Technology in Teaching

This is a very good article about arguements against the use of technology in schools and how some of them are rebutted. (adapted from:http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te600.htm) :)


1. Some critics attack technology use in schools for physiological, psychological, moral, and physical reasons, and those critics and their opinions may never change.
The main criticism is that computers are not as cost effective as other interventions.
- obsolescence factor of computers
- ongoing costs of upgrading both hardware and software

2. Some critics indicate a belief that many hardware and software companies purposely design products to become quickly obsolete and thus require updates that educators must buy. It is their belief that educational technology is too much in its infancy and not yet reliable enough for use by most students.

3. Some critics such as Kirkpatrick and Cuban (1998) indicate that technology equipment requires extensive support structures that require districts to take money away from basic expenditures for other and better uses in the classroom. They believe this money should be invested in the arts, science laboratories, shops, and anything else that involves more hands-on ways of learning. Technology literacy, some believe, is highly overblown in its importance and that people who need to use technology will learn by using task applications that involve "real" work.

4. The criticism is especially strong for computer use by younger students. Some critics believe that with the exceptions of assistive technologies for students with special needs, students below the third grade should not use much, if any, technology.

5. Other critics are concerned that technology reduces socialization opportunities. Some parents are concerned about the effect that children are gaining so much of their world knowledge from a virtual, rather than the real, world.

6. Other critics are concerned that the sexual and violent content accessible on the Internet challenges or prevents character education necessary for development of moral citizens (Rifkin, 2000).

7. Some critics think that technology use is a wasteful and negative use of scarce resources and give examples of visiting schools where uses of computers are actually making education worse. They note that in many cases, teachers use computers to entertain students with irrelevant and unconnected activities because it makes their teaching lives easier and not because it benefits students as they learn important content.

Subsequently, several people have written very enlightening responses to such critics. Kleiman (2000) indicated that there are realities to some of the criticisms but that many of the points of objection are due to poor implementation of technology. He noted:

The central theme underlying all these myths is that while modern technology has great potential to enhance teaching and learning, turning that potential into reality on a large scale is a complex, multifaceted task. The key determinant of our success will not be the number of computers purchased or cables installed, but rather how we define educational visions, prepare and support teachers, design curriculum, address issues of equity, and respond to the rapidly changing world. As is always the case in efforts to improve education, simple, short-term solutions turn out to be illusions; long-term, carefully planned commitments are required

No doubt, technology will always have critics. Some believe that technology reduces hands-on experience and student engagement in active participation. Others believe technology reduces important human contact. In the final analysis, one can conclude that identified uses of technology can have different critiques depending on one's personal values and perspectives of what is good and bad in education. The single most important factor for reducing criticism of technology use in instruction is to have teachers who are competent and knowledgeable about appropriate and effective use of technology to improve student learning.