The problem is especially pressing because traditional schooling is increasingly boring as students go up the grade levels, with barely one-third of students engaged in their schoolwork by the time they reach grade 9 or 10 (Jenkins, 2013; Sheninger & Murray, 2017). This leaves teachers worse off as well, because teaching bored students is not fun. Every year, Pew Charitable Trusts (www.pewtrusts.org) releases a report on student attitudes about high school, and every year a stunning majority of students tell us they see no connection between their school experience and their future.
In Stratosphere, Fullan (2013) laments the lack of integration of three potentially powerful learning forces—(1) technology, (2) pedagogy, and (3) change knowledge. For a long time, educators tried to keep technology at arm’s length, but eventually there was no choice—digital technology is relentless and ubiquitous. But it’s not sufficiently integrated. When technology deployments are not integrated with sound pedagogy and a wealth of change knowledge, its benefits are severely limited.
Limited Impact
It comes as no surprise that our most comprehensive educational researchers repeatedly find that technology has little impact on student engagement and learning. In Visible Learning for Teachers, John Hattie (2012) analyzes approximately nine hundred meta-research studies of instructional practices, calculates the effect sizes of more than two hundred teaching practices, and consistently finds that technology has an effect size of 0.15 (impact effects of 0.40 and above are significant). And Stanford University researcher Larry Cuban (2013) shows that the impact of technology on classroom practice has been insignificant since the 1970s.
Although the digital explosion is far more powerful than anything we have ever seen in education, Alan November (2012) reminds us that computers don’t make people smarter, just as electric typewriters didn’t make people smarter. Having access to all the information in the world does not make us better problem solvers. Technology per se does not create learning, and technology in and of itself is not the solution. A saying often attributed to Grady Booch, chief scientist in software engineering at IBM Research, goes, “A fool with a tool is still a fool.” In short, technology as solution puts the cart before the horse. Pedagogy and culture are the foundations, as we show in the rest of this book.
To express our theory of action up front, we incorporate student engagement and learning impact, and the causal pathways to such impact, inside our model. We do this not for accountability reasons (although it serves that purpose), but rather because if you do not know your impact or how to get there, you will inevitably remain at the surface level. Many early large-scale deployments of laptops and efforts to transform the culture of learning and teaching showed exuberance and promising expectations, but fell flat over time.
Henrico County Public Schools in Virginia, for example, launched the first major districtwide one-to-one laptop program in 2000. The district gave every middle and high school student a laptop (twenty-six thousand in total) and implemented wireless connectivity in all schools. Visitors from all over the United States made their way to Richmond to see what this digital revolution looked like. The National School Boards Association even hailed it as a success (Sellers, 2002).
The state of Maine followed in 2001, deploying laptops to all middle school students in the state. Despite implementation challenges and logistical barriers, most observers saw great promise and opportunity in this bold initiative (Gravelle, 2003). Dozens of individual U.S. schools and a few districts launched similar programs.
Despite numerous efforts like these, we don’t know of any districtwide digital programs that have altered teaching and learning or produced true accountability indicators of success. This is not to insinuate that none of these programs have experienced success, but rather that even in the most committed situations, with full digital coverage, the measurable learning impact has been small. Henrico was lauded for the bold initial effort, but change in leadership resulted in a systemic backing off from the implementation with inconsistent and spotty use. This is an important lesson that a lack of coherent direction will kill most, if not all, efforts for district transformation.
Although there are examples of carefully planned and orchestrated technology, very few have paid attention to corresponding pedagogy and culture that are essential for success in learning and student achievement. Technology becomes an end to itself and overlooks the real drivers—engaging pedagogy and collaborative cultures that build change knowledge and efficacy of results.
Time and again, districts are looking for solutions in the wrong places. When pressure mounts for results, as it has increasingly since No Child Left Behind (NCLB; 2001–2002) in the United States, and when shiny objects grab the attention of leaders and sponsors, it is inevitable that people want tangible solutions. Even though the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; 2015–2016) replaced NCLB in the United States, there is no indication that the system has learned its lesson. It is becoming very clear that the pedagogical transformation of deep learning requires a cultural foundation that provides for the systemic coherence that is necessary for this work.
In sum, despite the millions of dollars invested and the hundreds of schools embracing digital resources and new instructional practices, there is an absence of models that indicate long-term, improved student outcomes and significant evolution of teaching and learning practices. This book aims to provide such a model of successful transformational change.
Change Knowledge
To say that technology has a limited impact on learning is not to deny the power of technology. Technology works when partnered with a professional capital framework, pedagogy, and change knowledge. Pedagogy is at the heart of learning, and change knowledge deals with motivating and supporting large numbers of people throughout the change process. The solution must focus on the whole system—all schools in a jurisdiction, sound pedagogy, and a link to measurable outcomes. Cutting across these three dimensions is change knowledge. Change knowledge involves what educators need to know to navigate the change process effectively, as a participant or leader, leading to greater ownership and impact.
According to David Cote, the former CEO of Honeywell, the most important thing about leadership is to be right at the end of the meeting, not the beginning (Solomon, 2014). To be right at the end of the meeting means that the group has processed complex ideas—developing clarity, capacity, and commitment in relation to an important goal and figuring out the best way to address that goal throughout the change process. An effective change process is one that shapes and reshapes good ideas as it builds capacity and ownership. There are two components to the definition. First, there is the quality of the idea. Second, there is the quality of the process to build new capacities. Change leadership involves bringing these two aspects together. For educators, integrating good ideas with capacity building is at the heart of our coherence framework solution to system change (Fullan & Quinn, 2016). We have found that when this is done well, the change process becomes voluntary but inevitable, as you will see in the following chapters. For example, although people in MGSD never imposed deep change, it occurred, and virtually everyone in the district came to embrace it.
In a good change process, people value each other and the ideas because they have had a say in the matter and because the ideas work. When the change process fails to attract buy-in from its stakeholders, it is often because the process involves digital dabbling.
Digital Dabbling
Unfortunately, superficial change in technology