Tag Archives: innovation

Martec’s Law in education

In “Martec’s Law: the greatest management challenge of the 21st century” author Scott Brinker states:

“Three years ago, I described a conundrum that I dubbed Martec’s Law:

Technology changes exponentially, but organizations change logarithmically.

As shown in the graph [below], we know that technology changes at an exponential rate. This is the phenomenon of Moore’s Law— and, more broadly, Kurzweil’s Law of Accelerating Returns. But we also know that human organizations don’t change that quickly. Changes in behavior and culture take time. There are only so many changes in people, processes, and technology that an organization can productively absorb at once — at least without a major disruption.

So approximately speaking, organizations change at a logarithmic rate — much slower than exponential technological change.

In my opinion, Martec’s Law encapsulates the greatest management challenge of the 21st century: how do we manage relatively slow-changing organizations in a rapidly changing technological environment? It is a hard problem.”

I think this is something significant to consider in education. Schools tend to change quite slowly. It takes a very long time to change curriculum. Textbooks are a sunk cost on a fixed learning tool. Technology costs money and there are limited funds. And access to technology needs to be safe, and keep student information private.

Training is also a challenge. When a new technology is added to an organization, many employees get on-the-job training to learn how to use the technology appropriately. Often between 25-40% of the cost of a new tool could be put into training. That doesn’t happen in education. Teachers are in front of students daily; The technology itself tends to be 90%+ of the funding cost; and teachers get limited training and professional development.

Martec’s Law: “Technology changes exponentially, but organizations change logarithmically,” is exaggerated in education making adaptation to technology much slower. To appropriately integrate new technology requires systems thinking about how to scale.

I used to think that fearless ‘techie’ teachers, the innovators and early adopters, were the ones who really move education forward. I still see how they play an important role, but they transform classrooms not schools, much less districts. Now I see the value of district-wide initiatives where every teacher is given a minimal amount of access and training… in the same tools. Because tech support can’t be sustained when every teacher wants full access (cost and support) to the newest shiny technologies.

Large organizations with rich budgets only advance logarithmically while technology advances exponentially, so to expect schools to do the same on more limited, government funds is hardly realistic. Yes we need the outliers who will try new tools and share their knowledge, but we also need system wide support and training, on tools that are safe and educationally sound.

This is getting harder because technology today is less about purchasing tools and more about subscriptions. A single overhead projector can last a decade with a bulb change or two. A laptop can last 4 years. But a subscription to a tool that teachers become dependent on will have a yearly cost to it. And if that tool isn’t supported at the district level, then that leads to frustrations for educational leaders, teachers, and students alike.

Schools are not about kids having access to all the newest tech tools, they are places where kids learn to think critically and creatively, and to effectively use the tools available to them. Providing access to technology equitably requires sunk costs in tools, and subscriptions, with some training and support. Recognizing that the newest tech will almost always be out of reach for schools doesn’t mean they are falling behind, when even large high-budget organizations have difficulty keeping up. Rather, it’s districts and schools with vision about how to move forward as an entire organization that will keep up as technology exponentially changes.

Fear & Teaching

I just read an interesting article, ‘ChatGPT is going to change education, not destroy it‘, and got to this sentence about a teacher using it in her classroom:

“Not all these approaches will be instantly successful, of course. Donahoe and her students came up with guidelines for using ChatGPT together, but “it may be that we get to the end of this class and I think this absolutely did not work,” she says. “This is still an ongoing experiment.”

The moment I read this I thought, ‘This is a teacher I’d love to work with!’ What’s her approach? Let me summarize it: ‘Here is a new tool, how can I use it in my classroom to help my students learn? Oh, and sometimes what I try won’t work, but if every experiment worked well then we wouldn’t be learning.’

I see so much fear when a new tool enters schools: Ban calculators, ban smartphones, ban Wikipedia, ban Chat GPT… But there are always teachers doing the opposite, wanting to use rather than ban new tools. Teachers who are willing to try new things. Teachers who know that some lessons will flop, and go in unexpected and unintended directions, yet see the value in trying. These teachers can look long term and see the worthy benefits of trying something new, they are unafraid to have a lesson fail on the path of being innovative.

It’s that lack of fear of flopping that I love to see in teachers. There’s a wide gap between, ‘That failed, how embarrassing. I’ll never do that again!’ and ‘Well, that didn’t work! I wonder what I can do next time to make it better?’ The former is quite fixed in their ways, and the latter is considerably more flexible. While fear rules the former, there is a kind of fearlessness in the latter.

Tools like Chat GPT are absolutely going to change education. I’m excited to see some fearless educators figuring out how best to use it, (and many new tools like it), in their classrooms, and with their students. The teachers willing to iterate, try, fail, and learn to use these tools are going to take their students a lot farther and learn a lot more than in places where these tools will be banned, blocked, and shunned.

Been there, done that

No you haven’t.

I don’t know why, but I can’t seem to link to this Nov. 12, 2017 post by Alec Couros, or my response on Facebook, so I’ll just share them here. Alec said:

‪”Every “new” revolution or trend in education is inevitably accompanied by the critics who wisely note “We tried this back in the x0’s.

‪If you want change to happen and to stick, engage your historians to better understand why things failed the first time around.”

And I responded:

“When I read this I think of Dweck and growth vs fixed mindset. Yes some things ‘come back’, but there can be innovation (and research) since the last time.

For example, much of the ‘learn at your own pace’ of 20 years ago meant ‘here is the (printed) package of work so that you can move ahead’ (on your own). Now with online resources, discussion forums, YouTube, access to research and experts… that ‘own pace’ can be far more collaborative and richly supported. Even more so in a learning environment that focuses on competencies & skills, rather than content.

So in this, and many other examples, it’s not like ‘we did this back in the day’… it’s fundamentally different. It still warrants critique & criticism when it’s due, but it doesn’t warrant dismissal because ‘we’ve already tried it’.

This is the difference between using old tools and tools that are transformative, tools that allow you to engage differently than you could before. A blog isn’t just a digital version of a paper journal. A blog lets you edit more easily, it lets you spellcheck as you go, it allows you to link to sources and other content. It exposes the writing to more than just the teacher, it invites comments and further conversation. It makes the writer a publisher, who as a result tends to care more about editing and presenting better work.

Back in the days of my high school English classes the only audience my journal writing had were my teachers, except for a poem I had published in our yearbook one year… and I can’t exactly find that in a Google search today.

The next time you try something new and someone says, “We tried this back in the x0’s,” or “Been there, done that,” take a moment to think about what’s different this time before dismissing it as something already tried and abandoned… it might just be significantly different this time around.

—–

Here is the list of 6 suggestions I shared in my post, ‘Transformative or just flashy educational tools?‘ which I linked to above:

So what makes a tool great? Or, a better question than that: What should we do with tools to make them great? Here are some thoughts and feadback is appreciated, this is not an exclusive list!

1.Give students choice.

We don’t assess the tool, we assess the criteria, and we want students to meet specific learning outcomes.We can provide students with a choice of tools or even a choice of projects, and not every student in the class needs to meet the same outcomes in the same way.

2. Give students a voice.

Classroom discussions are great, but how else can we provide students with an opportunity to share? What venues can we provide for them to be heard?

3. Give students an audience.

So often we give students an audience of one… the teacher who marks their work. As a teacher, I told students ‘write to your audience’ but I never truly understood those words until I started blogging. If you want students to write to their audience, then give them a legitimate audience.

4. Give students a place to collaborate.

This comes with a caution: A place to collaborate does not in and of itself create good collaboration. You might be using a great collaboration tool, but do your students know how to collaborate effectively? Do they have specific roles to play? Do they have the skills to learn cooperatively?

5. Give students a place to lead.

Whether it be by choosing a tool, or teaching you a tool, or simply choosing their own topic to study, let your students be the lead learner and even the teacher as often as possible.

6. Give students a digital space to learn.

I’ve talked about blogs as learning spaces. Stephen Downes says, ‘To teach is to model and demonstrate, to learn is to practice and reflect.’Give students a space to practice and reflect that is not limited to the confines of a classroom or notebook, and one that helps them build a community, or rather a network, of teachers and learners.

A tool is just a tool! It’s not the tool, but how you use it that matters.

Champions model but don’t always lead

It’s great to have champions of technology who can really show you what’s possible, but they are often operating at a level that’s far too intimidating for other educators, and so they don’t necessarily make the best technology leaders. If you really want to find innovation, yes it’s important to help those front runners who are capable of doing amazing things with technology. However you won’t take everyone further unless you invest in making sure that everyone in your learning community is moving forward.

A few things can help here:

1. Everyone gets access to the same tools. Sure, your tech champions may ask for access first, but once a tool is valued it needs to be accessible to all.

2. Access doesn’t guarantee adoption. With access, there needs to be two things also shared: need and training.

Why is the technology needed? What problem does it solve? What does it achieve more easily, faster, more effectively? Or what does it allow you to do that you couldn’t do before?

How easy is it to adopt? Who can help with training? When can training happen? What’s available for support when a roadblock arises?

3. Collaboration. How can the community support itself, what opportunities are there to share and learn from each other? How can this be embedded into meetings and when can time be given within the current schedule, without adding to it? How can the team use the technology themselves in a meaningful way to become more effective?

4. Recognition and/or appreciation. This doesn’t have to be public, but it does need to happen. How does leadership recognize adoption and use of the new tools? How do people on the team share their success? How are those that support others be supported themselves?

A technology champion can be a leader, but they aren’t inherently leaders. They aren’t always aware of the struggles of others. They don’t always see the roadblocks or pitfalls others do. They don’t always use tools or strategies that others see value in. The trick isn’t to adopt everything they try, or to have them lead by trying first. The trick is to harness their lack of fear and innovative spirit, to learn from them, and to figure out who else on the team will be able to find and share success with the same tools.

And finally, who are going to be the resisters? Who on the team will be most likely to struggle? If you know, then you know who to go to, and support, even before the full implementation starts. Help the resisters understand why. Help them see the value. Help them be part of the positive change.

We need the technology champions to bravely challenge the status quo. But, we also need others on the team to help lead the adaption and transformation of the team, of the learning community. That’s not necessarily the job of the technology champion. It’s the job of leadership to recognize who else needs to lead, and who needs to be supported.

The speed of change

Yesterday I was having a conversation with my colleague, Dave Sands, Principal of Technology Implementation in our district. He shared some good news that our 14th and final middle school in the district is becoming a BYOD – Bring Your Own Device school. This is a great accomplishment for our district. It starts with ensuring the infrastructure is in place. Next, teacher technology, capacity, and readiness are essential, and finally there needs to be support for families that can not afford their own technology. This takes time.

In the conversation I remembered a presentation that I did in 2009 at the Building Learning Communities conference in Boston titled “The POD’s are Coming!”

In the presentation I said, the seed of this presentation started with a conversation and a blog post. Here is what I said in an October 2008 post:

“PODs. We are about 5 years away from most of our students bringing PODs to school, Personally Owned Devices. I’m talking about pervasive access to laptops and iPhone-like devices in our schools. Every kid coming to school with more capability in their pockets and hands than most teachers have on their desk right now.

So in the presentation in July 2009, 9 months later, I said that we were 4 years away from this happening. I was wrong. It took 7 years longer than I thought.

When I look back now, I can see that we weren’t ready for this in 2013. The infrastructure was barely there, there was a lot of fear around the use of technology in the classroom because of the distraction (and disruption) technology causes, and teachers were not ready to lead the charge.

I know many other districts aren’t where we are, and yet we were 7 years slower than what I imagined was possible. Progress and change happen slower than we expect in schools. However, in the world we live in now, 7 years is an eternity to be behind doing what’s possible.

We will need schools to be far more agile in the future.

Missed opportunities

Here is a quick look at how we are doing with this thing called remote or distance learning. While things are good, I think we should have been more prepared for maximizing this ‘opportunity’, rather than just being more prepared to cope with it.

Background: Since returning from China in 2011, I’ve been a leader in Coquitlam Open Learning, the district’s ‘Distributed Learning’ (online) school. That year my Principal, Stephen Whiffin, pitched the idea for Inquiry Hub Secondary and I got to co-found and lead this innovative, blended learning school. I’ve been directly involved with integrating technology into learning as a leader for over a decade, and this has been an integral part of my role for 9 years now.

Current State: Over the past several weeks my staff of teachers have definitely struggled far less than most teachers.

For my online teachers very little has changed other than they are working from home, and assessment practices had to change in some courses. We have always provided testing and support blocks at our schools, and supervised assessments have been key to validating authenticity of work done at home.

For Inquiry Hub, every class was already on Microsoft Teams, and/or had a class OneNote, and/or had digital resources shared in Moodle. Classes moved digital, but there are still many opportunities for students to connect online, have meetings and discussions, and continue with lessons and assessments as if we were still in the building.

So, the transition to remote learning has been smooth. Great… But what are we missing?

The online school: We are continual entry, and so my teachers, at any moment, have students starting the course, doing their final assessment, and everything in between. As a result, they almost never run synchronous lessons. So while I previously mentioned two great ‘Learning Experiences‘ my teachers did with students, these are exceptions rather than the norm. And as I mentioned above, assessment changes needed to be made, but I’d say the changes we made were not really groundbreaking or norm-changing. We are doing a good job, but we aren’t pushing any boundaries.

For Inquiry Hub: We’ve really had a smooth transition, kids are still getting a lot of support, and we have, as a staff, had daily meetings that always touch on two things: How are kids doing/who needs support? And on professional development and planning for some great integration of courses working in edu-scrums for next year. This is exciting work, and it happens in the background while teachers are working smoothly to maintain a continuity of learning for students.

So what’s missing? Where are the missed opportunities?

  • Relevance: what have we done to connect and relate the global experience to what we are learning in class?
  • Service: What could our students be doing to support their community?
  • Assessment: What a great opportunity we have to rethink our online testing and personalizing it for our online learners?
  • Community: What more could we do to build community ‘in’ our schools, both for students, and for families?
  • Well being: How could we better support the kids we know are struggling, and also identify and support the kids who are struggling that we don’t know about?
  • Course delivery: What opportunities do we have for students to learn in different ways?
  • Inquiry learning: How could we leverage support for students inquiries when there are so many homebound experts in different fields that would love to help students out?
  • Supporting colleagues: How have we shared what we know and do well with colleagues that are struggling with the transition?
  • I wonder if we wouldn’t have innovated more if the changes required were more drastic? Have we missed too many opportunities with a smooth transition? Will we be further ahead when things return to normal, or will things go further back to normal than they need to be?

    • Innovation Lag Time

    When you’re innovating, it takes a considerable amount of time before the benefits of that innovation can be seen. What that means is that after the excitement of creating plans, and the thrill of collaborating towards a wonderful vision… You won’t arrive at the benefits of your labour right away. That lag time is not easy. It can be disheartening, discouraging, and even leave you doubting if you’re on the right path.

    At some point you’re going to be stuck in an innovation time lag. When that happens, it’s the work ahead of time to create a vision, and to help get everybody on board, that will help to see you through to the rewards.

    Vision before perspiration gets you past stagnation and on to elation.