Last month I attended the first ever Africa Play conference in Pretoria, South Africa hosted by the Department of Basic Education, UNICEF South Africa, ADEA and the LEGO Foundation…it was playful to say the least. The conference organizers (I suspect LEGO in particular) went big and bold with the production. There were playgrounds with various hands-on activities (with and without LEGO’s), traditional cultural dances, oral storytelling about the history of Mathematics and an impromptu visit from Elmo!
4th Industrial Rev: Are we Killing and Commodifying Play?
A recurring theme of the conference was the Fourth Industrial Revolution and equipping children with the skills for the future. I’ve read some very valid and much needed critiques on the social construction of the Fourth IR that as usual, are being used to benefit the few. One silver lining has been the urgency to overhaul the detrimental and colonial education systems on the African continent with systems and pedagogies which promote creativity and critical thinking, but at what cost and for who? Should the priority be dismantling archaic systems because they don’t work and children aren’t learning or because the machines are coming? The discussion on how to assess and measure creativity at this stage was a bit alarming. If we’re already jumping to “how much are children producing” versus focusing on “how can we create the best learning experiences for children”, it seems that we will maintain the status quo and re-create old systems in new forms.
I remain hopeful…but concerned. I still had a blast building #thingamabobs!
The curation includes wonderful archival documents from various education projects primarily across the 1960’s and 1970’s which led to the formation of FUNY (Free University of New York) and also evolved from FUNY. Exposing past efforts to democratize Education is important, especially in light of today’s sky-rocketing student debt and the further commodification of what should clearly be a public good.
It was also fun to peruse some of the brochures and pamphlets from programs which emerged from the “unschooling” movement like Not Back to School Camp. Overall the exhibit asked many questions about how communities at different intersections (local and global) can build an Education ecosystem together which is affordable, representative, equity-focused and places the learner front and center.
The highlight of the exhibit (for me) was this map of student protest across the African continent from the 1960’s onward. Great inspiration for Nairobi Play and other projects to come in 2019.
The focus of this year’s mEducation Alliance Symposium was “the role of the teacherand community educator, and how technology can provide greater support for their professional development, motivation, networking, and delivery of instruction in traditional and non-traditional educational settings.”
I was embarrassingly excited when the announcement was made a few months ago. I’m not sure there’s anything considered less sexy at an ed tech conference than teacher PD (…although I would disagree), but more critical for student outcomes.
Florian presented on UNICEF Kenya’s overall work around education technology (universal accessible textbook, Kenyan Education Cloud etc.) and then we dove into our presentation on Prototyping Professional Development: Upskilling Teachers for Digital Literacy.It was fun to present our approach on designing, delivering and iterating on quality PD for teachers, and learn from what others were doing at the conference. I was particularly interested in the landscape review of large-scale teacher PD models produced by TPD@Scale Coalition.
They identified five key factors that continuously arose in the landscape review critical to scaling TPD: scale, spread, depth, sustainability and shift. The emphasis on implementing immediately at scale was one that clashed with our design principles around iterating and testing for different needs and contexts (and then of course scaling what works), but I’m open and curious to see what comes forward from the final landscape review in February. And last but certainly not least…
I can’t count the number of times I’ve been in a discussion that quickly shifts from a failing ICT for Education initiative, to the assumed root cause: “teacher technophobia”.
There is a widely held belief that education technology interventions could be successful if not for the resistance from teachers who have irrational fears of technology. Larry Cuban has written about this flawed narrative for decades. Teachers are often blamed for failing to integrate technology into the classroom, but are those of us who are responsible for preparing teachers really equipping them to do this and how?
Maybe we’re the point of failure, not teachers…
We know that teachers are a key part of any solution. Yet, there is less critique and analysis of professional development processes and support given to teachers to support ICT interventions.
Professional Development Patterns:
Here are a few ways we fail teachers in our professional development processes:
Ignoring PD Needs: Teachers are handed technology and expected to know how to integrate it into the classroom with no professional development or training.
Poor PD Practices: Teachers are provided with basic orientation on a technology with very little practical application. Imagine PowerPoints and lots of talking, no doing.
Limited PD Interventions: Teachers are provided with one PD session which involves practical application before an intervention begins, but there is no follow-up to understand what happened during the intervention and no other PD sessions for the remainder of the intervention.
Tech-focused PD: Teachers are trained to use a specific technology which might or might not accompany content/curriculum. This is often very structured and teachers are provided a play by play of what should happen in the classroom.
Some might argue that scenario #4 is a model for success. To that, I ask, if your teachers were provided with a different piece of technology (that’s well designed), would they be able to create and facilitate a successful learning experience? If not, then you have not built their capacity to integrate technology into the classroom, only their capacity to use one tool.
If teachers appear to be “technophobic”, they often have very good reason, all of which are rational. These include:
Not believing in the technology or its application, because sometimes there really is no need to use technology.
A prior poor experience using technology in the classroom with little to no curriculum or educational support.
Trained to be a technology keeper/administrator versus an empowered educator, and therefore marginalized in the classroom.
Enough on our collective professional development failures. What are some solutions or approaches we can take?
Principles for Professional Development
Designing high-quality and engaging teacher professional development is a core focus of Nairobi Play. To truly build the capacity of our teachers to use technology effectively, our goal is not only to transform classroom practice, but transform how teachers approach and think about teaching, regardless of technology (because we know ICT4Edu is just an amplifier).
Based on our experiences and research others have conducted in the field, here are just a few principles we’ve borrowed and created to enhance our professional development (more to come in a follow-up post):
Model. We want teachers to show not tell, but that means our professional development should reflect that same practice. Limit the powerpoints and presentations. The best way to help teachers understand what good facilitation with technology looks like is to model it for them (I DO/WE DO/YOU DO). For a more immersive experience, try Japanese lesson study. In 2015, while at Global Kids, my team and I used the lesson study approach to work with educators from the NYC Parks and Recreation Department and it produced many valuable learnings.
Teachers are designers, not just deliverers. For technology to be an amplifier in the classroom, teachers need the skills to design the learning experience. If you are working with teachers who have only used rote learning techniques, they need to be exposed to and trained in new pedagogies which empower them to be creative, flexible and adaptable to meet the needs of their students. Good professional development equips teachers with the skills to design their own lesson plans, be creative with technology, reflective on their facilitation techniques, and leverage the interests of their students while at the same time meeting learning outcomes.
Not one Tool, Any Tool. Good professional development takes a pedagogy-first approach. This goes back to the point above, have you trained your teachers to use one technology, or any technology? This also means that teachers know how to adapt a digital activity into an analog activity and achieve the same learning outcomes.
Professional Development has no end, ever. Yes, there may be budget constraints, but PD cannot be designed as a “one-time thing”, otherwise it will never be effective. PD should be incremental and iterative, continuously building on new skills and responsive to teachers needs and areas for growth. Maybe that’s six face-to-face PD’s a year, monthly educator meetups, and an active whatsapp group.
Professional development has traditionally been neglected in the ICT for Education field not because it’s not important, but because of the classic argument that it’s too expensive and doesn’t produce enough quick wins.
Considering all the money that’s been dumped into technology without producing any wins, it’s time we act on investing in human potential as our top priority if we expect to make progress and deliver on the promise of technology’s ability to amplify real learning.
“What Mister Rogers tried to teach us — how to navigate “some of the more difficult modulations” in everyday life — might now be classified as emotional literacy. He acknowledged that anger, fear and other kinds of hurt are part of the human repertoire and that children need to learn to speak honestly about those feelings, and to trust the people they share them with.”
Emotional literacy and the demonstration of other SEL skills is what our global community needs right now. My own nostalgia for Mr. Rogers and that feeling of “curious melancholy” stems from our shift away from navigating through difficult “modulations”, and a dangerous draw to other “isms”, alienation, fearmongering and ethno-nationalism.
Most recently, Denmark’s passage of a new set laws which force immigrants living in low-income neighborhoods to assimilate illustrate how fearful, angry and desperate Western countries have become to control their cultural narratives and histories. If immigrants do not comply with the law, which requires them to spend time away from their children and receive mandatory instruction in “Danish values”, they can lose social benefits and even receive prison time.
Denmark is a good example of a society acting from a place of fear, rather than a place of empathy, understanding and sincerity. How can immigrants integrate when they are physically and socially alienated? How can immigrants integrate if there is little to no exchange of cultural values, perspective-taking or communication between communities? The Danish government and parts of the society believe that immigrants are incapable of integrating, and maybe that’s by design. Sarah Schulman’s book “Conflict Is Not Abuse: Overstating Harm, Community Responsibility, and the Duty of Repair” is an exciting text to pull from which provides a useful framework to explain some of these dynamics. Look forward to writing about this in an upcoming post and how it has influenced the underpinnings of the Nairobi Play model around global citizenship and intercultural competence.