Running head: AMPLIFYING TOYAMA 1

Amplifying Toyama

Steven M. Bradbury

Loyola University Maryland

AMPLIFYING TOYAMA 2

Amplifying Toyama

“The right people can work around a bad technology, but the wrong people will mess up

even a good one” (Toyama, 2015, p. 26). With this statement, Toyama alludes to one of his

narratives and gives context to the complex role of a technology leader. Toyama offers a few

narratives, or gods, that suggest ways to orient our view of education. None seem so pervasive

and as important as his narrative of amplification - specifically as it relates to amplifying an

effective human force. As technology leaders, part of our responsibility is to align the right

people and good technology to provide greater amplification. It is not an easy task, but with

some help from Toyama and his narrative, I will walk through approaches to tackle the

technology leader’s vital charge.

Technology Leader and Change

Technology leaders want to see education improve. The problem is there are some

conflicting ideas and myths surrounding how technology should be best utilized to reach this

end. Toyama shares several ideas that impact the ability of the technology to affect change.

Packaged interventions are appealing, but often fall short. The context dependency of

technology is another idea from Toyama that requires careful navigation. Ultimately, the

starting point is not technology itself, but people. If the right people are not in place, the desired

results will not happen.

Some technology is packaged in such a way that it is easy to fall into the illusion that it

can give us our desired results. Toyama (2015) writes about the need for discerning leadership,

capable implementation, and willing beneficiaries when rolling out packaged interventions. This

is not present in any one technology. The key in each of these aspects is people. Specifically in
AMPLIFYING TOYAMA 3

education, Toyama (2015) cites the crucial role held by all stakeholders, including parents,

students, teachers, and administrators (p. 69). When we ignore these human factors and focus on

the technology, we can blind ourselves from what actually needs the attention. “It’s the subpar

schools we most want to fix with computers that lack teachers, principals, or IT staff who can

make good use of technology” (Toyama, 2015, p. 69). Technology leaders must not only

evaluate the effectiveness of the technology and programs, but more importantly look at the

personnel implementing it. “The secret sauce is not in the program specs, but in the

implementers” (Toyama, 2015, p. 70).

Each location is different and has its own special needs. These needs exist even before

the discussion of technology begins. Once we attempt to integrate technology into the

conversation and the classroom, the variety of needs and wants expands greatly. Toyama asserts

that technology is context dependent. “Technology has both positive and negative impacts

because technology and people interact in complex ways” (Toyama, 2015, p. 24). I would agree,

and it is largely due to the fact that people are complicated and often unpredictable (Toyama,

2015, p. 55). Various settings require different things. For every unique setting, there are

diverse people. As technology leaders, we need to learn about our setting and the people

working in it to better understand the needs.

It is about the people. “Human virtues can’t be packaged” (Toyama, 2015, p. 70).

Humans are the ones who need to connect and discuss their own context. When these

conversations happen, change can be more effectively implemented. We cannot expect to throw

a bunch of technology and programs at problems and think everything will get better. The key is

not the technology. Toyama elevates the “caring attention of a good teacher” (p. 70) above a
AMPLIFYING TOYAMA 4

packaged intervention. Technology leaders ought to be knowledgeable about different

technologies and programs available, but not to the exclusion of knowledge of the people who

will use it. Decisions for change need to first consider the implementers in order to identify and

utilize the best tools and programs which will positively amplify the work being done.

Toyama’s Narrative: Amplification

“We ​can​ decide what to do with technology; on the other hand, we ​must​ decide what to

do” (p. 56, emphasis original). Technology can act like a god, causing people to orient

themselves to it with sometimes a blind allegiance, but we need to take control. Postman (1995)

defines a god as “the name of a great narrative, one that has sufficient credibility, complexity,

and symbolic power to enable one to organize one’s life around it” (p. 6). Technology fits this

definition from Postman, and if we are honest, it might sound hauntingly familiar. I see people

organize their life around technology all the time, and I am guilty of the very same. However,

Toyama’s god doesn’t revolve around technology. His is a story of amplification. Technology

can certainly be the great amplifier, but it should not be the focus. People are the focus. After

all, it is their work being amplified, whether it is positive or negative. With an understanding of

how Toyama uses amplification, educational leaders can positively impact our schools. Strive

for human development around motivation. Invest in people through guiding aspirations and

mentorship. Technology will amplify, there is little doubt. The question is what will it sound

like?

Toyama spends some time on the heart, mind, and will. He connects the heart to good

intention, the mind to discernment, and the will to self-control (Toyama, 2015, p. 111). These

are the qualities that get amplified through the use of technology. The goal ought to be aligning
AMPLIFYING TOYAMA 5

the human forces in our increasingly technology-rich world (Toyama, 2015, p. 115). “If

technology amplifies human forces, then a poor outcome often means that the right human forces

aren’t in place” (Toyama, 2015, p. 116). One or more of these amplified qualities could be

misguided or absent. Toyama (2015) continues, “Where people problems exist, even the best

technology will flop” (p. 116). What is required is an educational environment conducive to all

stakeholders working together to make decisions. Technology decisions should be made by

putting educational goals first. Toyama (2015) states that schools with such decision making

exemplify strong heart, mind, and will. The result is optimal amplification.

The problem is a people problem. Technology will not solve these issues. It will only

exacerbate the flaws. Toyama (2015) asserts, “no amount of educational technology makes up

for a lack of focused students, caring parents, good teachers, and capable administrators” (p.

133). Though Toyama would say that one person can make a difference, it is the group heart,

mind, and will that is the “essence” of change (p.133). It is messy because we are dealing with

diverse and complex people, but it can be transformative. Education is more than reading,

writing, and arithmetic. It is about learning to think and to act. When a group collectively starts

doing these together, great things can happen. When schools align the right technology to

amplify the effort, the effects have the potential to be culture changing. Toyama quotes

Mandela, “education is the most powerful weapon we can use to change the world” (Toyama,

2015, p. 142).

If the problem is human-centric, where do we start? We start with the people. We invest

in the people. We come alongside and help nurture the mind, heart, and will. Toyama (2015)

stresses intrinsic progress. Externals can motivate to a certain point, but this type of motivation
AMPLIFYING TOYAMA 6

is not sustainable and is not culture-altering. Instead, motivation that is born from inside can

have lasting, positive change. Applying Toyama’s narrative, technology will amplify that work.

Toyama (2015) sheds some light on nurturing this kind of change. His agent is mentorship.

During mentorship, people are nurtured in close, trusting relationships. These type of

relationships take time and involve getting to know each other. It means learning aspirations,

driving forces, areas of interests, understanding areas of expertise, and identifying areas of

growth. Mentorship is also context dependent. Toyama states, “great care must be taken to

tailor programs for the context, for people’s aspirations, and for their level of intrinsic growth”

(p. 208). It is not a one size-fits all type of relationship. It is for the development and nurturing

of the heart, mind, and will. When these are shaped and guided, they can in turn impact others’

growth. Just as technology amplifies these qualities, mentorship can have the same effect. A

mentor nurtures growth in a mentee. The mentee becomes a mentor and helps growth in other.

The process multiplies and soon individuals become communities. Communities become

societies. Align the appropriate programs and technology, and you can see amazing change,

possibly culture-altering change. It starts with one, and it takes times. “Social progress requires

a change in people, and that can take years before it manifests as measurable behavior” (Toyama,

2015, p. 195). Schools and education are guilty of trying to make the quick fix. Technology

tends to be their answer, but this is a waste of resources when implemented hastily.

Conclusion

“What people get out of technology depends on what they can do and want to do even

without technology” (Toyama, 2015, p. 29). The variable is not the technology itself, but the

people. Their abilities and their wisdom with or without technology is the driving force. It is the
AMPLIFYING TOYAMA 7

context of our search for better social change. It is the crux of Toyama’s god that will help move

us to the change we always seem to talk about but never achieve. Are we looking in the wrong

places? Toyama suggests that we look too much at our technology to save us, when really we

need to be looking at ourselves. “We want to believe that our technology, the fruit of our

self-actualizing ingenuity, will save us from our own vices” (Toyama, 2015, p. 217).

Technology will not save us. It does not have the power to save us, we do. Technology can be

used to help, but it starts with the people. Toyama (2015) sums it up this way in his introduction:

“Even in a world of abundant technology, there is no social change without change in people” (p.

xv).
AMPLIFYING TOYAMA 8

References

Postman, N. (1995). ​The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School.​ ​New York: Alfred

A. Knopf.

Toyama, K. (2015). ​Geek Heresy: Rescuing Social Change from the Cult of Technology.​ New

York: PublicAffairs.