"Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater".
It was Christmas, 1990, and my brothers, sister and I received our first digital gaming console from Santa Claus—an original Nintendo gaming system. Although we were several years behind the original release of NES, we were ridiculously excited to have one of our own, and many hours were spent mastering the flying tail feature in Super Mario Bros. 3 and learning the ins and outs of digital football (back when the Buffalo Bills were led by Jim Kelly).
We were a family that spent far more hours outside than indoors, yet this addition to our family sparked an interest in digital systems that was far reaching into the future, and at some level, is likely responsible for my continued interest in computing/digital work, now through the focused lens of digital education.
Every new teaching technique results in both praise and criticism, and technology integration is no different. As in every facet of education, there is a whole set of technology acronyms to be learned and mastered, or at least defined, in order for one to seem knowledgeable at the next leadership meeting! And yet the speed of novelty in educational technology is so rapid, that teachers and administrators might be willing to throw GAFE, SAMR, and even IT out the window, ASAP!
Critics of educational gaming and digital learning often fall back on their own ability to learn without “those things,” claiming that the use of technology hinders the hard work of learning and thinking that were required of students 20-40 years ago.
As teacher-leaders, it is our responsibility to validate the tried-and-true teaching methods of the past. After all, the “traditional” ways many of us were taught were once novel as well. The seasoned teachers among us who struggle with technology are no less teachers than the tech-savvy, who are coming to their own in this digital civilization. As one former principal I worked for stated to me, “I don’t think we need to throw the ‘baby out with the bathwater’.” There is room for progression and tradition in teaching.
There is room for progression and tradition in teaching.
In a recent district committee meeting which I attended, the needs for validation of traditional teaching as well as bridge-building into technology were both discussed. The constant creation of new technologies must go hand-in-hand with tradition, not simply replace it, for in doing that, the wealth of educational pedagogy is cheapened.
In the end, schools and districts need to talk with teacher-leaders, and develop progression plans for professional development in technology. At each level (elementary, middle, high, and even post-secondary), leaders should develop a table of applications or programs that they would like teachers to explore or learn for a finite amount of time. Keeping this limited to something like 3-5 would be manageable. At the semester or year break, reflect upon these, keeping what works, letting go of the rest, and giving a new set to teachers at that time. Using the teachers as the source for these suggestions will allow every content and need area to be addressed as well.
Time and manageability are the keys to continuing to bridge tradition and technology.
This kind of scaffolding technology development would allow for sharing in buildings or districts, keeping teachers on similar pages, while offering a concise and manageable amount of technology immersion to already busy teachers. By giving several months for teachers to learn each set, there is no rush and teachers are able to try one or two at a time, finding what works for their classrooms. Consequently, time and manageability are the keys to continuing to bridge tradition and technology.
