A Personal Exploration of the ISTE Standards

[This blog was revised and updated on 2 May, 2018]

I thought I would explore the six standards set out by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), as discussed in Davis’ Digital Technologies and Change in Education (Davis, 2018), within my own learning in this paper. From a learner’s perspective, what experiences of studying via digital technology have promoted “quality learning” (p. 41) and my willingness to be engaged in this learning arena?

The first standard, Creativity and Innovation, suggests that students use technology to enhance creative thinking, adopt innovative processes and construct knowledge. Two points come to mind regarding this. Firstly, consideration should be given to the term 'creativity', which may mean different things to different people. Many people perceive creativity as being artistically creative in some way, however  Catharine Hondzel & Ron Hanson offer a broad meaning to creativity, as our ability to adapt to shifting circumstances by tapping into and improving on, ideas and knowledge of which we already hold (Hondzel & Hansen, 2015). 

The second point is that this principle, that the ISTE standards suggests, makes the assumption that the student is in a "static learning environment" (Hondzel & Hansen, 2015, p. 180) where they are motivated, curious, and open to risk-taking: a necessity for creativity (Dewett, 2007; Hondzel & Hansen, 2015). These states stem from an inherent motivation whereby the student perceives that undertaking the task will be worthwhile, interesting, satisfying and/or agreeably challenging, and such intrinsic motivation is beneficial to creativity and learning process (Amabile & Pillemer, 2012). 

The converse is also true regarding intrinsic motivation, in that external motivators, such as deadlines or negative feedback, are detrimental to creativity (Amabile & Pillemer, 2012). Such constraints can shift one’s motivational state from the positive internal to the less conducive external state. However, it should also be taken into account that the negative stress that may arise from such a scenario may be partially created from the student's own expectations, or through miscommunication between tutor and student (Smith & Lilly, 2016).

Even so, the challenge here is that once a venture is completed (which would require some form of creativity), it then requires an interested (external) audience who recognises and validates the work (Csikszentmihalyi, 2009). Such evaluative measures can, in turn, pose a threat to the creative self-identity of the producer, which could then impact their creative ability (Byron, Khazanchi, & Nazarian, 2010). 

With the inherent pressure of this particular paper, its copious amounts of reading and seemingly short assignment dates, the external motivations, for myself, stifled any intrinsic motivation that was present at the start of the course. My style of learning is through relationship and connection, and while I understood what I was signing up for, I had no real concept of just how deeply disconnected and alienated this completely on-line course would leave me feeling. Motivation, creative thinking, and being innovative with technology was at an all-time low. Although such challenges tend to promote some level of 'creativity' for me (or problem-solving), if we use Hondzel & Hansen's definition, it comes more from a place of survival than some novel or mildly enjoyable process that is hinted at in the ISTE definition.  If I were to answer Boni Hamilton's questions of "how am I building these skills with digital tools (author's italics) (Hamilton, 2015)?" Then my answer would have been 'painfully'. 

The second standard, Communication and Collaboration, states that students use technology “and the environments” (p. 41) to communicate and learn in a collaborative manner (Davis, 2018). In this way, their individual learning is supported as well as contributing to their classmates’ learning experiences. Again, the assumption is that these students are all learning from the same page, with perhaps a little variation, but their topic is likely to be set across the whole learning environment. My challenge is that a large percentage of the students on this course appear to be working within schools, with children, and with a similar curriculum, while I am working in a tertiary environment with older adults, in a totally different field. I found it difficult to relate in any way to what is being discussed regarding primary or secondary class environments because I’ve never taught in a school before. It made it difficult for me to pass comment other students' work. I did endeavour however, particularly in the early days of the course. I imagine it has been much the same for other students towards my own work that is uploaded. I dare say it didn't mean much as my context is so different. And I don’t think I’ve ever had so little feedback by a tutor. Which links with the statement made above, on the need to recognise and validate in order to promote the creative state. 

Having said that, I assume there is a significant drop in tutor input with a Level 9 Masters paper, as in an expectation that we’re big enough now to do it on our own. But it has felt like there's a fine line between letting the reins out and tossing them to one side altogether. So, has “communication and collaboration” supported my personal learning experience? Not nearly enough in the first half of this course, and I take responsibility for the lack of dialogue going from here to others in supporting them in their learning. According to Boni Hamilton, one of the goals for this standard is to "give students experiences working digitally with others in authentic relationships" (Hamilton, 2015, p. 26). I feel that, yes, I developed a relationship of sorts with some of the other students, but it is a fine thread. As to "authentic", I'm not so sure...  How does one describe that in terms of a relationship that is purely electronic?

The standard of Research and Information Fluency, relates to students' use of digital tools in their research, evaluation, and implementation of information. For me, there was hesitant progress. Using such digital tools such as a blog and e-portfolio, aided my understanding a little about this form of media. I remained somewhat at a loss for some time, however, as to its purpose other than to practice creating one. Similarly, I felt confused as to (a) what exactly an e-portfolio was, and (b) why the need for one and a blog, when they appeared to be almost the same thing. I felt as though there were large pieces of information missing as if there are things I should have known that everyone else took for granted or assumed is commonly known. Even the ensuing conversations around this topic on the forum failed to clarify. It took me quite some time to figure out it didn't seem to matter. It would have been much less stressful to have had this explained with some clarity for those new to this level of on-line learning.

Is it quality learning if a student reaches half way through the course and feels they know not much more than when they started? And does the stress this confusion and/or uncertainty brings, create an ideal learning environment where authentic learning can take place (Davis, 2018)? I pondered these questions for a while, initially aimed towards what such a learning environment might be like for my adult students who are not au fait with either technology or study, but I realised these same questions were relevant for myself.  Experiential learning at its best.

The fourth standard, Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, and Decision Making, asserts students will learn how to use critical thinking in their research, as well as manage tasks and problem solve throughout the process. In this way, they also learn to make cognizant decisions regarding what is appropriate in terms of technology and resources. At this higher level of tertiary study, one can assume that students are able to apply critical thinking, are able to problem solve, and make decisions, in regard to their learning and assignments. It becomes a bit more challenging for this particular course because the nature of the course dictates we must use the digital technology prescribed. Whether it is appropriate becomes subjective (emphasis added). I think it would have been appropriate to have more personal interaction, as Neil Selwyn suggests in his book "Distrusting Educational Technology",

“digital technologies can easily be used to frame the relationships between teachers and students in terms of finite services or contracts rather than sustained human interaction” (Selwyn, 2014, p. 134).

Selwyn suggests that digital education leads to "altered emotional aspects of learning", particularly in relation to the "disembodiment" and "dematerialisation" of a technology-saturated pedagogical approach (Selwyn, 2014, p. 134).

Next is Digital Citizenship, whereby students gain an understanding of the human aspects of technology. This would include an awareness of cultural aspects, societal matters, along with legal and ethical matters. I believe there lies an ethical responsibility for educational leaders to instruct not only the benefits of digital technology but also its disadvantages in terms of its effect on relationships. This includes the teacher/student relationship. According to Linda Cundy, the impact of digital technology has affected not only our daily lifestyle, including education, but also, and more importantly, our self-experience. She suggests that technology is now “a third element in two-person relationships, mediating the exchange of information and the expression of our needs, desires, love, and hate” (Cundy, 2015, p. xiv). 

If the education sector is going to whole-heartedly embrace technology for children who are still developing their sense of self, then they need to take heed of their own advice in terms of ethical behaviour. It's not just about how children use digital media, but how much (italics added).  Media usage from an early age, along with the cumulation of hours spent with digital technology, may negatively impact executive functioning and a child's theory of mind development (Chassiakos, Radesky, Christakis, Moreno, & Cross, 2016). Furthermore, it has been suggested that assumptions have been made in the argument for increasing the use of technology in education to better meet the needs of the "digital natives" (Bennett, Maton, & Kervin, 2008). It was refreshing to read Sheila Keegan's call for a more balanced approach to learning and thinking (particularly with regard to research) (Keegan, 2012).

In terms of my own study, my felt sense of disconnection and alienation (the human element) is a direct reflection of the mode of learning.

Lastly, there is Technology Operations and Concepts in which students are able to demonstrate a solid understanding of the concepts, systems and operations of the technology they are using. While this statement refers to the children’s’ understanding of technology, I’m left wondering about the educators’ understanding of what they are implementing, and there’s a very strong why? ringing in my ears (emphasis added). Do we stop to question why we are implementing an innovation? Do we apply the critical thinking skills we purport to teach? While the world enthusiastically pushes technology in education, are we pausing to ask ourselves, to whose benefit are we so energetically embracing this pedagogical approach? While I believe there is a place for digital technology in education, including K-12 schools, I don't believe it is the answer to producing a balanced and well-rounded education. As Sue Bennet and K. Maton suggest, young people are much more complex than the label "digital natives" implies, and that much more research is needed to better understand their needs (Bennett & Maton, 2010).

While the nature of this particular course is about learning, understanding, and integrating digital technology in education, I’ve come across a very big why? in regard to my own context. Again, it’s not about disregarding digital technology altogether, but about finding a balance. I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that implementing digital technology in education should not be done simply because it’s perceived to be the right thing to do. It needs to be the most appropriate that works to encourage knowledge and growth, and not at the cost of human relationships.

This reflection is the personal experience of my own learning and is not a judgment on the learning of anyone else.

Postscript:
Following the original publication of this blog post, LS posted on the class forum regarding the updated ISTE standards (LS, 2018). With the rapid advances in technology, the ISTE standards have been revised in order to meet the changing focus of technology in education (Trust, 2017). While the original standards appear to still be relevant, there are subtle differences in tone due to the shift from teaching with technology to empowerment from technology. This subtle shift has offered me food for thought.

Amabile, T. M., & Pillemer, J. (2012). Perspectives on the social psychology of creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46 (1), 3-15. doi: 10.1002/jocb.001.

Bennett, S., Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students' technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26 (5), 321-331. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00360.x

Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. The British Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (5), 775-786. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x

Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. (2010). The relationship between stressors and creativity: A meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (1), 201-212. doi: 10.1037/a0017868 .

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins.

Chassiakos, Y. R., Radesky, J., Christakis, D., Moreno, M. A., & Cross, C. (2016). Children and adolescents and digital media. Pediatrics, 138 (5), 1-18. doi: doi:10.1542/peds.2016-2593

Cundy, L. (2015). Love in the age of the internet: Attachment in the digital era. London: Karnac Books.

Davis, N. (2018). Digital technologies and change in education: The Arena framework. New York: Routledge.

Dewett, T. (2007). Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity in an R&D environment. R&D Management, 37 (3). 197-208. doi /10.1111/j.1467-9310.2007.00469.x 

Hamilton, B., & International Society for Technology in Education. (2015). Integrating technology in the classroom: Tools to meet the needs of every student (First ed.). Eugene, Oregon: International Society for Technology in Education.

Hondzel, C. D., & Hansen, R. (2015). Associating creativity, context, and experiential learning. Education Inquiry, 6 (2), 177190. doi:10.3402/edui.v6.23403

Keegan, S. (2012). Digital technologies are re-shaping our brains: What are the implications for society and the research industry? Qualitative Market Research, 15 (3), 328-346, doi: 10.1108/13522751211232012.

LS (2018). Re: Quality learning with Scratch. From Support and Discussion Forum for The Personal Perspective Forum. Retrieved from Forum discussion on Quality Learning...

Selwyn, N. (2014). Distrusting educational technology. Abingdon: Routledge.

Smith, D., & Lilly, L. (2016). Understanding student perceptions of stress in creativity‐based higher education programs: A case study in interior architecture. Journal of Interior Design, 41 (2), 39-55. doi: 10.1111/joid.12072.

Trust, T. (2017). 2017 ISTE standards for educators: From teaching with technology to using technology to empower learners. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 34 (1), 1-3. doi: 10.1080/21532974.2017.1398980

*