concerning the definition of goals of the computerization projects: • Change focus from attempts to enhance standard achievements to adaptation of the book-based school to the digital culture • Change focus from PC/laptop orientation to Internet/Web 2.0 orientation • MINDFUL reliance on the modes of thinking and acting characterizing the Google generation

13. 3. Concerning the approach to educational change: • Change focus form short term (1-3 years), limited, inclusive and rigid projects to long term (5-10 years), encompassing, exclusive, flexible processes • End of naivety – reliance on systemic change management andrisk management methodologies that are essential to the change process, and accompanying it closely over an extended time period

14. The desired framework:Strategic thinking on policy formation The ideal – template for defining any policy: • Defining clear goals, operationalizing and prioritizing them • Defining the processes needed to realize these goals, based on research • Analyzing the conditions needed to implement these processes • Analyzing the relevant impact of potential ICT tools and environments on their users • Analyzing the impact of potential ICT tools and environments on education within the normative model • Locating (or developing) ICT functions that have an edge for promoting the desired conditions • Analyzing risks based on failures of past educational reforms • Making policies to encourage these ICT-based processes

15. How can we approach the ideal of strategic thinking?

16. III. Examples of strategic thinking on integrating ICT and Education • The goals: • Enhancing self-regulation • Enhancing personalization

17. 2. The processes needed to realize these goals: • Self-regulation: • Planning • Monitoring and controlling during practice • Reflecting • Personalization: • Leaning based on higher level of ownership by the learner • Exploring during the learning process • Making real choices in the learning process based on mindfulness and meaningfulness

18. 3. The conditions needed to implement the processes: • Openness and open-endedness in the learning process (commitment of schools and teachers) • Environment supporting perceptions of autonomy, relatedness, competence • Tools supporting teachers and students in: • Planning • Monitoring • Reflection • Choosing • Exploring • Communicating • Collaborating

19. III.a. Concerning using existing tools:the case of Google tools for educators • What do we know/assume about the positive and negative impacts of these tools as far as the desired goals are concerned? • What do we know about their previous use in education? • So how can we optimize the educational impact? • What are the expected obstacles for change? • What leverages can be used for overcoming the obstacles? • So how can we bring about the desired educational change?

20. III.b. Concerning developing new tools:the case of iClass • Learning Plan (enhanced calendar): support for planning (self-regulation)

21. Personal Profile (enhanced user profile): support for personalization

22. Scaffolded Exploration (enhanced search): support for personalization

23. Structured Learning Journal (enhanced blog): support for reflection (SRL)

24. Personal Space : support for reflection + monitoring (SRL)

25. Tips & Alerts: support for self-regulation + personalization

26. Related policy: • Accompanying methodologies: • Classroom pedagogy methodology • Content development methodology • School change management methodology • Evaluation methodology • Teacher Handbook: • explaining the benefits of openness and open-endedness • explaining how to manage an open teaching environment

27. References Aceto, S., Dondi, C., Koskinen, T. & Kugemann, W. F. (Eds.) (2004). Technologies for the Knowledge Society & Lifelong Learning: Key Findings & Suggestions for Action. POLE Observatory for Lifelong Learning and Employability. Brussels: MENON Network EEIG. Aceto, S., Dondi, C., Koskinen, T. & Kugemann, W. F. (Eds.) (2004). Lifelong Learning Policies & Practice: The drive of ICT. POLE Observatory for Lifelong Learning and Employability. Brussels: MENON Network EEIG. Aviram, A. & Richardson, J. (2004) “Introduction: A Turtling Tale, From Papert to Present”, in: Aviram, A. & Richardson J. (eds.) (2004) Upon What Does the Turtle Stand? Rethinking Education for the Digital Age, 1-24, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. Aviram, A. & Richardson, J. (2004) Upon What Does the Turtle Stand? Rethinking Education for the Digital Age (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. Aviram, A. & Talmi, D. (2004) “The Merger of ICT and Education: Should it Necessarily be an Exercise in the Eternal Recurrence of the Reinvention of the Wheel?”, in: Hernandez, F., & Goodson, I. F. (eds.), Social Geographies of Educational Change, 123-42. London: Kluwer. Aviram, A. & Talmi, D. (2005) “The Impact of Information and Communication Technology on Education: The missing discourse between three different paradigms”, E-Learning Journal 2,2, 169-91. Aviram, A. (2000) “ICT and Education: From ‘Computers in the Classroom’ to Mindful Radical Adaptation by Education Systems to the Emerging Cyber Culture”, Journal of Educational Change 1,4, 331-352. Aviram, A. (2002) “Will Education Succeed in Taming ICT?”, in: Sancho, J. (ed.) Proceedings of the II European Conference on Information Technologies in Education and Citizenship: A Critical insight, Barcelona, June 26-28, 2002. Aviram, A. (forthcoming) Navigating through the Storm: Education in Postmodern Democratic Society, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam. Aviram, A. (forthcoming) The Futuristic School, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam.

28. Balanskat, A., Blamire, R. & Kefala, S. (2006). The ICT Impact Report: A review of studies of ICT impact on schools in Europe. Bruxelles: European Schoolnet. Condie, R. el al. (2007) The impact of ICT in schools: a landscape review, Coventry: Becta. Delrio, C. & Dondi, C. (Eds.) (2005). Understanding Change, Adapting to Change, Shaping the Future: Change Drivers, Trends & Core Tensions for European Learning Systems & Educational Policies. Brussels: MENON Network EEIG. Dondi, C. (Ed.) (2002). Change in European Education and Training Systems related to Information Society Technologies. L-CHANGE Observatory on ICT related Change in Education and Training Systems. Yearly Report 2001/2002. London: Middlesex University Press. Dondi, C. (Ed.) (2003). Change in European Education and Training Systems related to Information Society Technologies. L-CHANGE Observatory on ICT related Change in Education and Training Systems. Yearly Report 2003/2004. Brussels: MENON Network EEIG. Elliot, D. (2007). Recent Trends in Online Teacher Training. IATEFL CALL Review, Summer 2007, 11-22. Ertmer, P. A., Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6 (4), 50-72. Gaytan, J. (2007). Visions shaping the Future of Online Education: Understanding its Historical Evolution, Implications and Assumptions. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 10,2. Hutti, D. (2007). Online Learning, Quality, and Illinois Community Colleges. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, (3)1, 18-29. Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional Design and Learning Theory. Occasional Papers in Educational Technology. Retrieved January 22, 2008 from http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm

29. Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B. (1992) “The Structure of Educational Organisations”, in J. W. Meyer, & W. R. Scott (eds.), Organisational Environments: Ritual and Rationality, 179-197. Newbury Park: Sage. Morphew, C. C. & Huisman, J. (2002) “Using Institutional Theory to Reframe Research on Academic Drift”, Higher Education in Europe, 27(4), 491-506. Müller, J. et al. (2007) “The socio-economic dimensions of ICT-driven educational change”, Computers & Education, 49,4, 1175-1188. Nam, C. S., & Smith-Jackson, T. L. (2007). Web-Based Learning Environment: A Theory-Based Design Process for Development and Evaluation. Journal of Information Technology Education. Retrieved January 18, 2008 from http://jite.org/documents/Vol6/JITEv6p023-043Nam145.pdf Pelgrum, W. J. (2008) “School Practices and Conditions for Pedagogy and ICT”, in: Law, N., Pelgrum, W. J. & Plomp, T. (Eds.) Pedagogy and ICT Use in Schools Around the World: Findings from the IEA Sites 2006 Study, Springer. Punie, Y., Zinnbauer, D & Cabrera, M. (2006) A Review of the Impact of ICT on Learning, JRC Technical Notes. Seville: European Commission, Joint Research Centre. Rowlands, I. et al. (2008) “The Google generation: the information behaviour of the researcher of the future”, Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 60,4, 290-310. Schunk, D. H. (2000). Learning theories: an educational perspective. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill. Siegler, R. S. (1986). Children's thinking. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved January 9, 2008 from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm Southern Regional Education Board's Educational Technology Cooperative (2006). Standards for Quality Online Courses. Retrieved September, 17 2007 from http://www.sreb.org/programs/edtech/pubs/2006Pubs/06T05_Standards_quality_online_courses.pdf

30. Relevant PhD research of students Danny Glick, on the extent to which scientific papers on e-learning follow the positions they represent (BGU) Yoav Armony, on why doesn’t IT happen (BGU)

31. Proposal for strategic approach to the computerization of education on the basis of 30 years of experience Roni Aviram Center for Futurism in Education Ben-Gurion University roniav@bgu.ac.il www.bgu.ac.il/futuredu