Three Best Practices for Integrating Technology Into the Classroom, Pt 2

In my previous post, I reviewed my first theory regarding the "New Blended" model now emerging for Learning & Development:

THEORY 1 - Elearning has improved Instructor-Led Training (ILT)

For the details, just jump back to the post here.

Now it's time to outline and discuss my second theory, which has to do with the Instructor-led classroom itself.  During our presentation at Learning 2010, we began by showing two pictures, one was of a classroom 100 years ago, and one from a "modern" classroom:

When I asked my oldest daughter, who was 10 at the time, what differences she could see, she noted seating was clustered in the modern classroom and there was a computer in the far corner.  Also easy to note are the whiteboard and the LCD projector on the ceiling in the modern classroom.  Beyond that, it's very difficult to note too many other differences between a classroom circa the 1900's and today.  You could also jump back another hundred years to a classroom circa the 1800's and say the same thing.  All this to say that, while the world has experienced rapid technological progress, the classroom has remained relatively stable. Why is this?

Perhaps because the practice of instruction has been honed over, not hundreds, but thousands of years! Newer instructional technologies are all very recent.  In a sense, the classroom is already a blend of art and science, and has been a highly effective environment for the transmittal of essential skills. The other reason, of course, has to do with teachers / instructors who already have a great deal to manage without the addition of complex technology to their environment.  

So, what conditions must be met in order for new technology adoption to occur in the classroom? This is where my second "theory" becomes relevant.

THEORY 2 - There are three requirements which must be met before widespread adoption of technology will occur.  Those requirements are:

1. Must be user-friendly, intuitive, and cost-effective
2. Must mimic some existing technology in the classroom
3. Must add some new value over previous technology

Requirement 1: Must be user-friendly, intuitive, and cost-effective
Want a technology to see widespread adoption?  Then it must satisfy this requirement. Teachers / Instructors already have a daunting number of tasks to manage in a classroom.   Try to add something too complex and it simply will not be used. You could install the system only to see it sit and collect dust. And it goes without saying that if something is too expensive, it becomes impossible to adopt on a widespread basis (and, yes, I said it anyway).

Requirement 2: Must mimic some existing technology already present in the classroom
As someone who has worked as both an instructor and an adjunct professor, I can assure you, the last thing any of us wants is yet another new "thing" to manage. The goal of classroom instruction is to teach other human beings, not manage a bevy of new tech toys.  If you want to add something new in the way of technology, then it must be designed to mimic and, ultimately, replace something already present in the classroom.

Requirement 3: Must add some new value over the previous technology
The technology must, as already noted before, mimic something there before. That's a necessary but not sufficient condition. The technology must also add some new or significantly new value over what was used before.

So, if it's cost-effective, intuitive, mimics something in the classroom, and adds some new value, the technology is highly likely to see widespread adoption. It's a principal I've been calling "Classroom Technology Integration," (CTI).  There are discussions in education journals that talk of "seamless" integration of classroom technology, but the meaning behind "seamless" varies widely.

In my opinion, "seamless" integration of technology must incorporate the requirements spelled out above.  Why?

Above all, the goal of the technology must be to further the power and quality of the educational environment! In other words, it must serve the instructor and students.

If the technology can't do this; if it impedes rather than promotes quality education, then attempts to integrate the technology should never be made in the first place. If you're company hoping to invest millions or more into THE next classroom technology and don't take all this into consideration, then you're more likely to lose the value of your investment.

What are some real-world examples of this theory?  To see a couple, just take a look at my next blog post!

Three Best Practices for Integrating Technology Into the Classroom, Pt 1

Four years ago, a colleague of mine and I gave a presentation at the Learning 2010 conference. Our topic came from a couple theories I developed regarding how Elearning affects classroom learning and the ways each mode has begun to change and shape the other.  Over the next two or three posts, I'm going to outline my theories and discuss the coming of what I believe to be a "New Blended" learning model.  First, let me outline my first theory, which I think other learning professionals will largely agree with.

THEORY 1 - Elearning has improved Instructor-Led Training (ILT)
In the early 2000's, many thought Elearning would be the death of the classroom.  Instead, Elearning has actually strengthened it.  It has done this in a few different ways:

• Elearning as pre-work - One of the banes of instructors in the classroom is having to deal with students with widely varying levels of knowledge or skill.  Instructors have the difficult job of juggling those skill levels to prevent those with less knowledge from being left behind while not boring those with more knowledge.  Elearning pre-work and pretesting flattens the classroom landscape by pushing those with more knowledge forward to more advanced training and bringing those with less knowledge up-to-speed with the rest of the classroom. This is a huge advantage for instructors who can then more easily engage all students without leaving anyone behind while at the same time, meeting the stated goals and objectives of the training.
• Elearning as post-work - Online and/or Elearning post-work strengthens what was learned in the classroom; adding to overall retention and reducing the risk of new skills being lost.  Scheduling post-work at various intervals means the significant investment a company makes in instructor-led training will return value.
• The NEW "Blended" training model - Most of the time when we mention "blended learning" today, we mean a blending of Elearning, Virtual Instructor-Led, and Instructor Led Training.  We blend these distinct "modes" of learning into a whole program or curriculum. So we send out Elearning pre-work to participants, then move them through the classroom training, then reinforce everything with post-work of one type or another  Increasingly, however, "blended" will, I believe, refer to the process of adding Elearning components directly into an Instructor Led Training session.  So, for example, at some companies, longer and more intensive training programs have traditional instructor components blended with learning simulations accessed through computers or, increasingly, tablets.  These are not paper-based simulations or role plays, these are complex simulations which allow companies to take the content just learned and place it into context for the learner.  What this means is that, for the first two hours of a course, we might see participants learning how to interact with a client using a company system in the traditional way; a student guide, PowerPoint slides, and perhaps even a live demo. The next two hours would then be practicing those skills in a simulated environment where they can interview clients, enter data, process orders or deliveries, etc.  In that environment, not only is it safe to fail, instructors are able to track the progress of learners through the simulation and assist only when necessary. Tracking and reporting can also help designers track problem areas in the simulation.  There's much more which can be mentioned in relation to the "new blended" approach, but this is a start.

This is probably enough to think on for now.  When you're ready, Part 2 can be found here!