Clearly, MIT BLOSSOMS (the name stands for Blended Learning Open Source Science Or Math Studies) isn’t gaining fans by virtue of its whiz-bang technology. Rather, it exerts its appeal through an unassuming but remarkably sophisticated understanding of what it is that students and teachers actually need. It’s an understanding that is directly at odds with the assumptions of most of the edtech universe.

For example: BLOSSOMS is not “student-centered.” In its Twitter profile, the program is described as “teacher-centric”—heresy at a moment when teachers are supposed to be the “guide on the side,” not the “sage on the stage.” The attention of students engaged in a BLOSSOMS lesson, it’s expected, will be directed at the “guest teacher” on the video or at the classroom teacher leading the interactive session.

All this is blasphemy in view of the hardening orthodoxy of the edtech establishment. And all this is perfectly aligned with what research in psychology and cognitive science tells us about how students learn. We know that students do not make optimal choices when directing their own learning; especially when they’re new to a subject, they need guidance from an experienced teacher. We know that students do not learn deeply or lastingly when they have a world of distractions at their fingertips. And we know that students learn best not as isolated units but as part of a socially connected group. Modest as it is from a technological perspective, MIT BLOSSOMS is ideally designed for learning—a reminder that more and better technology does not always lead to more and better education.

uch tactile features can help build muscle memory and improve accuracy — skills lost in the rush to touch screens, said Scott MacKenzie, a professor of electrical engineering and computer science at York University in Toronto who specializes in human-computer interaction. Many people who type on flat glass screens must keep their eyes focused on the surface to hit the correct key, he said. “It’s not just that visual attention is needed,” he added, “but a lot of visual attention.”

Teachers can use the QFT at different points: to introduce students to a new unit, to assess students’ knowledge to see what they need to understand better, and even to conclude a unit to see how students can, with new knowledge, set a fresh learning agenda for themselves. The technique can be used for all ages.

Dupuy, Muhammad, and many other teachers are using a step-by-step process that we and our colleagues at the Right Question Institute have developed called the Question Formulation Technique (QFT)

In health care, for example, research funded by the National Institutes of Health has shown that the QFT produces dramatic increases in levels of patient activation and improved patient-provider communication. In the classroom, teachers have seen how the same process manages to develop students’ divergent (brainstorming), convergent (categorizing and prioritizing), and metacognitive (reflective) thinking abilities in a very short period of time.

ust as advances in technology enabled the growth of science, the extremely rapid growth of technology we’re experiencing today is impacting our perspectives, tools, and priorities now. But beyond some mild clamor for a focus on “STEM,” there have been only minor changes in how we think of content–this is spite of extraordinary changes in how students connect, access data, and function on a daily basis.

What kind of changes might we expect in a perfect-but-still-classroom-and-content-based world? What might students learn in the future? Of course any response at all is pure speculation, but if we draw an arc from classical approaches to the Dewey approach to what might be next–factoring in technology change, social values, and criticisms of the current model–we may get a pretty decent answer. This assumes, of course a few things (all of which may be untrue): 1. We’ll still teach content 2. That content will be a mix of skills and knowledge 3. Said skills and knowledge will be thematically arranged into “content areas”

The Content Of The Future: 8 Content Areas For Tomorrow’s Students 1. Literacy Big Idea: Reading and writing in physical & digital spaces Examples of traditional ideas and academic content areas included: Grammar, Word Parts, Greek & Latin Roots, The Writing Process, Fluency; all traditional content areas 2. Patterns Big Idea: How and why patterns emerge everywhere under careful study Examples of traditional ideas and academic content areas include: Grammar, Literature, Math, Geometry, Music, Art, Social Studies, Astronomy 3. Systems Big Idea: The universe—and every single thing in it–is made of systems, and systems are made of parts. Examples of traditional ideas and academic content areas include: Grammar, Law, Medicine, Science, Math, Music, Art, Social Studies, History, Anthropology, Engineering, Biology; all traditional content areas by definition (they’re systems, yes?) 4. Design Big Idea: Marrying creative and analytical thought Examples of traditional ideas and academic content areas include: Literature, Creativity, Art, Music, Engineering, Geometry 5. Citizenship Big Idea: Responding to interdependence Examples of traditional ideas and academic content areas include: Literature, Social Studies, History; Civics, Government, Theology 6. Data Big Idea: Recognizing & using information in traditional & non-traditional forms Examples of traditional ideas and academic content areas include: Math, Geometry, Science, Engineering, Biology; 7. Research Big Idea: Identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing diverse ideas Examples of traditional ideas and academic content areas include: English, Math, Science; Humanities 8. Philosophy Big Idea: The nuance of thought Examples of traditional ideas and academic content areas include: Ethics, Literature/Poetry, Art, Music; Humanities

Edtech Priorities for Educators: No Shiny Toys! In addition to the above issues, educators clearly stated that the purpose of edtech should never be to replace a teacher. Instead, edtech products should: Relieve administrative burdens; Increase the efficacy of teachers; Deepen the relation among students and teachers; Embed assessment directly into daily learning experience; Amplify the reach of effective teachers; Empower students to become creators; And ultimately, keep the humanity in education and create more equality of opportunities.

Here’s a combined list from all 18 groups: The best interests of students must always be first and foremost. Tools should fill a REAL need for teaching/learning (not solutions in search of a problem). Ask teachers and talk to administrators at every stage of the design process. Have open, balanced conversations among all stakeholders. The introduction of edtech should include ongoing targeted meaningful staff development that is preferably teacher led. Student data must be secure: edtech companies should be open and clear about their use of data and information. Education technology should continually be tested in classrooms. The larger community should be included in the selection and implementation of edtech. If solutions claim to be research-based, they need to be truly research based. We need to know more about what works based on real data. Access should be reasonable and appropriate for all stakeholders. Compensate teachers who are product developers for their works. Similarly, compensate educators for providing extensive feedback and help with product development. Structure the ways teachers can provide feedback and interact with new tools as forms for professional development. Research should include recommendations that address the socio-emotional implications of using technology products. Districts should provide thought leadership on their theory of learning to help drive appropriate product development that aligns with district priorities.

Everything should revolve around the learner.