PDFs, Pragmatism & WWPP

WWPP,  a pragmatic compromise: WP, WWW, PPT & PDFs

If there is one thing I've learned in my now almost a decade as a digital literacy coach (DLC), and from now over 20 years working with 'edtech' or the technology enhanced learning (TEL) in the classroom from K-12, it's that there is a fundamental shift, in terms of how opportunities to learn and to create with digital tools are experienced as students move though their school lives. There is a gradual progression. During their primary/elementary years, students at UWCSEA regularly (ie, at least once a year) work across all five of the domains that span what I what I would describe as true digital literacy, or perhaps a better word is competency; video, image, text, audio, data—or VITAD. Then as they progress through middle and then high school, there is a narrowing of focus as students become more specialised in their learning, and their range of learning experiences narrows, from VITAD, to something I call WWPP:

• Word Processing
• Websites & Web Search
• PowerPoint Slideshows (or similar)
• Printing, PDFs, Posters (yes I realise that's more than one P)

WWPP describes the fundamental domains that are the norm for most teachers in most subjects in terms of the tools they rely on to do their own work, and so, not surprisingly, represent the kinds of digital technology they are comfortable using with their students, and in (hopefully, but not necessarily) expecting their students to use. This means, whether you like it or not, this represents the actual reality in most secondary school classrooms, especially those that are organised around the premise of preparing students for high stakes examinations.

This doesn't mean that VITAD is non existent in secondary schools, it just means that it will be more isolated and consigned to certain subject areas, eg data handling in the Sciences, image in the Arts, audio in Music, video in Film et cetera. This doesn't mean these experiences aren't beneficial in other subject areas, the work they do in primary school clearly demonstrates that it is, it's just that, having worked on trying to facilitate this, I've had to concede that it just doesn't happen much, if at all, once students are taught by subject specialists. This observation is one I have observed both as a teacher and a parent for many years, and it is one that is borne out by the literature. I've already written a post about this phenomenon, that can be summed up by these quotes from two recent studies into the dominant use of digital technologies in secondary schools is in terms of their assumed and actual use: 

Laptops are typically purchased by schools and sometimes by parents, and they are largely used to write and revise papers, conduct Internet searches, and engage in personalized instruction and assessment using educational software or online tools. (Zheng et al, 2016, p2)

... schools revealed moderate use of many well-established digital technologies, such as word processing, presentation software, and quiz games. (Hughes et al, 2018, p1)

... students reported using word processing, spreadsheets, presentation tools, and web searches most frequently in class. (ibid, p2)

So the fact is that, like it or not, what studies repeatedly show as 'effective' use, is use that can be translated into evidence that is measured using a standardised test score. And if that is the only metric we are prepared (or able) to consider, then WWPP is the model that works, and WWPP is a model that works for preparing students for high stakes examinations; until those examinations change in terms of their expectations, then WWPP is here to stay. 

Now I'm not ecstatic about this, but I am pragmatic; by this I mean if we're going to accept that this narrowing of expectation exists, that the least we can do is teach these skills properly. The danger at the moment, is that in the same way that these skills reflect their teachers ICT skills, they also reflect their teachers competency, or as is more often the case in my experience, their teachers' gradually increasing competency. Now—don't get me wrong—I don't blame teachers for this, it's very powerful when a teacher can model for their students that they are also 'lifelong learners' and anyway, if they are anywhere near my age, they didn't actually own a computer until they were in their 20s, and even then they were never taught how to use them, they were just expected to figure it out themselves by trial and tribulation. I've written more on this skills issue in another post, but suffice it to say here, that at the very least, if we're going to narrow our focus, can we at least expect these skills to be taught properly? To be used in a skilful, or especially at high school level, a competent way? I think we can, and I think we should. The benefits to both teachers in terms of their ability to do their jobs more effectively, and to their students are clear. 

What does skilled WWPP look like?

It looks like the expectations for any adult who would be deemed to be digitally literate, and adult who wants, no, needs to function effectively in their work place. Some suggestions below:  

Skilful Word Processing 

• Use and format tables: insert & delete rows, columns, & merge cells
• Use the tab key (also add new row to a table/indented bullets)
• Use commenting tools to give, receive & respond to feedback
• Paste text without formatting, or to match destination formatting
• Insert/format/manage page numbers
• Add/use headers/footers 
• Use, modify, and create templates
• Use document page breaks, section breaks & styles
• Use automatic features like table of contents (TOC), references, citations
• Reference source materials, ie MLA, APA et cetera
• Extend these same skills to the building of web resources/sites

Skilful Web Browsing/Searching

• Use History and bookmarks effectively instead of relying on excessive tabs
• Use multiple accounts with web browsers to manage private/professional practice
• Access and find information in an online database not just Google/Bing et al.
• Identify key words, names, & phrases for a search
• Appreciate the advantages & disadvantages of a variety of sources
• Use the find command to locate specific words on a page
• Upload & download files as appropriate, understand the associated file sizes. 
• Understand & carry out an (advanced) multiple field search
• Search using Boolean terms (site:, intitle:, —)

Skilful PowerPoints/Slide Shows

• Create well designed slideshows that rely on image, not text  
• Format & customise well designed themes 
• Create presentations that use multimedia effectively, eg video, sound &/or animation
• Format & edit master slides to manage the formatting of a presentation
• Use appropriate images, eg pixel width, proportion, illustration not just decoration
• Crop & enhance images to complement your slides 
• Select, trim and incorporate video clips/animations
• Visualise data effectively using charts and graphs 
• Understand the affordances of different tools, eg PowerPoint, Keynote, Google Slides... 
• Use slide aspect ratio intentionally (wide screen v 4:3)
• Use the slide sorter view to manage/organise your presentation 

Skilful use of PDFs & Posters

• Organised and synchronised online for ease of access/sharing
• Edit to isolate certain pages, extract specific content, reorder content
• Annotate, comment, and highlight 
• Convert (hard or soft) documents to/from PDF 

• Create well designed posters that balance the use of image with text  
• Format & customise pre-designed themes 
• Understand the differences between an infographic (screen) and a poster (print)

Pragmatism

I've been hesitant to concede this facts, but I console myself with the knowledge that if the students have been given the appropriate foundations and experiences what span VITAD in primary and some extent, middle school, their ongoing development in terms of digital literacy is now something they should be able to pursue independently throughout high school, and for the rest of their lives. This means that high school teachers have one focus and one focus only and that is to enable their students to succeed in their examinations in the same way they have for the past 50 years. Until the examinations change, there little point expecting teachers to change, Especially as the efficacy of their teaching practice is often based, either explicitly or implicitly, on their students’ grades. 

It’s obvious internationally that many if not most schools don’t understand this, or don’t care.  This is why Google Chromebooks and similar budget computers are thriving in comparison with iPads and MacBooks in schools. The former is fine all you want students to experience is WWPP, but if you want them to demonstrate true digital literacy with VITAD and all of the wonderful combinations and permutations between those domains, budget computers can’t and don’t deliver this. 

References

Hughes, Joan E. and Read, Michelle F. (2018) "Student experiences of technology integration in school subjects: A comparison across four middle schools," Middle Grades Review: Vol. 4 : Iss. 1 , Article 6.
Available at: https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/mgreview/vol4/iss1/6

Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C. H., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in One-to-One Laptop Environments A Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 0034654316628645.

Laptops and Lowest Common Denominators

A colleague shared the outcome of recent research into the efficacy of 1:1 laptop schools, more specifically it was a meta-analysis of 10 studies that examine the impact of laptop programs on students’ academic achievement.

I read it with mixed feelings. On the one hand the fact that the researchers concluded that schools where students have their own laptops see a "significantly positive average effect sizes in English, writing, mathematics, and science" was encouraging. They felt that "the impact of laptop programs on general teaching and learning processes and perceptions was generally positive".

So that's good then. Right?

Well, no; not really.

I couldn't help but notice that their expectations of the actual use of these devices was, to put it mildly, far from tapping into the true potential of these devices. This is despite their inspirational opening clarion call to change the world,

"We believe that the affordances of computers for learning and knowledge production are radically different from those of radio, television, and film, which explains why computers, unlike those previous technologies, are bound to have a very different educational fate from the one suggested by Cuban (1993a, p 185), who wrote that “computer meets classroom: classroom wins.”

So exactly what uses do they have in mind? How do they envisage these radically different affordances? By inspiring the creative expression of learning through the exciting synergies between video, image, text, audio and the deft analysis and application of data?

No, they see the main affordances of these devices in terms of use "to write and revise papers, conduct Internet searches, and engage in personalized instruction and assessment using educational software or online tools". (p 2)

What? That's it? These devices hold the potential to radically transform their world, but let's just use them to type up reports (so they're nice and neat), Google stuff, and take online tests.

How depressing.

Then it gets worse. Having applied the law of the lowest possible expectations of these tools, they proceed to use the worst possible measure to determine their efficacy. We find ourselves in the familiar territory of, when faced with the option of assessing those aspects of learning that are the most important (creativity, solutions, innovation etc), but of course the most difficult to qualify, instead they opt to measure the aspects of learning that are easiest to quantify, with, yes, you guessed it, standardised tests:

"quantitative findings of the impact on students’ academic achievement. [...] Measurements of academic achievement were standardized assessments or norm-referenced district- or school-wide tests." (p 5)

So the measure of efficacy all boils down to that which can be measured on a standardised test. How depressing, and how inappropriate for a medium as rich as that of digital technologies. Like judging a ballerinas dancing ability, based on her spelling. So we use them ineffectively, then assess the efficacy of their use in ways that are utterly unsuitable. Is this really what we expect when we talk about 'technology enhanced learning' in 1:1 environments?

I sincerely hope not. I tell you what though, it would make my job a lot easier if I did.

To be fair to this study, they do accept that there are problems with the ways they are assessing the efficacy of these devices, "studies on this topic have largely done a poor job of assessing learning outcomes that are not well captured by current iterations of standardized tests. As the United States and other countries move to more sophisticated forms of standardized assessment, these new measures may be better aligned with the learning goals believed to be associated with laptop use." (p 25)

I have to wonder whether the corporate world is as obsessed with trying to validate the influence of digital technologies in the workplace as we are with attempting to defend them in the classroom? Do any of us really believe that the corporate world would be better off without digital technologies? Then why would we would we believe that classrooms would be better off without them? Do we really believe the corporate world would spend the millions if not billions it must cost every year to maintain their IT infrastructures if they did not feel they was essential, important, effective?

Don't Settle

As it is I'm not prepared to settle for a lowest common denominator approach, where we abandon any attempts at using these devices anywhere near their potential, and instead settle for using them in the ways that are the easiest, and therefore the most common, even if they are far from being the most effective. By easiest/least I mean ways of working that most closely replicates the traditional approaches to learning that were the norm before the advent of the digital revolution; writing becomes typing, and researching in the library becomes Googling, the results of which we present, in writing. That's it.

Vitamin D[igital] Video, Image, Text, Audio, Data. VITAD.

No, these laptops should be used to create in all five domains, not just text, but image, video, audio and data, and all sorts of overlaps between them. These technologies should exploit all of the attributes that digital tools excel at; situated learning/working, access to global communities/experts, multimodal artefacts, mutable work flows, sharing and collaborating on content using social networks.

In the paper, they state,

"Contrary to Cuban’s (2003) argument that computers are “oversold and underused” (p 179) in schools, laptop environments are reshaping many aspects of education in K–12 schools." (p 24)

But the truth is that if all they are exploiting is their use is as word processors and web browsers, these machines are definitely underused. I guess this could be described as giving up on transformation and focusing on amplification instead, if I'm honest, is this a bad thing? It would certainly make my job easier... Maybe having tech being oversold and underused is better than having them ignored and unused.

I guess the question that I need to wrestle with is, if I need to lower my expectations... Maybe if we just focus on using one domain effectively (text), we'll still see benefits in terms of learning, but perhaps more effectively and consistently—less is more? Perhaps, but I doubt it; focusing on just one domain out of five strikes me as making as much sense as buying a car and using it to keep you dry in the rain, or cool in the sun.

Useful? Yes.

Appropriate? Maybe.

Ideal and Effective? ... 😕🤔😬


Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C. H., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in One-to-One Laptop Environments A Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 0034654316628645.