Tom Barrett shared a very interesting article on Twitter this morning and it brought up so many of the niggling issues I have when I get all evangelistic about technology in education. It doesn’t make me doubt the usefulness of technology itself, but the implementation of it. I highly suggest reading The Laptops Are Coming by Sarah Heller McFarlane to get a teacher’s reflection of her first year of teaching with a classroom of laptops - it brings up some interesting issues that I’m currently processing.
The main thing I’m taking away from Heller-McFarlane’s article is this (one that I’ve heard over and over again, especially when I was meeting with a group of ed tech people earlier this month):
Technology does not solve all problems and throwing technology at teachers without working it seamlessly into existing curriculum is NOT the answer.
The solution? I’m working on it, I know it’s out there. Right now, I’m going with this:
Before a district spends even one more dollar on technology, they need to spend the money on people. People to make the decisions about the technology, people to train teachers, people to help with the integration.
Before all of that, though, they need to spend the money to make sure there are enough people PERIOD.
A 4th grade classroom of 29 students with one teacher and no TA is positively impacted more by the addition of a TA than by a set of laptops. Do I have numbers on this? No. Do I have experience in 4th grade classrooms with too many kids and not enough teachers? Yes. I want my own children in classrooms with human beings to support them - once there are enough human beings in the room, THEN spend the money on the technology.
And yes, I’m one of those human beings that would like to be there to assist with the seamless integration….
And yes, I’m biased because I know my children will get technology time and training at home……..
If you're new here (or just forgot last time!), you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Ah yes, but wouldn’t it be great if those TA’s were “ed tech” trained and could serve both functions?
Kate,
Over the years I have seen this again and again, and not only in schools. Leaders, managers, (and school administrators) never quite seem to understand that acquiring the technology is only the beginning and actually the least expensive, least time consuming part of the process.
To effectively use technology, the end users need to know how it works– they need support, training and time to experiment with it. Decision makers rarely fully consider this. They think that getting a pile of electronics will solve the problem.
Clifford Stoll warned about this over a decade ago in “Silicon Snake Oil.” http://tinyurl.com/5rfrn9 Some of his observations back then seem quaint today, but many are right on track– especially his argument that as a general rule, computing is a single-person activity. People do not normally gather around a computer to use it together. Even if they do gather around, one person is running the show.
I was just looking at my class enrollment numbers for this fall and was a little disturbed by what I saw. This will be the first year that my online classes have more students than my F2F classes have. I could save some gas money commuting if I switched to teaching only online. But I didn’t become a teacher to do that. I like the human interactions that only a face to face classroom can provide.
Computers are tools designed to simplify and enrich the lives of humans. Computers should not be the center of our attention, but I’m afraid too much of the time they are.
Personally, I would rather see a great teacher doing a great job without any technology at all, than have a bunch of technology foisted upon that same great teacher against their will and without their consent. If the teacher doesn’t buy in, ultimately the money spent on the tech gear will not be a good investment.
Bill Genereuxs last blog post..Why do kids start loving Math & Science but wind up hating it?
Amen to this, sister. Again and again I see organizations (businesses, schools, governments, etc.) turn to technology as a panacea. It’s a tool (a set of tools), not a magic bullet.
@robin - of course it would be wonderful if the TA’s had tech knowledge!
@Bill and Tim - ahhh, love it when people agree with me, so easy :-) Bill, very interesting observation regarding your course numbers, I’d really like to hear reflections on the experience of having more online students than offline.
This was a great post! Sometimes the only attention my students get would be from teachers at school. They would thrive on human contact which they couldn’t get from a laptop. We need to make sure we meet students’ basic needs before we move on.
Pats last blog post..Fear and Ignorance about Technology Needs to Stop
Spending money on people is exactly what needs to be done. There needs to be people in place to train and retrain. Well stated!
I agree that before a school district invests in purchasing technology software and hardware, it needs to set its priorities straight by first hiring skilled teachers who are qualified not only in teaching methods and in their specific academic content areas, but in the effective use of technology to deliver and/or support curriculum content. My manager, Fred Scott, calls this “Humanware” and I’m proud to be part of his unique Instructional Technology Integrator team, overseen by his director, Dr. Lynda Gillespie.
Fred has a far-sighted vision. He keeps the end in mind, remaining focused on the overarching objective: teaching students, not pushing technology.
Rather than hire IT experts who would know how to use technology tools but who were not experienced or knowledgeable about best teaching practices, he began in the mid-1990s to assemble a workforce of tech integrators who would put educational pedagogy above all other priorities. He only hired master teachers, with experience and recognition for their teaching skills.
There are now 55 of us in the county, serving 64 schools. We are set up in teams to specialize in content areas and grade levels. I’m on one of two middle school teams, and because I’m experienced in teaching middle school language arts/English, I work primarily with MS language arts teachers and their students. Also on my team are five other Tech Integrators who specialize in math, science, social studies, “noncore” areas (electives) and special ed, respectively.
Our mission is to go directly into the teachers’ worlds - we conduct staff development training workshops routinely, but our most important mission is to work directly with the teachers one-on-one and go with them into their classroom.
We plan lessons with them and suggest ways to take the activities “up a notch” using technology and/or other methods that promote inquiry-based learning. After planning, we go into a teacher’s classroom and work directly with the students, modeling the lessons for the teacher and, ultimately, leave the materials and plans behind so he or she can repeat the lesson next time without us.
One of our objectives is to train and support the teachers so they don’t need us every time they want to use technology components in their lessons. Although we work with them to encourage independence, we don’t fear becoming obsolete because there are continually-changing and ubiquitous technological advances!
We’ve had enormous success engaging both teachers and students in projects using digital storytelling, podcasting, student multimedia publishing, claymation, and other activities, with an emphasis on problem-based learning and constructivist approaches. We try not to focus on the tools or the software - we aren’t doing this just because “we can,” or just to play with cool tools. Always, our emphasis and focus is on learning. Real-world relevance and academic content are the overarching “big ideas” coloring everything we plan.
I feel compelled to give this tribute to Fred Scott and his director, Dr. Lynda Gillespie, because the more I become involved in my PLN and connect with other technology integrators around my state (Virginia) and around the nation - even around the world - the more I realize how rare my district’s setup is. For most, there is a clear division between “technology” and “academics” and even though technology integrators are eager to teach content, some of them I’ve talked to are busy “fixing printers,” and are in the classroom less than 50% of the time. Our average is nearer to 70%, which is where I believe we have more direct impact on students.
To elevate the effectiveness of instructional technology, “humanware” must become the focus, not software or hardware.
Leave a Comment