Technology in the classroom is not a new concept as Greg Toppo suggested in his TedX Talk “A Different way to think about Technology in Education.” From chalk and slate to handheld devices, technology in the classroom has evolved to become more readily accessible, individually adaptive, and multi-purpose. The challenge (among many) however, is to find technology that enhances learning versus sustains or distracts from learning. Photo Credit: Randy Glasbergen
In the article “Using Assistive Technology in Teaching Children with Learning Disabilities in the 21st Century,” Adebisi, Liman & Longpoe (2015) suggest that educational technology is incredibly important for student with special needs. (p.14) Whether it is to assist in functions such as translating, speech to text, word processing and grammar/spelling, all the way to basic communication between teacher and student for non-communicative students. “The use of technology present many children with disabilities the necessary tools to be more successful in school, at work, and at achieving independence in daily living.” (p. 14)
Technology can be an essential component to student learning where there is communication and processing deficits. However, the authors do suggest that the focus of EdTech should be of assistive technology and not distracting technology. Greg Toppo further supports this point by suggesting that EdTech needs to be used to enhance learning, not simply the “look” of learning. Allan (2015) in the article “Using Assistive Technology in Teaching Children with Learning Disabilities in the 21st Century” by Adebisi, Liman & Longpoe (2015), suggests there are seven characteristics of successful EdTech implementation in schools (specifically with students with disabilities):
1) Assistive technology can only enhance basic skills, and not replacing them. It should be used as part of the educational process, and can be used to teach basic skills.
2) Assistive technology for children with disabilities is more than an educational tool; it is a fundamental work tool that is comparable to pencil and paper for non-disabled children.
3) Children with disabilities use assistive technology to access and use standard tools, complete educational tasks, and participate on an equal basis with their developing peers in the regular educational environment.
4) The use of assistive technology does not automatically make educational and commercial software/tools accessible or usable.
5) An assistive technology evaluation conducted by a professional, knowledgeable in regular and assistive technology, is needed to determine whether a child requires assistive technology devices and services and should be specified in the children’s instructional plans.
6) Assistive technology evaluation must address the alternative and augmentative communication needs, that is, ability to communicate needs and change the environment for children with disabilities.
7) To be effective, an assistive technology evaluation should be ongoing process. (p. 15-16)
These seven points are great places to start when considering what needs to be in place for EdTech to be successfully implemented in classrooms.
Furthermore, when introducing EdTech to the classroom, Sean Coughlan suggests in his article “Computers ‘do not improve’ Pupil Results” that there are gaps in research which find student achievement improved by technology. He suggests that the study shows “there is no single country in which the internet is used frequently at school by a majority of students and where students’ performance improved”. Mr Schleicher is quoted in the article stating “one of the most disappointing findings of the report is that the socio-economic divide between students is not narrowed by technology, perhaps even amplified.” Schleicher suggests this is not to say that the report findings should not be used as an excuse not to use technology, but implementation must be used to close gaps in student achievement and skill. Coughlan further states that student achievement is seen usually in student bodies of higher socioeconomic status and achievement is lower in students of low socio-economic status. I suggest that these findings are consistent with the varied literacy levels of the students in low-socioeconomic communities. Often these low literacy levels can be attributed to poverty, past trauma due to living conditions, transiency, or other indicators associated with lower income neighbourhoods.
During this week’s debates, the teams successfully argued that there are ways in which technology can be incredibly beneficial in the classroom. However, I believe that there were many more detrimental aspects of EdTech that stuck out in my mind following the conversations. The disagree side suggested that there are many issues with availability of hardware, constant connectivity to school Internet and WiFi, appropriate usage by students, lack of basic skills from students, lack of teacher training, lack of student engagement and too many distractions, and the list goes on. Personally, I have found all of these issues (and more) to be a large deterrent for using technology in the classroom. In the public system, especially in my particular school setting, we have increasing gaps in student ability to use technology, where the lesson content and curriculum are usually only minimally touched by students, and if using the SAMR model, technological implementation is only at the Substitution level. Teachers in our building collectively cringe when asked to have students’ complete tasks on the computers let alone use EdTech consistently and for more high-level activities in the classroom. Personal devices have also become a bane in teacher’s’ existence. Clay Shirky had it right, in “Don’t give students more tools of mass distraction” when he discussed the number of ways that technology actually leads to a reduction in cognitive work, long-term effects on declarative memory, and inadequate ability to multi-task. Cell Phones have become a distraction so much so that students’ believe they do not need to listen to or participate in instruction, as long as they have the ability to Google the information later. This turns the teacher into a circus performer trying to compete for attention between all social media platforms, games, texting, etc. And the struggle increases when there is little administration support or parental support to rid the classroom of handheld devices when students are not using them for the task at hand. This is a battle that will not be won by the teachers alone.
Photo credit: Lastly, I want to touch on the issues of teacher training and skill acquisition. The majority of teachers’ at my school have very limited experience of technological implementation for the classroom. There are many reasons for this such as availability, confidence using the hardware, software issues, funding, etc. , but the main issue is teacher training. Teachers are simply not given the time and instruction on how to use EdTEch effectively to enhance student learning. We are often given thirty minute or hour long sessions on new GradeBook or PowerSchool applications, but we are never given the tie to sit with technological professionals and create lessons with technology. Not only is this time consuming, but it is also a very arduous task when teachers all come from various backgrounds of technological knowledge and skill. Sam Carlson suggests in his article “Missing Link in EdTech” that teacher training is the significant hurdle of authentic technological usage in classrooms. He suggests that it is simply not skill acquisition either that teachers need, but that EdTech should incite a change in pedagogy, be encompassed with lifelong EdTech learning, and have constant mentoring and sharing amongst professionals. This sounds like a wonderful idea, but he further suggests that this be done through modular training up to two hundred hours per teacher. WHO HAS THE TIME? Teachers barely have the time to feed themselves during the day, let alone study EdTech in their prep time or outside of school hours. Not only this, but the current Board of Education would never fund this type of training to all teachers, let alone a few, and there would never be the professional PD time allotted for teachers to be out of the classroom learning while substitute teachers were in their rooms. It simply would not happen. Not only this, but Carlson suggests Administration and support services should take the same training so that they can support teachers. IS HE CRAZY?
Gif Credit: BuzzFeed
Sounds like a utopia I would like to be in. He suggests that one of the main hurdles would be teacher motivation, but I suggest that the main hurdle is reality. We don’t have the time, money, structure, or support in Regina Public Schools to teach teachers how to instruct with EdTech. So instead we buy cheap hardware which connects fifty-percent of the time to the Internet, where only some students can ever log in and only a handful can ever print but copy and paste from Wikipedia just fine, and we then continue to tell the public that we are using “technology” in the classrooms.
Janelle
janellehenderson 