bulogo66000.jpg

Do we need a reason to have computers in the classroom?


Chris Adamson asks pertinent questions for educators, boards of education, and all of us involved in education technology in his editorial "Only a theory...". It seems that Mr. Adam's school district announced a multi-million dollar i-book program for middle-schoolers...and he expressed his concern and reflections:

"I re-read the article a few times and while there are details about the gradual roll-out of the computers, parental deposits and liability, and the software to be included... I cannot find anything indicating what the point of this venture is. Is it to teach programming? (don't laugh - that's what computers were for in my early 80's high school... you actually got in trouble for using them for word processing) Is it to teach basic computer skills? Are there going to be e-texts available so the kids don't have to lug 40 pounds worth of textbooks around?

I think for $70 million, there at least ought to be a specific, attainable goal for this program."

Placing computers in the hands of middle school children makes great headlines and junk-food for politicians and pundits alike. I doubt that we will ever see headlines announcing things like "Educators Receive Training on Classroom Computer Integration"...or "Technology Staff added to Middle School XYZ"... Newspapers are in the business to make money, and unfortunately, informative stories that include details of a classroom computer program's benefits/purpose are not likely to ever see the liner of a bird cage. When is the last time you saw an article explaining the wonderful details of how a new text book enhanced a program because it accomplished purposes 1, 2, & 3? It is NOT going to happen.

Adamson refer's to the huge program in Maine...well, according to a press release from Mr. Adamson's own Cobb County Board,

"In each of those other locales, including the states of Maine and Michigan, and Henrico County, Va., those challenges were overcome once the respective communities were able to witness how quickly students and teachers adapted to the new learning tools. Recent polls in those communities indicate a high level of parent satisfaction with their one-to-one laptop programs."

So, where am I headed in all of this? Allow me to re-phrase my original question, "Do we need to have computers in the classroom?" Here are my responses:

  • We need teachers who know how to take advantage of the tremendous power of computers and the connectivity that they can bring via the Internet
  • We need educational technology staff in every school with computers who can support teacher training
  • We need sustainable programs that allow technology to be a part of every course, from physical education to physics.
    Without teachers who know how to integrate technology, without staff to support hardware/training, and without course-specific software to enhance learning...NO, we do not need computers in the classroom.

    But my original question was "Do we need a reason to have computers..." Let's try these 'reasons' on:

  • Educators who want to integrate technology into their course work must have continuous access to a computer to be able to make good use of it
  • In order for educational technology staff to train other educators on the benefits, applications, and to gain experience... there must be hardware in place...in the classroom
  • In order to develop the kinds of software and course support so that students with a computer may take advantage of it...there needs to be a computer in the student's hand (and not in a lab!...that's another story)

    Soooo, yes, we have reasons to have computers in the classroom. Along with those reasons come challenges to convert those reasons into accountable returns in student learning...and if there are i-tunes as a benefit, so be it! Perhaps we should be asking ourselves, do we want our children to learn computer use from educators...or do we want them to learn computer use via PlayStation or XBox?


    • Posted by Paul Chenoweth on February 12, 2005 06:19 AM |

    Comments

    Agree.

    It is always good to be clear on objectives, but on cases like having computers in classrooms, it is pretty obvious.

    Such splitting hairs are a hallmark of bureaucracy.

    Posted by: wilson ng | February 13, 2005 10:32 PM

    I take the approach that it is a fact that on average children already spend more time in front of a computer than a TV, why not play to the strengths of the children? Sure the tech will not be the same in 10 years when these kids hit the workforce, but have you ever met someone try to get a higher skill job with no computer experience? Did we not all have to start somewhere and grow with the tech? Last I checked, when we all went from Win 95 -> 98, the change did not appear that dramatic. Word is still pretty much the same... the web is basically still the same, but obviously evolving. One of the things overlooked in all this is a lot of pressure coming from NCLB and the National Technology Plan. Digital Divide... you wait and see, that will become more and more the "seperate but equal" cry in the 2000s.

    Posted by: Jim | March 6, 2005 12:47 AM