One of the constant patterns I have seen in the multitude of attempts to integrate computers into the classroom, is the expenditure of funds. It seems there is no end to the money that, [I believe they are referred to as “experts in the field”,] are willing to spend to make sure computers are in every classroom; teachers are provided the latest-greatest software to support their subject, but no means to learn how to integrate this wonderful technology into daily classes. In my computer classes, I am routinely provided with new software. A perfect example was the recent installation of two new programs called Car Builder and Truck Builder. The software allows the student to build cars or trucks, run them for statistics and then revamp their work to produce more fuel efficient end projects. The problem with this great software is I received a Xeroxed copy of the setup and all but useless instructions on how to use it. Money spent, training nil.
To change this pattern I would first and foremost work closely with the end users, the teachers, to see what THEY want in their classrooms. Those that may appear negative or hesitant I would identify, without them knowing what I was looking for, their greatest asset in teaching and ask them to design a lesson(s) around that asset. If a history teacher favors teaching about the Trail of Tears, I would suggest he develop a totally inclusive group of lessons that the entire department could us, or possibly break into groups and at the end of the lessons have the students share their knowledge. No one ever wants to feel stupid or useless especially in the area they studied. Using their expertise gives them a comfort zone in an unknown or slightly known area. Money would be spent as the teachers learned how to integrate technology in their classrooms. For instances, the history department gets together to develop lessons on the Civil War with the end result being a field trip to a battle site in the area or a reenactment of a battle. Prior to the trip, the students are introduced to various aspects of the battle; what led to it, how many soldiers, time of year, hardships, etc. The Internet is used to research the battle, soldiers, etc. with the students saving pictures as they go. Then the pictures are turned into a movie, with written commentary, and presented to other history classes. Prior to going on the field trip, the classes gather to discuss what they’ve learned so far and what they expect to learn on the trip. A follow-up/wrap-up presentation will be developed by each class to cover what they learned, what was unexpected, and possibly conflicts in the information obtained from the Internet vs. the field trip.
Perception IAs the third millennium begins, it is evident that the development of digital technology has had, and will continue to have a profound, pervasive impact on the course of global civilization.
Technology has brought the world to my students (many have never been out of Garland), and I strive to share my students with the world. We develop PowerPoint presentations for family members in other states and countries. We create imaginary businesses that need letterhead and business cards; areas that were never considered as possible now seem in reach. I am searching for ways to connect my students with others from around the globe to show at the root we are almost alike.
“Like any new frontier, cyberspace presents limitless opportunity and unknown perils.” I think this is the alpha and omega of the Internet. As teachers we must educate ourselves to present our students with opportunities and protect them from the perils; which leads me to perception two.
Perception II
…..Using a computer can be considered aerobics for the mind!
I love this perception because I see it every hour I have class. I see the students’ minds turning to be creative with their assignments. Once they become the least secure in their work, they begin helping the new student next to them. From the first day of not knowing anything, to the 2nd week of free thinking, I witness the “aerobics of the mind”. Now if I could get their mind off of connecting every idea to drugs, I really be a great teacher.
Perception III
Computer technology has been adapted to amplify the capacity of professionals in virtually every aspect of society—with the exception of the teacher. Rationalizing this reality becomes increasingly difficult since teaching and learning is an
information–intensive process.
I often say, if a school was run like a business and waste had to be answered for, teachers who teach by worksheets, coaches that teach health because they can’t teach anything else, and an office full of coordinators who don’t remember what the inside of a classroom looks like, would be gone and our schools would be more productive. How sad it is that the people who taught the creators of computer software and hardware, logic with math, creativity with multi-media how to do all this are the ones that fail to open their minds to technology. There is a teacher in our district that insists on teaching his web mastering students the binary numbering system for the first six weeks of school. This same teacher doesn’t teach the “logic” behind html, he just puts worksheets on the overhead and tells the students to copy it into notepad and then open in the Internet. He has a master’s degree in computer science, but can’t connect the technology to teaching.
Perception IV
… What is lacking is a sharply focused definition of what role computers have in teaching and learning and a strategy for integrating them alongside the books and chalkboards…and that secures the teacher’s central role.
This is another recurring theme. How to get the computers integrated and make the teacher’s feel secure. Hog wash! The problem should not be making teachers feel secure that the computer is going to replace them, if anything, they will be replaced with a teacher that is willing to learn and use the technology that is provided. The integration should start with the development of the curriculum. For those teachers who will not stray for any reason from the “written curriculum” adding technology lessons would force them to use the technology in teaching. For those who think outside the box, allow them to develop and share lessons that “aren’t” in the pre-developed curriculum. This opinion goes along with the Perception that all three literacy modes should be integrated into the curriculum. I don’t agree that we can’t find a way to best accomplish this. I believe we still have those in places of control, that can’t face the technology age being used outside the “attendance and grade book” areas!
Perception V The fundamental role of computers in the classroom is to extend the capacity of teachers to provide individualized tutoring to learners, thus compensating for the disparity in each individual’s capacity to achieve.
Probably this more than any other perception discussed is the one I feel the strongest about. I have seen first hand how computers can provide remediation to a student to the point of bringing a failing student back to grade level, building a new confidence of learning ability, providing a way to succeed and stay in school, and all without peers knowing just how far behind a student was. If the curriculum is written correctly, computers can identify where a student stopped learning, being there and bring the student back to the future!
For four years I did exactly this with NovaNET. Politics and the belief by some teachers and “coordinators” that NovaNET couldn't do this was the demise of the program. Even tests were questioned when previously failing students began passing. The credit recovery program continues but no remediation is happening. The District uses a (in my opinion) dummied down system that allows the student to take as many tests as necessary until their score is 80%.
The powers that be, need to be still and listen to those showing success and use that success to integrate technology into the classroom creating a “killer app.”
Perception VI There is ample evidence that after more than a quarter century of high expectations, dedicated effort, and substantial expenditures, computers have failed to improve what happens in the classroom. Additionally, it appears there has been no serious attempt to analyze and thereby learn from this failure.
This perception supports all the above opinions. We’ve spent too much money (recurring theme), for teachers who don’t want change (recurring theme), on technology that isn’t used (recurring theme), and no one seems to know why! Where are those experts when ya need’em?
