August 2005 — Editorial
Print this articleClick here to receive your FREE subscription to T.H.E. Journal
Reinventing the Technology ‘Wheel’
When I started working in the field of futures study in the mid-’70s,
I recall hearing
then-professor Chris Dede (now Chair, Teaching & Learning, Technology in
Education, Harvard Graduate School of Education and a member of our editorial
board), talk about technology assessment. At that time, the term “technology assessment”
referred to the practice or study of technology’s impact on the field into which it was
introduced, and on other aspects of society. One point Chris made, which has stuck with me
since then, is that the two most common errors of technology assessment are: 1) to overestimate an innovation’s speed of diffusion, and 2) to underestimate its eventual consequences. Obviously, we cannot anticipate all of the changes that may occur as a result of implementing into education a technology innovation. But part of our job should be to think through the consequences of implementing a technology beyond the immediate budget.
Most of us do not have the tools to systematically and systemically consider possible consequences. However, the ISTE Leadership Symposium at this year’s National Educational Computing Conference in Philadelphia provided an experience with a tool called “The Implications Wheel” (www.implicationswheel.com), led by renowned futurist J'el Barker, which could be phenomenally helpful to leaders in technology and education. The Implications Wheel is a new iteration of the “Futures Wheel” that I first learned about from J'el in 1976 at a Minnesota workshop. I often used the wheel when I was teaching middle school and high school futures and English classes.The updated and computerized Implications Wheel not only automates a simple exercise that can be done with students of all ages, but it also adds significant power such as enabling the quantification of consequences and encouraging a healthy discussion of each consequence. Some ISTE staff members are trained to implement this tool; it could be useful for you, too.
Holding On to the Computer Lab Model
I know that if I had thought of using a Futures Wheel while I was a technology coordinator and bureaucrat, or had access to the Implications Wheel, I am sure I would have made different decisions or at least thought differently about certain policies.
A case in point was the push in the ’80s for computer literacy, with a number of states requiring that all of their middle school students take a computer literacy class. Most districts responded to this effort by aggregating computers from around the school and the district into computer labs at the middle schools. They often hired someone to be the “computer teacher,” or converted a teacher from another field to be the computer teacher. Students went to these labs once or twice each week and became computer literate—policy accomplished!
However, another impact of that policy was that it delayed the integration of technology throughout curriculum and instruction for a long time, and in two ways:
