11.15.06
Paradigm Shift
Last month I put 20,000 miles on my frequent flyer tally, mostly going to conferences and workshops about educational technology. Having attended many of these conferences over the past 6 or 7 years, I have these observations:
- Educators and policymakers are doing all they can to make the current paradigm work. The bad news is that it’s the paradigm itself that is outdated. We are using an early 20th century model in a 21st century environment. Believe me, I know. I have been in this system since 1953 (going on 54 years), which is about 50% of the current paradigm’s life. Think about it. High schools and our current setup have been around since the early 20th century … the last time we underwent any kind of paradigm shift.
- In my thinking, no amount of fixing, tweaking, updating, or streamlining of the current model will work. Again, it’s the model that’s wrong, not the way we are implementing it.
- While I have been developing some possible ideas that might be included in a new paradigm, my basic question is how you design and implement a completely new paradigm. Where does the process start? Is it a bottom-up or top-down process (does it begin with teachers in the classroom or with educational policymakers?)?
- There are certainly many hard-working people out there who are trying to change things. The problem is that they are trying to change things within the context of the current paradigm. Again, this is a paradigm that can’t be fixed. To answer my own question, I don’t think a paradigm shift will be a bottom-up process. Does that mean it’s useless to try? Not at all. Where will the new paradigm come from if we don’t experiment with new ideas within the current one? But it’s not enough. We need to rethink everything from funding to curriculum. That provides the paradigm, the framework within which we operate. Changing things by beginning with instruction (the only thing most of the ed-tech zealots have any control over) is simply not enough to cause a paradigm shift by itself. However, demonstrating completely new models of instruction might provide some impetus for those at the top to begin to look at wholesale changes.
What’s wrong with the current paradigm? I don’t have enough room here, but here are some ideas off the top of my head. Note that these are fundamental flaws of the system and cannot be fixed within the context of that system:
- The academic calendar - Why do we still use an agricultural model for an academic calendar that dates back 150 years? Last time I looked, none of my students were needed in the fields during the summer.
- The curriculum - We target mediocrity. Just ask any students who are high achievers and they will tell you how bored they are. We are NOT targeting our best and brightest, nor are we doing a real service to the slower learners. The system is tuned for the average. The outliers are not well served.
- Fixed Depth - I call this Static Depth Instruction. The course parameters dictate the amount of depth and breadth in a course, not the needs or achivements of the students in the course. What we should use is a Dynamic Depth Instruction model wherein students are dynamically given the depth they want/need, determined as they move through the course. There should be no limits on the depth that could be achieved by a student in a given amount of time.
- Curricular Breadth - Students who attend relatively small high schools are given few choices. Even if they attend large high schools, there are severe limitations to the number of choices available to them. Customized, or matched curriculum is impossible. We are limited by space. It’s like the system is a giant bricks & mortar business that can’t seem to figure out how to use technology to augment its offerings with a virtual curriculum.
- Funding - Our funding mechanisms are anachronistic.
- Administration - The days of the local school board should be over. We are a global society, and our educational system should reflect that. Parochial interests do not serve the system well.
I could go on about this, and will in future postings. There are a lot of hard-working early adopters out there that are grabbing onto technology and enhancing their teaching with it, mostly on their own time and without much in the way of accolades or funding. In fact, many of them reap the disdain of their late majority and laggard colleagues for pushing forward and trying to improve instruction. They know the system is broken and are doing everything they can to start a bottom-up movement to change it. Unfortunately, we are talking here about needing a white knight to show up and get something done at the top. That white knight might be the disruptive technology of the world marketplace and the paradigm shift it will force. How long will we have to wait for that and might we react to late to save our competitive position in the world? Only time will tell.
