SPECIAL FEATURE| Tech Roundtable

2020 Vision: Experts Forecast What the Digital Revolution Will Bring Next

Directors of the federal Office of Educational Technology both past and present—as well as a range of ed tech leaders nationwide—predict what the digital revolution has in store for the next decade, while taking account of its impact to date. Plus: a timeline of learning technologies

• 11/01/10

In September 1993, Linda Roberts was appointed inaugural director of the newly created Office of Educational Technology within the US Department of Education. The phrase “surfing the internet” was but a year old, and the tide was still low for the few knowledgeable enough to test the waters. Broadband and wireless held significance only to the most sophisticated techies.

So much has changed since then, but Roberts (who headed the Office of Educational Technology until 2001) and two of her three successors, John Bailey (2001-2004) and Karen Cator (the current director, appointed to the position in 2009), agree that the most dramatic technology-enabled transformations are still ahead of us. Recently, the three of them sat down with T.H.E. Journal Editorial Director Geoff Fletcher to discuss how far we’ve come in education technology, and where we can expect to go.

Looking back over the last two decades, what have been the most important education technology developments?

Linda Roberts: Two have been phenomenal. One is, of course, the internet and the vast world of information and resources, and the ability to connect with people that we didn’t have two decades ago. But the second part is the mobility we now have, so that the resources and connections are in our hands wherever we go. Those two developments, combined, are shaping the future.

John Bailey: The internet and broadband have been transformative in enabling all sorts of reforms. Online learning wouldn’t have been possible had it not been for the internet revolution and the next-generation broadband networks we’re seeing now. When you look at any of the innovations that we’re talking about in education technology, the common denominator is the internet and broadband helping to create the platform.

In more recent times, the progress that has been made with data systems, while not sexy from a policy standpoint, is enabling the personalization in projects such as School of One [the New York City program providing individualized instruction through multiple modalities]. We are now on the verge of seeing new technologies and innovations enabled by the data that has been collected by schools, teachers, and state systems.

The private sector has moved much more rapidly in implementing technological tools than education has. Why is that, and what are the prospects for that changing?

Karen Cator: One of the huge developments over the last 20 to 25 years has been the advent of the personal computer—and the part about it being personal, I think, is where we have missed the mark in education. We’ve been sharing: having a computer lab down the hall or two computers in the back of the classroom. In many cases, even education professionals have not had access to their own personal computer. Across all other industries, professionals have gotten used to having their own computer where they can keep their connections, the entire portfolio of all of their projects, and their presentations. We have not gotten to the level of personalization that we need to. Given that education is a knowledge industry, we need to figure out how we get every student his or her own personal device.

Roberts: I absolutely agree. We’ve treated technology as a scarce resource in education, and as something extra rather than something essential and part of everything we do. This becomes striking when you look at the applications in other aspects of our lives. A lot of people assume there is more use of technology in education than there actually is because it’s so ubiquitous in the outside world. We need to act on the assumption that technology is as important as the school bus.

Bailey: The other challenge we’ve faced is that there are many efforts to get technology into schools, but often, especially at the local level, there has been insufficient attention paid to what needs to change to make sure the technology being acquired is used to its full potential. [Amazon.com Chairman and CEO] Jeff Bezos is not asking, “How can we make a bookstore better?” but “How do we transform the notion of a bookstore?” The Department of Health and Human Services is investing $20 billion in funding a transformation in the way we keep medical records, order prescriptions, and track medical errors to reduce those errors. It’s not just automating; it’s transforming. Computers and the internet and other sorts of connectivity by themselves aren’t going to change organizations. Concentrated leadership focused on making institutional changes is what’s needed to take advantage of these opportunities.

What developments that have failed to take hold have disappointed you, and what can we learn from them?

Cator: We have so many interesting pockets of excellence—classrooms where you see students completely powered up, engaged, doing real work, solving complex problems, grappling with interesting information—but we haven’t figured out how to scale those up. And likewise, we see pockets of amazing research. For example, all of the funded research from the National Science Foundation over the years has not resulted in as much commercialization of products or implementation of new strategies as we would like to see. The reason is that we have a distributed system. But we can use the power of technology to change this.

Bailey: There are two areas I had high hopes for that only now are we beginning to see some real progress around. I had thought a lot of personalization engines and adaptive systems would have scaled further at this point than what they have. The great hope for a lot of these technologies is that they personalize the instruction to students’ individual needs and learning styles. We’re now beginning to see some powerful models there, but it has taken time. I also had hoped that technology would be seen as not just within the realm of ed tech directors but embraced by the broader community—teacher groups, principals, superintendents, governors. We’re now seeing that in pockets, but it has been slow.

Roberts: I believed we would finally have better tools to understand what students are successfully learning and what they aren’t learning. I agree with John that there are some exciting examples of powerful ways to collect data that captures learning and allows us to make good decisions. But unless we invest in edge-of-the-envelope research—not research that proves what we already know, but research that helps us invent the next generation of tools and resources—I fear we’re going to continue to be slow in our progress.

Research was emphasized in No Child Left Behind. But in some cases, has the reliance on scientific evidence for making changes served as a barrier to technology growth?

Roberts: The notion of scientifically based research and evidence was a very important dimension of NCLB. But there can be unintended consequences to good intentions. Our definition of scientific research and what evidence really is about has been drawn too narrowly.

Bailey: Scientifically based research has a role, but it can be a limiting factor to certain innovations, in the sense that these types of studies are very expensive and complicated, particularly given how “messy” our education system and the types of students we serve are. And so I think there’s going to be a rich debate about what evidence should look like and how government can fund some of that high-risk but potentially high-reward research and investment in innovation that can be transformational. It would be great to see ESEA [the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which authorizes federally funded education programs administered by the states] build on NCLB to focus not just on research that already has scientific evidence supporting its effectiveness, but that aims to get innovative solutions to a point where they can be studied.

Cator: We spend so much time proving what we already know rather than figuring out, specifically as it pertains to technology, how to do some rapid prototyping. The way people design new products and services today happens by doing—trying things and very quickly understanding whether it’s working or not. The opportunity with data systems is to do just that. If students are using technology, we should be able to rapidly understand how they’re doing.

Reauthorization of ESEA is likely to come up next year, which could mean a departure from NCLB. What impact has the law had in the 10 years since it was implemented, particularly on the integration of technology?

Bailey: One good thing to come out of No Child Left Behind is the notion of focusing a spotlight on the achievement gap and the fact that there are groups of students who aren’t well served. It has helped to shine a light on schools and systems that need improvement, although there is a debate as to whether that light was too widely shone.

Cator: NCLB gave us some visibility into achievement gaps and helped by disaggregating data and enabling us to think about it differently. We will be building on that. This is a journey, and the notion that you can throw something out and start over again is not realistic.

What role can technology play in changing the way we assess students, teachers, and schools?

Cator: Race to the Top [which funds states whose education systems are moving toward the US Department of Education’s school reform goals] set aside $350 million for the states to create an entirely new generation of assessments. One of the problems with our current system is we have the testable standards, and then we have the ones we say are nice to have but that we can’t really test now. These have been relegated to “bubble” tests. The opportunity now is to go way beyond the bubble test, to create a new generation of assessments that can give us much better information for students, their teachers, the school, the district, and the system as a whole. The entire world of assessment is about to change dramatically, and technology is going to be central to that.

Roberts: To be able to measure learning in a variety of ways rather than be limited by paper and pencil, it seems to me, is incredibly important, and ties closely to the development of the new content standards. And you can’t do any of the assessments that are being talked about without technology.

No Child Left Behind has had a dedicated technology fund that has fluctuated significantly. This administration is pushing for a new, more integrated approach. What can be done to ensure that true integration of technology takes place?

Cator: It’s striking the amount of integration that already exists, but just by happenstance. What we need to have is a much more integrated approach. One of the things missing is any kind of consideration of the infrastructure for learning. The opportunity for students to use technology to learn, the use of technology for assessments and professional development—all of that can easily be integrated into other programs, but it really is this notion of the infrastructure for learning that we have to grapple with to make sure we don’t leave it to chance.

Bailey: In August, when Congress passed a jobs bill to provide $10 billion to help states prevent teacher layoffs, part of the way it paid for it was to take back some of the broadband funding—about $350 million—and essentially kill the Ready to Teach program that was funding a lot of online professional development. One of the challenges we’re going to have is convincing Congress not to rob these innovation programs to help support some of the status quo approaches.

Cator: It’s pretty amazing, actually, the amount of money that’s being poured into broadband build-out across the country. The $350 million that got pulled back to help with the jobs bill was out of a $7.2 billion fund for broadband build-out. So we’re laser-focused and trying to build a map and transparency around where we have broadband and where we don’t, so that we can get very systematic about it.

Roberts: The broadband funding that has happened is phenomenally important, particularly for rural areas across the country. This country has got to invest more heavily in broadband. We ought to have a set-aside in every major federal education program that says 5 to 10 percent of the program has to go toward both expansion and maintenance of the technology infrastructure, because that infrastructure is absolutely critical to doing all of the things we’re talking about.

We also need to focus like a laser at every opportunity not just to fund technology for technology’s sake, but for the sake of innovation and improvement in the way we teach and learn through the most effective use of the technology capabilities. Reading First [a federally funded program to help states ensure that all children have the ability to read by the end of third grade] spurred a lot of technology development because of the way it required new kinds of assessments that didn’t work with paper-and-pencil technology. Those are the kinds of things that are really important.

Let’s talk about textbooks. What will be the fate of the traditional one print textbook per student, per course, per grade level?

Cator: I think over the next 18 months or so we’re going to see a transition from a predominantly print-based classroom to a digital classroom in which students have devices and the content is provided for them online in a much more flexible and customizable manner. We can take advantage of the power of technology to do things like simulations, visualizations, and games with better feedback, better adaptive materials, and better opportunities to personalize and conduct deep research on things that students are interested in. We’re going to move away from the notion of a print-based textbook toward a new platform. I’m hopeful about this.

Bailey: There are all sorts of interesting revolutions that will come out of the movement toward interactive textbooks and multimedia. Using the Kindle app on my iPad, I’ve been loving the social highlighting feature in which you can see the passages in the book that hundreds of other people have highlighted and thought were important. That suddenly takes textbooks and reading to a whole new level. I’m not sure if I would agree with Karen that it’s 18 months away, but it’s closer than most people think it is.

Roberts: Textbooks are content and they are also curriculum. They organize a lot of things for both teachers and students, but in an imperfect way, and now there are so many ways to make the content and the organization more useful. The challenge for the publishers is to find ways to be profitable that don’t rely just on the sale of the textbook.

Cator: Picking up on what John said, the true innovation is not merely the digital textbook, but when you can get together with other people around the content, and when we begin to think about learning as being participatory and social. We’re social animals. We like to learn with each other. We like to learn by talking and expressing. These platforms offer an amazing opportunity to push the envelope on personalized learning and work with others in the classroom to combine thoughts and share notes.

What role will social networking play in education over the next several years?

Roberts: We haven’t talked very much about teachers and school leaders, but if we could harness the social networking tools to bring together these communities to share what they’re doing to innovate and make good decisions, we can make professional development much more meaningful and useful to the people we’re trying to reach.

Cator: In the Department of Education we now have a Communities of Practice RFP [request for proposals] out to design research that steps back and asks what are the technologies and the methodologies, but more importantly how would people actually connect online as professional educators? What would be the interactions? What help do they need? What are the questions they would ask? Where would they go to find assistance? And secondarily, what would they do in terms of giving back? What would be the kinds of places they would aspire to publish within? We have not begun to scratch the surface in how we can leverage these technologies, environments, and innovations for powering up the professional educator.

Roberts: K-12 professionals are the most isolated in the world, and one of the arguments we made in the new [national] tech plan is that teachers have got to be connected with their peers, with the experts out there, with the community that is most likely to help them. It shouldn’t be something they have to think about; it should be part of the way they work.

Projecting ahead to 2020, what will students’ experiences look like?

Cator: We’re talking about the opportunity for students to wake up in the morning with a strong sense of purpose that they’re going to school because they are in the business of learning. They are empowered with their own device, their own learning record, their own feedback. They know what they’re going to do next without having to wait for someone to tell them. And they have access to the people around them—not just physically around them, but people who might be online, the experts, anyone who can help them get where they need to go. They will still go to a place and still have these people called teachers who are working with them and are connected with their work.

Roberts: In 2020, students will be able to learn no matter where they are. The whole playing field has to be leveled; the key to the future is that students will have the opportunities and resources to go as far as they possibly can as learners.

Bailey: There are going to be a lot of different ways that students get just-in-time access to the content, the instruction, and the extra assistance they need. Schools will continue to be hubs; they’ll just change in their roles. They will become more like communities where students get help from teachers. It will be a richer, more adaptive experience as the learning adjusts to the needs and styles of those particular students. I see some exciting innovations over the next couple of years.

This article originally appeared in the November 2010 issue of THE Journal.