ZDnet’s uneven 2011 predictions
Christopher Dawson and Adam Garry each offer 5 predictions to make up the ZDNet Top 10 EdTech predictions for 2011. Dawson is the ZDNet education blogger and vice-president of marketing for WizIQ, an online learning platform, while Garry is manager of global professional learning for Dell. While Dawson interviewed Garry for his predictions, Dawson remains the article’s sole author.
I noted a significant gulf between their lists of predictions: Garry’s set was largely concerned with shifts and challenges in educational practices, with Dawson pays attention to those technologies that could be used for education. With the exception of the fifth predication – e-textbooks – his list isn’t so much about EdTech trends, but about broader *tech* trends that could have educational applications.
Garry – education focused | Dawson – technology focused |
1:1 as learning initiative – *not* tech initiative | Tablets |
Personalized Learning | Thin Computing (lower cost, easy to set up and maintain) |
Product-Based Assessments | Cloud-based Files |
Increased focus on conceptual learning | Death of Kindle |
Shifting 1:1 – students providing devices, freeing up institution to focus on platform and learning | More E-textbooks |
It is this divide which that might limit the article’s audience to learning technologists rather than a broader community of educators. Indeed, one might say that given one set of prediction’s education focus, and the other set’s technology focus, that this article reproduces – unhelpfully – a division between educators and learning technologists. Readers are left to wonder whether Dawson’s technologies genuinely match or respond to Garry’s concerns – certainly Garry’s concerns are not broached in Dawson’s discussions of these technologies. Concomitantly, Garry seldom identifies the kinds of technologies that could be used to meet the challenges he outlines. There are some apparently possibilities – certainly ‘thin computing’ with a lower barrier of entry for students might well seem to support Garry’s #5 prediction – a change in 1:1 learning where students do more to provide devices – but the authors don’t make these links explicit.
There is some unevenness in details between these two lists as well which I think represents Dawson’s overall gadget-bias: Dawson’s list is rich with invocations of various technologies, and there is much detail provided on the objects themselves. However, there is little information provided on the educational examples, with the notable exception of the 2012 PISA (OECD Programme for International Student Assessment). Under the heading “increased focus on conceptual learning,” there is mention of “the new common core standards” – but with no details of said standards; a link would be easy to include and most helpful.
As an educator and budding learning technologist, I would appreciate a greater focus on on-the-ground educational practices. For instance, Dawson enthuses over tablets, but are they really “Internet portals for a lot of students” this year? I suppose i’m skeptical because in 2011, I only saw one student using a tablet at the large public university I taught at – one with a fairly affluent student body. For my courses – as for others in the liberal arts – tablets are used lightweight, attention-getting readers and word-processors. If they are more creatively used in other learning environments, I’d very much love to read about it.
From this report – Dawson seems to be more in sync with developments in technology than developments in education, which I expect appeals to some readers, but not particularly to this one. If I do follow his predictions in future, it will be with the knowledge that I’ll have to do a lot of legwork to see their applicability to educational practice. Adam Garry’s work here seems more in tune with my belief that technological advancements should buttress pedagogical objectives, and I’m more likely to follow his writing in future.
Posted in: Uncategorized, Week 02: The Edtech Marketplace
David William Price 9:25 am on September 15, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Nice work. It seems a common problem that some people are gadget focused. I suppose in the Ed Tech realm this is similar to people who are “solution focused” meaning they don’t do a proper needs analysis to determine what the problems are and what root causes should be addressed.
I suspect the issue that “solutions-focused” people miss is the prerequisites of the community. Until a community has the required foundations in place (comfort level, supports, awareness of the problems that can be solved, willingness to take the risks required by the solution, etc.), a technology is not going to have much effect. With the proper foundations, a very basic technology can have huge effects. Without the proper foundations, an advanced technology can be a huge waste of resources.
The disconnect between futurists and users is the failure to develop the necessary community.
Everton Walker 2:44 pm on September 15, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
You are so right about persons being gadget focused. It is just frightening sometimes at the way we focus on the end product and ignore the process. Persons of that nature ignore the natural power of the brain and think that a piece of gadget must be involved in every task. There must always be a balance in the learning situation where we go beyond the gadget and even try and get more from it than its prescribed use.
Jay 1:06 pm on September 15, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Might this ‘community’ be better developed with more inclusion of learner’s in the needs assessment process? While this likely less possible in child education it is a key principle in adult education. I think in the case of some of the new technologies, the learners are left out of the needs assessment and developing process which can lead to missing root causes of the problems. As David mentions if a community of learners does not feel safe, supported or willing to take required risk, new technology is unlikely to solve the problem that stems from these deeper foundations.
Allie 3:23 pm on September 15, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hi David and Jay,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful comments on my post! I’m in full agreement with you that the absence of a needs-assessment – or in this case the notion that needs assessment is paramount – is a real issue with the gadget or solutions-focused crowd. Thanks for hitting that one on the head :). I do find that Garry, whose predictions focus on shifts in education, is quite different from Dawson in this regard.
I wonder if somehow doing needs assessment *for* the gadget crowd could be a venture in and of itself?
Something that I like in both of your honing in on the idea of the community is that learning communities are diverse (amongst themselves, never mind within a given community), and no single technology will fit all. I suppose that’s why I feel a little uncomfortable with some of the overwhelming tablet enthusiasm.
Jay 4:50 pm on September 15, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Good observation. The diversity of learners in a given learning community presents a problem with the one-size fits all approach and requires educators to consider multi-faceted technologies that attempt to encompass different styles of learning…and teaching!
Jim 6:06 pm on September 15, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Wow! You said it all when you wrote “I’ll have to do a lot of legwork to see their applicability to educational practice.” Exactly and well put. I think this is the challenge for all teachers who wish to effectively use the avalanche of technology currently being purchased for schools. I wish a larger portion of the budgets would go towards paying for ongoing, long term support and professional development so teachers can wield these tools in precise and purposeful ways in their classrooms.
Can a "gadget guy" also be an "education guy"? | ZDNet 8:03 pm on September 18, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
[…] read a very interesting critique of one of my articles the other day. A student at the University of British Columbia reviewed my “Top 10 Ed Tech predictions for 2011″ and concluded that the piece, a […]
Christopher Dawson 8:09 pm on September 18, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Just wanted to share my roundabout response to your post:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/education/can-a-gadget-guy-also-be-an-education-guy/4692
Your points are well-taken and I especially like the idea you noted in the comments above about a business model around educational technology needs assessments. I often go back to the good old SDLC (and mention it in the presentation I embedded in my response) – but how many technical project managers make it into education? Not many, meaning there is a large, unmet need for people to handle at least the early parts of the lifecycle around defining problems and requirements.
Thanks again for your great post. While the blog format (and time constraints) don’t often allow for as much background or on-the-ground perspectives as I’d like, I’ll try to keep your critique in mind and include more “how does this impact student achievement and educational practice?” sorts of information in my posts.
Best,
Chris
Can a "gadget guy" also be an "education guy"? 8:49 pm on September 18, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
[…] read a very interesting critique of one of my articles the other day. A student at the University of British Columbia reviewed my “Top 10 Ed Tech predictions for 2011″ and concluded that the piece, a combination […]
Can a “gadget guy” also be an “education guy”? – ZDNet (blog) | News In world 5:55 am on September 19, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
[…] read a very interesting critique of one of my articles the other day. A student at the University of British Columbia reviewed my “Top 10 Ed Tech predictions for 2011″ and concluded that the piece, a combination […]
Adam Garry 4:08 am on September 20, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree with Chris about the blog format because we talked for a while about my predictions and he showed a deep understanding for how the learning conversation must come first. In regards to a needs assessment, I believe it is critical in the process of determining what problem the technologies can help to solve. We actually engage in visioning days with school districts to help them determine what they want learning to look like and then begin to figure out if technology is a good fit to help them achieve their vision. The best part about this process is that we involve students in the conversation and their voice is very powerful. Thanks for keeping the conversation alive.
AG