"Tools for the Mind" -- Mary Burns

Computers were supposed to revolutionize learning.  Or at least that's what people thought was going to happen.  Mary Burns takes this expectation and dissects why technology hasn't had a huge impact on education (yet) and explains her thinking for how technology should be used in the learning process, or, as she puts it, how "...we can begin to bridge the gap between intention and implementation."

Mary Burns' main point is one of understanding, or rather, the lack thereof.  Technology, mainly in the form of computers, were plopped into the educational system mainly without a the benefit of understanding how they could aid learning.  Rather, technology was just supposed to make things better; as Mary puts it, computers were viewed as sort of "instructional talismans" that would magically make things better.  She argues for several reasons that this occurred: 

• Teachers trained in tech skill instead of in how to use the technology to enhance learning.
• Schools need to make more accommodations to allow full technology use (long-term professional development, tech staff, etc)
• Teachers have conflated the use of technology that engages students with improved learning.
• Teachers have not distinguished between levels of software in terms of low-order versus higher order thinking caused by the software.

Fortunately, she does not stop with pointing out the faults of the past; she also points out two main ways to effectively implement technology in the educational process.

• Teach critical thinking first, and technology later.
• Focus on curriculum, instruction and assessment.

In the first strategy, Mary wants instructions to have assignments that are educationally worthwhile.  If there is a technological tool that can help, wonderful!  But the point of the assignment should not be based around the technology.  In the second strategy is closely related to the first, but is more sweeping in scope.

I personally agree with Mrs. Burns assessment as far as why technology has not been the silver bullet is was expected to be for education.  Simply throwing technology at education is like throwing money at poverty.  It does not address the root issue.  However, Mrs. Burns lays a lot of the fault on the shoulders of educators.  Technology, however, has been on a rocket pace for development for the last few decades, and without a huge investment in keeping up, it's not at all surprising that its use in education has been less than optimal.  

I am not sure I agree with her analysis of how to best implement technology now.  I do agree that when it is used inside of other instruction, it should be "almost invisible."  She herself points out that a lot of higher-order software is not used because it is harder to learn, more time consuming, and harder for teachers to understand and integrate.  Unless some effort is made to teach students technology in increments (just the same as Math, English or any other subject), it not reasonable to expect them to have the tech skills needed to utilize the higher-order software when the time comes.