The more I work with teachers to incorporate technology, the more I am convinced that we are truly limited in what we can encourage folks to try. Not to sound too pessimistic here, but there is one instance that stands out in my mind. While trying to help teachers learn about our new LMS I was doing individual sessions with teachers to address their needs. One teacher in particular went on with reason after reason why using an LMS wouldn't be the right move for her. As I addressed and solved her concerns one by one, she came to her last gambit - she just liked reading off of paper rather than from a screen and wouldn't use an LMS because of that.
I thought a lot about that conversation and now have a response to those kind of questions. In this case, my response could (and should have been), "how would you react to a student who said they weren't going to read the book that you assigned because they preferred to read from a screen?". Teachers need to adapt to the realities of the students they teach just as we teach the students that they need to be adaptable to the world in which they live. As my wife (also a teacher) said, "In 2016, a teacher that isn't able to use technology at some level isn't just inconvenient, but is incompetent." I have to agree.
So, what to do. Again, after a lot of thought and a lot of reading there seems to be a limited number of options available to address this gap between student and teacher familiarity. From a school and integration perspective one avenue would be to simply help those that wish to be helped. Malcolm Gladwell writes about this in The Tipping Point. His contention is that there can be a period of gradual adoption of a new idea or new product until there reaches a tipping point of those on the adoption side of the issue. At that point, adoption speeds up and the idea really catches on and becomes a full blown trend. Good to Great espouses a similar theory when it comes to business. The business stays true to what it believes is right and while progress will be slow and steady there will come a point where it takes off, and when it does it will last.
Also in Good to Great, the authors address how to handle individuals within that company who don't buy into the core tenets of the company. Among the suggestions given are to continue to invest in those that have the same vision and those that don't will decide for themselves that they can adapt or move on to positions that suit them better. When that doesn't work, however, the authors do say that there are cases when an employee is so ingrained that they can resist and still remain in the company. In those cases, the only thing to do it attempt to marginalize their negative impact and "wait it out" until they retire, but make sure you hire someone in their place that will contribute.
John Kotter advocates much the same thing in Leading Change regarding those who resist, indicating that you need to move on without those folks if there is nothing else that can be done. He does add a layer into that formula however that is significant to education. His suggestion is that you certainly listen to those who dissent as they may have valid points to consider and can be valuable resources once their concerns have been addressed. Often they are the ones who can be the best advocates once they have "seen the light".
So what does this all mean? In my opinion it is imperative that we try and try to do the right things for our students. We will fail and try again. We have to celebrate those teachers that try and fail. We surround those that refuse to make the necessary transitions with those who are having success by incorporating change. Perhaps most importantly, we give the students the tools directly and force those teachers to see that they are doing themselves and their students a disservice by not keeping up with the best practices available.
