I think he will discuss the comparison of US schools to Chinese schools and conclude that we should do our thing here, but do it better and well.

My guess was wrong, but I am not sorry. What he did say was tremendous! How he explained student-centered learning (and why to focus on that) was refreshing!

I believe Dr. Zhao will describe technology’s role in education as simply a tool in which the effectiveness is almost completely dictated by how the educator uses it. I believe Dr. Zhao will have critiques of the US educational system and provide a global perspective on how practices could be improved.

He will discuss the importance of technology in the class and the effect it will have on students and teachers.

Dr. Zhao explains that our education system strives for homogeneous education, which “forces people to acquire the same things.” Tech is used to make sure that all students know the exact same information and nothing more. The problem with that, as he explains, is that creativity, personal interests, innate talents are not considered, which are the skills needed today and for the future.

When teachers are aware that they are supporting the homogeneous system, and not the needed paradigm of the future, they may innovate in new and more appropriate ways—to foster creativity and support the individual growth of students and to push each student to be disciplined in their quest to be the best person he/she can be, given his/her talents and interests.

Dr. Zhao’s point ties directly into his criticism of Common Core. He believes that the Common Core approach views education as a factory that seeks to produce identical outcomes across all students at the same time. When technology is used in this scenario it is focused solely on teaching and instruction, while ignoring key aspects of the learning process. This does not account for quality pedagogy or individual learning styles. This is almost a completely opposite approach to individualized learning and the extremely standardized can significantly stifle creativity. To combat these tendencies, instructors and those responsible for technology purchasing decision should place a greater value in the way in which they are implementing and using the technology to leverage specific affordances as opposed to a focus on acquiring the latest and greatest.

Dr. Zhao spoke about over rotating the same platform agenda and producing robotic students. Teaching the same thing to all reduces the opportunity for creativity. The student never get that opportunity to shine and develop something innovative.

Teacher curriculum that lacks the innovation aspect gives little leeway foe others to come behind modern innovation and grow to be innovative. The best time to express that creativity is in the early years of school. The longer you wait to be creative the more you have to think outside the box.

Tech options can be used to perpetuate homogenized instruction or to facilitate creativity and personal learning. It is not the tech that determines the end product. It is the lesson plan. It is the teacher’s paradigm. It is also the support of school culture, to some extent.

Dr. Zhao claims that education has always been responsible for producing the middle class and that economies change because technologies change. In turn changes in technology continuously redefine the value of talents. Educational approaches should always try to anticipate technological shifts and prepare the middle class with highly valued skillsets. Unfortunately, education typically lags behind innovations and is constantly having to play catch up. Going back to one of Dr. Zhao’s original points that technology is directed towards teaching and instruction – just as teachers must be equipped to employ effective pedagogy to effectively use the tool, so must instructors teach new literacies to students to prepare them with valued talents for the future. The mastery of new literacies can aid students in enhancing their creativity and encourage the use of technology in new and innovative ways.

I’m thinking of the key assessments that we track in our teacher education program: Teacher Work Sample, Portfolio, Action Research, and Lesson Plans, to list a few. Do these reveal that our teacher candidates are allowed to be creators? If yes, what proves that? If no, what can be done?

As a faculty member who spends each morning working on two different accreditation reports, I know that we have standards to meet for our candidates. There is a box mentality associated with that. Dr. Zhao does not like boxes, and for good reasons. Can our key assessments meet standards and still allow for teachers to be creators? I hope so, but I’m concerned that the data-driven standards might push against that thinking.

Globalization represents a new economy which is driven by automation and outsourcing. Traditionally our economy has required a limited number of people to create numerous jobs. These numerous jobs make up the middle class. In this globalized economy, the new middle class must be comprised of skilled individuals whose talents and roles cannot be automated or outsourced. This need is starkly contradictory to Dr. Zhao’s description of Homologized education. Homologized education and Common Core dictate that all individuals learn basic attainable skills which are so elementary that all individuals are able to obtain them. This sets a baseline standard without attempting to facilitate the creation of extraordinary individual skills in any particular area.

I really like Dr. Zhao’s concept of “homologized compliance.” I thought this accurately described the US education system’s shortcomings and reliance on educating students to perform on standardized tests. If you subscribe to Dr. Zhao’s belief that education should try to anticipate technology shifts and the evolving reevaluation of talents, it is an unsettling realization that our society in placing a growing value in the skillsets of creativity and collaboration.

Unfortunately, we are doing little to prepare teachers to be creative. With so much pressure (especially at the K12 Level) to drive outcomes according to standardized tests, little room is provided for cultivating outside skills. In our current educational situation skills such as creative and collaboration are often times not rewarded and take a back seat to regurgitating memorized facts and scoring well on standardized assessments.

The product-oriented learning focus is where I might start to modify education. With the goal to produce a high-quality, relevant yet innovative, personally-motivated product, a student (or human of any age) will need freedom to be a creator, knowledge of content (this is where traditional education contributes), and grit to persevere. Support from school personnel in the form of tech and tech support would also boost success, but might not be mandatory.

I would start with the goal that every child should have an opportunity for personalized learning. I would begin by exposing instructors to the benefits and affordances of the learning approach. I believe it is fair to assume that most all instructors want what is best for their students. Resistance to innovations and new methods often comes out of fear and lack of understanding. After the concept of personalized learning was well understood, different approaches would be explored. Technology would be presented as the most effective method of facilitating personalized learning and training would be provided to bridge knowledge gaps. Once a substantial level of buy in was created regarding the learning approach and delivery format, the frameworks of product-oriented learning and globalized context could be introduced.