A response

http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/article/626067

On April 29 Kristin Rushowy wrote the article above. The gist is that we need to get more technology into classrooms. Quotes from Howard Goodman (hmmm ... who used to own a software company) are used to support this premise.

I think we need to put the brakes on a wee bit and examine the real issues. What I have seen happen is this:

Someone who is computer proficient comes up with a zany way to teach a skill or a lesson and then they suggest that all teachers should do it their way. This is...well...it is silly. If someone is trying to put forth a hypothesis or a premise that students learn better when using technology, I think they need to give their head a shake.

On the contrary, I would be prepared to make an argument that technology is not used efficiently and that dollar-for-dollar, hour-for-hour, lessons using technology actually achieve less in many instances than a chalk-talk in a classroom.

More computers will not make students smarter. More computers will not "reach" students better. The article suggests that cheap laptops can make text books obsolete. What? Even if you can get a computer cheaply, can you find all of the material in the textbook online? Maybe, but who is going to find it? And the activities and exercises? Who is going to look them up? And what happens when those links become obsolete? Who is going to update them? The teacher?

Who is the do-good techno wizard that is suggesting that teachers should now invest ridiculous amounts of time to search for relevant stuff online when it is easily contained in a book? Have you ever dropped a lap-top? I haven't, but I have surely dropped a book or two. What happens when students smash or spill pop on their expensive laptops? It is more expensive to replace than a book. Who replaces the lap-top? The parents? Parents are not happy when they have to replace a $40.00 lost book. How will they feel when you ask them to replace a lap-top? Or do you devalue the lap-top because it was used.

Or how about this: we use texts for more than 10 years. That $500.00 lap-top will not last 10 years. The software will be out of date in 5 and will need upgrading or replacing. So it is not really a $500.00 lap-top. It is $500 + + +.

So please. Let's not smile and pretend that this is that when it is not. Some schools (mostly private) do have one laptop per student, but the parents also pay a ridiculous amount of money to send those kids to those schools.

There are many things that we do with computers that take up unnecessary time. Consider the average power point presentation. All text. How many of these have you sat through? Tonnes. But the amount of time that it took to put that presentation together is often a waste. Add some colour and some animation. Heck, it would be faster to simply print it and tell me to read it. Power point is one of the most misused programs around. Period. But it takes time to learn and time to present. And that time could be spent learning other skills.

I have a vocabulary program called centaur software (read below another blog about it). It is good. But honestly it is a bit of a pain. And, there is little that I can accomplish with the program that I could not accomplish with cue cards. In fact, one of the most fun (funnest) activities that I do with my students is to have them do a vocabulary contest with pictionary. We use nothing more than chalk, the chalkboard, and a bell. Dollar-for-dollar it is highly effective and it is incredibly cheap.

Have you ever seen a teacher with a new smart board? Spending hours and hours on a lesson which could be taught in 5 minutes?

Now don't get me wrong. This is not about being anti-technology. It is about being prudent, financially responsible, and effective. We need teachers who are dynamic and creative. We need them to engage students. Let's be honest, this is often best done with games, activities, contests, and an animated classroom. You do NOT need technology to engage kids.

The key to technology, I think, is to use it in a way to level-up the students. Use it in effective ways to teach them things that they may not get in other ways. Use technology for variety and for challenge. Use programs which are unique and which accomplish things more efficiently (how about differentiated instruction?) A program can give 30 students feedback faster than you can walk around the room.

So there is a time and a place for technology. Teachers need to engage the technology just like we engage our students.

The first moderated comment suggests that because we do not hand in hand-written resumes we need more technology in the classroom. This is...again...silly. People didn't hand in hand-written resumes before computers were even invented. So the apparent relationship between technology which we use and the imperative to use it in the classroom is a false premise. It is kind of like my hydro company encouraging me to take receipt of an e-bill instead of a paper bill. They claim it is to help the environment. But who is kidding whom. It is about cost. The fewer bills they mail, the more money they will make. I haven't checked, but I reckon they are not giving money to salvage the environment from all of the paper bills that they produce.

So let's keep focussed on the real issues. There is a real need to educate students about technology. We need to protect them. We need to teach them how to research. We need to teach them how to communicate effectively. We need to teach them how to present. And among all that we can find games and fun activities. But it is not an all-or-nothing gambit. It is not a case of all technology vs no technology. The trick is to find the most effective balance. I take books camping and I read books in my floating chair in the pool. I'm not sure that a text-book-less environment serves everyone the best.

Cheers,
Dan