This is the third (and probably final) response to Klein et alia's manifesto and addresses technology. Amid their discussion of teacher quality and how classroom time is spent, the authors allude to the need for differentiated instruction. Their method for addressing this need appears to be more technology -- and what they mean is computer-based technology. Time and again, the case is made for more technology (computer-based) in the classroom. I get it. We need our children to be technologically literate. But there are a few limitations to the reliance on computer-based technology as the solution to our classroom problems.
First, technology is not available to all kids in an equal way. Schools in wealthier districts, or NYC schools with wealthier parents (and thus more fund-raising power) have better access to technology (computer labs, laptop carts, smartboards) which put them at an advantage. If technology is going to be "an answer" then the playing field has to be leveled and that will cost money. And will require security measures. And will require training. And, if we hope to see this technological education go beyond schools, then we have to realize that not all children have computers at home and therefore those that do are immediately at an advantage. Again, the question of technology -- just like teacher quality -- cannot be confined to school and the use of online learning models.
Second, teachers need to be trained in the proper uses of technology. In my daughter's school in Manhattan, a very expensive smartboard is currently being used as a bulletin board with brightly colored paper inscribed with vocabulary words stuck to it. With limited professional development budgets as well as limited professional development time, how will this be accomplished? And, since measurement is so important, what is the plan to ensure that technology is being used as it was intended? Twelve-hundred dollar bulletin boards seem a little excessive and wasteful.
Third, computer-based technology is not the only technology of value. Repeatedly the conversation of technology is only focused on computers and having children use computers to either make presentations or pick up some more content. Computers are only one example of a technological tool and we rarely use them to their full potential. Two thoughts. First, kids should not just learn how to use a computer (gee, that PowerPoint sure comes in handy), but should also learn HOW a computer works. The potential for applied science and math learning is great and yet almost never tapped into especially in the elementary grades. Second thought, the conception of technology and technological literacy should be expanded to other tools of technology and be presented in an historical way. For example, cranes build our city. How do you build a crane? Who built the first crane and what motivated them to do so? Why do cranes sometimes fall? Long before the computer, people solved complex problems through technology and we rarely explore this with children. Viewing technology through the lens of design, engineering and innovation is an area rich with possibility.
Fourth, computer-based technology and computer-centered work can breed isolation and limit social and emotional learning/intelligence. Kids get so much "screen time" all day, and research shows that this can foster self-centeredness and competition as well as an ethic of immediate gratification and a loss of the ever-important interpersonal connection. If we want computer-based technology to be part of our educational paradigm, we have to balance it with instruction in the critical understanding of information dissemination as well as making sure recess and other social activities stop being marginalized in schools. I encourage you to read some Neil Postman, he can explain it better than I.
Finally, if we are looking for ways to differentiate instruction for the variety of learners in any given classroom, there is a cheaper, more creative and effective (yes, research has proven so) way of doing this. It's called project-based learning. Instead of continuing the practice of teaching in 45-minute discipline-based chunks (math now, reading later, science sometime, art never), teachers could incorporate interdisciplinary projects that allow students of all abilities and talents, learning styles and temperaments, to collaboratively explore new ideas and learn. It's cheap. It's practical. It's how the real world works. And it not only speaks to students, it will hopefully also engage teachers who continue to lose their creative autonomy in our standardized-test driven system.