The power of the pencil

A recent paper by Barrett et al. (2024) found that when adopting new programming in school systems, most leaders first considered need, then cost, capacity, and sustainability. Administrators prioritized understanding whether there was a need and whether the program characteristics seemed to represent a good fit with their needs. Program characteristics, as considered by administrators, had to do with the mechanics of use — how often, how many minutes, who had to implement, and so on. Only half of the administrators in this study indicated that they considered whether the tool had research evidence to support its value. We believe a tool should fit a specific need in your system experienced by your students and that you should know before you adopt the tool which outcomes you intend the tool to benefit and what the anticipated cost will be (Barrett, Gadke, & VanDerHeyden, 2020). 

In his excellent book Being Mortal, Atul Gwande explores the complexities of aging and death, particularly focusing on how medical care should prioritize a patient's well-being and quality of life at the end of life. Gwande points out that nearly all the marketing associated with elder services is geared toward the adult children who make the placement decision but are not the actual recipients of the services. When selecting these services, adult children may prioritize things like activity schedules or location, where their elderly parents are more concerned with who might sit at their dinner table each evening and whether the food arrives hot and appetizing. Hence, much of the marketing is directed at the decision maker, creating a systemic disconnect when the decision maker is not the direct beneficiary of the decision. It actually creates misaligned contingencies, which we have written about here. 

To me, this arrangement is powerfully analogous to what happens in education. The decision makers are usually system leaders who are subject to pressures, variables, and contingencies that compete with decisions that are optimal decisions for students. 

Technological tool adoption is a prime example of misaligned decision making. The application of technology in learning has often been poorly designed if one considers the science of how humans learn. For example, in its earliest iteration, technology use in education involved presenting print textbooks in digital format as PDF, which may have lightened backpacks and decluttered classrooms but really did not enable more effective instructional delivery. When one considers that criterion for success — does the technological tool enable more effective instructional delivery in real time — very few tools meet that standard. Often the teachers who enjoy technology make major strides in using technology in their classrooms, but we do not see discernible benefit to students that is uniquely associated with the specific technology (rather than the talents of the teacher who so eagerly embraced that technology). In other words, these teachers are often strong teachers who understand the mechanics of effective instruction and would get great results with their students in the absence of the technology. Technological innovations in education have often returned disappointing results if you look simply at benefit to student learning. 

Technology is also often expensive to acquire, can be disrupted, and requires training and support to deliver results. For example, without training, Smart Boards in their earliest iterations became very expensive whiteboards. Correct use of technology remains a difficulty. 

Today, the world has evolved to dramatically open internet connectivity and device use. Most children now have a small computer at their fingertips in the form of a smartphone or tablet. Let’s consider the ways in which technology has been demonstrated to benefit student learning.