There
are several perspectives to view when considering the role of technology in today’s
modernized classrooms. Some perspectives are against an aggressive technology
involvement while others think that technology is the key to student
achievement. Teaching with technology is the most fair and effective support
system for teaching and assessing all students in today’s modernized classroom.
Although it is a difficult issue as society seeks to measure the actual impact
of technology on education and learning, technology is beneficial to all students,
although perhaps not for the same reason that society at large thinks.
There are a several arguable strands that
involve a stance on technology implementation in a classroom. However, three
strands are critical for this argument. The three strands are essentially
pro-technology, anti-technology, and neutral on the issue. The pro group
(iGeneration students and technology supporting teachers) supports technology
usage in the classroom and are employers of technology in their personal lives.
The con group is anti-technology in the classroom and their usage of technology
in their personal lives is only an assumption. The neutral group is typically
not concerned either way.
With the pro technology stance, there is the
perspective of a new iGeneration and the fact that society has a major
assumption that this new generation is even interested in new technology and
all of its devices at all (Philip and Garcia 300). The technology breeds the idea of authentic learning and the
connection between student experiences and real life learning content (Snape
96). Also, schools simply do not embrace technology and signature pedagogies in
tandem, which means that education, as a whole, will find it difficult to
provide America’s generations with globalized, knowledge-based curriculum
(Crippen and Archambault 158).
Although technology should be part of
instruction, it does not have society’s full support. Technology is not the
savior that it was thought to be and it has not yet gained its anticipated ability
to develop students’ intelligence and dexterity (Eristi, Kurt, and Dindar 32).
The importance of teacher and learner training and full support for the
technology implementation is not to be ignored. Several arguments involve the
lack of willingness to waste time on something that is not supported by
professional training behavior that could further their knowledge and increase
their efficiency (Eristi, Kurt, and Dindar 37).
There are several people that do not care
about this issue. Those that are neutral on the topic and perhaps desire simply
to argue about it have several things to add to the argument. Davis wrote about
the fact that Socrates would not be able to teach in the classroom because
teaching was not about teaching anymore, instead it was about how to run the
technology (2). Another author argues that the challenge in using educational
technology is not understood, and that is why these types of arguments are
still occurring (Ng’ambi 652). Sandholtz, Ringstaff, and Dwyer argue that bringing
technology into the classroom does not make things work with perfect and
seamless fluidity; instead it actually changes the entire instructional model
in the classroom (17). In some cases, technology brings about a sort of
reckoning; a flash where the teacher suddenly starts to question all previous
actions (Sandholtz, Ringstaff, and Dwyer 17).
Technology
dwells in a place that is always in turmoil and flux. It is a child of change
and therefore, has many opponents already. The problem with technology is that
it is a small component of a very large shift. Using technology is like
dieting, it sounds like a good idea, but it is very difficult and complicated
to follow through and execute. Perhaps Heath and Heath say it better in stating
that “the heart and the mind will always disagree, zealously” (5), perhaps this
situation is no different. Technology has a bad reputation because it requires transformation
across many levels (individual, organizational, societal, and technologically)
that must work in unison to prevail (Heath and Heath 3).
Opponents to technology have a simple
argument that involves time and money. One of the biggest issues with
technology is time and money for professional development. The primary reason
teachers fail with technology in the classroom is due to insufficient
instructional tools and the lack of an ability to design and use
technology-based instructional tools (Eristi, Kurt, and Dindar 32). Teaching
with technology requires professional development and professional development
requires funding. Additionally, teachers need support since there exists a
laundry list of problems with technology that include a lack of current
technology in the classroom, Internet connection issues, and problems making
technology available to students too, and not just the teachers.
Technology as an institution certainly
does not do itself any favors. Look closely at the “opposition” to the thesis statement;
it is evident that those that oppose share the same issues. Most participants
in a study by Eristi, Kurt, and Dindar reported common problems with Internet
connections in their classroom (36). Moreover, opponents take exception with
the idea of having their time wasted. Three of the most glaring of opposing
teachers’ issues include limited access (lack of hardware and software), lack
of technical support (no in-house support to handle immediate technology-caused
issues), and lack of time (few teachers have time to explore, reflect upon, and
interact with other technology users) during the school year to execute the
systems needed to effectively teach with technology (Sandholtz, Ringstaff, and
Dwyer 155).
When
dealing with people, one has to deal with feelings and beliefs. Opponents of
the thesis statement have personal beliefs that must be measured since beliefs
play an imperative role in situations where there is a momentous amount of ambiguity,
such as with education (Sandholtz, Ringstaff, and Dwyer 36). If anyone feels
that professional development will reflect absolutely on his or her ability to
teach or conduct with technology, then such a detail should be taken into
account (Eristi, Kurt, and Dindar 37). According to Eristi, Kurt, and Dindar
many teachers fear the fact that many of their students know more about the
technology than they do (39). Some of the opposition to technology breeds from
an idea that teachers are now actually responsible for keeping up with the
latest technology and the district’s administrators expects this behavior from
teachers (Eristi, Kurt, and Dindar 35).
This argument is
not simply about technology in a classroom. Therefore, there is an issue with
education and part of the issue involves technology and its impact on pedagogy.
There is a natural sort of existing opposition that, for numerous reasons, is not
terribly concerned with the implementation and infusion of technology into the
instructional infrastructure. The future that many in education have been
waiting for has surely arrived. Tenhet says that education is a few years into
another shift in the technology-driven educational paradigm (1).
Why is technology
so important? How can teachers be supported as they try to use it? Does
technology impact student learning and motivation? How will districts be able
to fund the purchase of new technology and then additionally afford to pay for
the required professional development? Perhaps part of the opposing populous is
to be blamed for the condition of our education system and the lack of
technology therein because they are technologically outdated and are unable or
unwilling to motivate the technologically able iGeneration (Philip and Garcia
305). One thing is clear, technology, including connectivity, social media, and
its other numerous components has caused a rift as well as a shift in the
classroom experience (Tenhet 1).
Technology; in
this case, the condition of being technological, is a phenomenon that can be
easily molded into several educational contexts, including evaluations, confirmation
of learning, and commentary on both (Snape 101). In contrast, teachers should
be advised that using technology to unite students to real-world situations is
not a guarantee of valid learning (Snape 96).
Learners and
teachers alike can harness technology for collaboration. Ng’ambi states that
there is evidence of knowledge construction when there is interaction between
learner and technology (657). The list of possibilities is a substantial list
that involves technology-driven learning activities like peer-editing via DropBox,
film production, the use of smart phones, and the use of wikis and blogs to
construct, edit, and share new wisdom (Ng’ambi 657). With technology, access to
information has increased and material that was formerly disseminated by
professors is now available (before class) for students to digest for
themselves (Davis 4). Although there are opponents, they need to realize that
technology is part of the next step in the evolution of teaching and learning
(Davis 2). It is not going to go away.
People do not
communicate with each other like they used to. The greatest argument for
technology is the fact that email, texting, YouTube, social networks, and smart
phones have literally changed the way society interacts with itself, shares
information, and engages media (Philip and Garcia 301). It is the change in
person-to-person interaction that practically demands that personally relevant
technology finds its way into the classroom (Philip and Garcia 302). Because
technology matters at home, it should matter at school. With technology,
learning can extend out of the classroom and happen anytime, anywhere (Philip
and Garcia 303). Also, Philip and Garcia recall that technologies created for
convenience (smart phones) can be morphed into data gathering devices just like
paper and pencil tests have given way to computer based examinations that can
gather immense amounts of information on student performance (305). Keeping all
of this in mind, how can technology in the classroom be a bad thing?
A significant
negative issue with technology is its immense tendency to take so much time to
set up and then execute during an instructional lesson (Sandholtz, Ringstaff,
and Dwyer 60). When technology does not work, it could be argued that with the
size of school budgets these days, means it usually will not work, the plans of
the day and even the long range plans tend to be hindered (Sandholtz,
Ringstaff, and Dwyer 61). A simple plan could easily be upended as teachers
face technology that is faltering as they are simultaneously trying to describe
attributes of an outcome (or objective), identify the key stages needed to
develop that outcome, and even build a flowchart to map the road to the
intended outcome (Snape 99).
Opponents of
technology will say that it simply is not worth it. Learning a new technology
only to watch it fail at mid-lesson is a waste of time. Additionally, making technology
part of the path to the intended objective is complicated and liable to fail as
students are directed to do things like, make a video of a chocolate maker
executing the process of making a chocolate bear, visit a chemist and a gift
shop in order to take pictures of possible gift-wrapping ideas, and then build
a conceptual drawing of the gift-wrapping possibilities (Snape 100). How
realistic is that? Such a question has been asked many times by numerous
opponents of technology. Technology usage for the sake of technology usage is
not the answer.
Technology has an
arguable and viable place in America’s classrooms. It is now important to
understand the need for technology in today’s classroom as an effective tool
for teaching, learning, and assessment has very little to do with technology. It
works because it is a tool and in the right hands it can change lives. This is
because it makes a direct connection to students’ technology-riddled home
lives. This paper is not long enough to cover all of the arguments and issues
that surround the implementation of technology in the classroom and the unique
set of issues and problems that it presents. Therefore, technology is simply an
insignificant player in a very complicated production. The real reason that
technology is needed is because it supports three very important ideals:
autonomy, mastery, and purpose.
People need
purpose and motivation. Technology is just a supporting role in the reason that
society gets out of bed every morning and faces the day. People want to do
things themselves. They want to be good at it. They want it to mean something.
Without technology, this process (especially in this day and age) is seriously
hindered.
Technology is an
all-inclusive part of society. It is sewn into the fabric of America’s culture.
It facilitates a pure form of freedom and it allows people to do what they need
to do on their own terms (Pink 83). Humanity’s primitive nature is to be probing
and self-directed and look at how that fits into the use of technology.
Technology gives people that self-directed quality that is part of their
self-determination development and is a significant part of their human nature (Pink
85). Technology gives people a choice. Choice breeds autonomy and independence.
Additionally, autonomy delivers innovation. Technology, in its numerous forms,
supports the human need for autonomy. Technology lives and breathes innovation.
Think about what technology
does for humanity and how it is evident that it supports autonomy, but what
about mastery? Mastery is the desire to get better at something that matters
(Pink 109). Mastery is related to motivation and motivation (especially in a
classroom) is related to engagement (Pink 109). Look at how the iGeneration
treats their technology. That is engagement at its finest.
Technology
provides the avenue for achieving mastery. Be it in a classroom doing research,
in the field collecting data, or working through the required coursework,
technology supports the will to be a master of content and ability. Technology
that works with fluidity breeds a sense of satisfaction. Fulfillment is related
to mastery. Time and effort with the right technology tools gets the job done.
Every morning,
humanity wakes up, swings its legs around and places its feet on the floor.
Purpose is what makes a person stand up and start the day. Technology provides
hyper-connectivity to the world. This is what people desire as they initiate a
thinking process about their lives and their humanity, the meaning of their life,
and their worth in the middle of it all (Pink 131).
Autonomy and
mastery are concepts that facilitate drive in a person. Technology supports
autonomous people that are seeking mastery in their lives. With autonomy and
mastery comes purpose (Pink 131). Purpose provides energy for living and
technology is threaded into numerous facets of human life (Pink 133). This
discussion returns to technology and what it provides over and over again.
Connectivity, provided by multiple technology tools, engages feelings of sustainable
greater good (Pink 137), in other words, feelings of purpose.
People need to
consider a few things when it comes to implementing technology into learning,
teaching, and assessing. Technology alone is certainly not the answer to
education’s woes. All readers should at least consider the tie between the
hyper-connectivity and capacity that technology provides to humanity and
mankind’s inherent need to attain autonomy, purpose, and mastery. Think about
it. People spend a lot of time at school.
In the end, it is
not about dehumanizing the educational setting with an overload of technology. Nor
is it about harassing and belittling those who chose not to use technology in
their classroom. Instead it is about reaching out to people and tapping the
resources that are tied to who they are and bringing education back to
inquiry-based and technology supported methods that compliment the need for
autonomy, mastery, and purpose. Perhaps policy-makers should consider actually meeting
the next generations where they already are…a technology-enhanced existence
that seeks autonomy, mastery, and purpose!
Works
Cited
Crippen,
Kent J., and Leanna Archambault. "Scaffolded Inquiry-Based Instruction
With Technology: A Signature Pedagogy For STEM Education." Computers In
The Schools 29.1/2 (2012): 157-173. Education Research Complete. Web. 10 July
2013.
Davis,
Rodney. "Socrates Can't Teach Here! Faculty And Student Attitudes Towards
Technology And Effective Instruction In Higher Education." Review Of
Higher Education & Self-Learning 3.10 (2011): 1-13. Education Research
Complete. Web. 11 July 2013.
Erişti,
Suzan Duygu, Adile Aşkım Kurt, and Muhterem Dindar. "Teachers' Views About
Effective Use Of Technology In Classrooms." Turkish Online Journal Of
Qualitative Inquiry 3.2 (2012): 30-41. Education Research Complete. Web. 9 July
2013.
Heath,
Chip, and Dan Heath. Switch: How to
Change Things When Change is Hard. New York: Broadway Books, 2010. Print.
Philip,
Thomas M., and Antero D. Garcia. "The Importance Of Still Teaching The
Igeneration: New Technologies And The Centrality Of Pedagogy." Harvard
Educational Review 83.2 (2013): 300-319. Education Research Complete. Web. 11
July 2013.
Pink, Daniel. Drive. New York: Riverhead Books, 2009. Print.
Ng'ambi,
Dick. "Effective And Ineffective Uses Of Emerging Technologies: Towards A
Transformative Pedagogical Model." British Journal Of Educational
Technology 44.4 (2013): 652-661. Education Research Complete. Web. 10 July
2013.
Sandholtz,
Judith Haymore, Cathy Ringstaff, and David Dwyer. Teaching With Technology: Creating Student-Centered Classrooms. New
York: Teachers College Press, 1997. Print.
Snape,
Paul. "Quality Learning For Technology Education: An Effective Approach To
Target Achievement And Deeper Learning." Problems Of Education In The 21St
Century 38. (2011): 95-104. Education Research Complete. Web. 11 July 2013.
Tenhet,
Troy. “Beyond School Walls: Connecting Students and Teachers Around the World.”
The Huffington Post. 23 Aug. 2012. Web. 5 July 2013.
