Teachers+Don't+Use+Technology+Because+Classroom+Technology+Is+Just+Too+Old


 * Teachers Don't Use Technology in the Classroom (specifically, Technology Assisted Project Based Learning) Because It's Just Unfeasible**

Each time I am in a meeting where a large number of educators are present, I try to bring up the things I do in the classroom using technology: multi-modal projects, virtually collaborative systems, cloud-based software, and so forth. I find that these efforts cause my teaching to be more relevant, students to be more willingly engaged, and grading to be far easier for me (as students tend to seek out error-correction systems). But the same defense is repeatedly claimed: "Our computers are just too old! There's not enough computer technology at our school! There's no way I can afford to take time out to learn all this new stuff that probably doesn't work anyway...." Inevitably, the claim is made that it would be simply impossible for teachers to implement ICT-PBL (Information and Communication Technology - Project Based Learning) into their lesson plans. I strove to debunk two of the biggest myths used by teachers as well as administrators when defending their lack of ICT-PBL teaching.

Myth #1: Schools don't spend enough on technology, so how can you expect teachers to incorporate technology into their lesson plans? - **Partially True.** Schools recognize the value of technology and spend quite a bit on it. In fact, they often spend far more than they need or (or should). It's not that they don't spend enough of it; it's that they don't spend it wisely enough. In Brill and Galloway's "Perils and Promises: University Instructor's Integration of Technology in Classroom-Based Practices", the researchers noted that at Virginia Tech, all of the "general classrooms" were incredibly well fitted, with total investments per classroom totaling as high as $300,000. However, the campus has 430 classrooms. Of the remaining 250 classrooms, technology was much less consistent. Some rooms only had a video tape player and overhead projector, while others did have internet and power jacks easily accessible to students. However, even in the "general classrooms" that were usually well fitted, surveys showed that only Overhead Projectors and VCRs were used at a relatively high rate across campus (75% and 69% of responses indicating use, respectively). While this may seem at first to be a failing of the teachers, closer inspection of data shows that many teachers believe that an ideal "smart" classroom should have podiums with overhead projectors built in (as opposed to LCD projectors) or desks with a computer built into each one. The problem with the former is obvious; the problem with the latter is that such a classroom would almost immediately become obsolete as well as take away valuable space from students - such as space where they might bring their laptops. Clearly, more needs to be spent on modeling what efficient usage of technology might be in a classroom - as well as classroom design.

Myth #2: School's can't afford to spend any money on technology, so teachers can't do ICT-PBL. - **False**. There are a myriad of low-cost technology components that can be used very effectively, and there are a host of options for teachers. Brill and Galloway suggest that schools simply speak "with the physical plant personnel to develop a set of standards for ﬂexible lighting, technology controls and other factors related to the effective use of advanced technologies in classrooms"; furthermore, well-fitted classrooms can be designed into the campus as a whole, with the school implementing a user-friendly system for the scheduled use of these classrooms. In "HP Targets Low-Cost Classroom Technology" (Electronic Education Report. Vol. 16, Number 23. November 30, 2009), relatively low-cost technologies like HP MultiSeat allow up to ten students to share access to a single host computer: aside from cost benefits, such systems where many students each have their own VM, or Virtual Machine, also saves significantly in terms of classroom space as there is only a single computer case to tuck away. Often, too, the difference between effective implementation of ICT-PBL and disuse is simply the encouragement of a different mindset. Rhodes, Stevens, and Hemmings actively advocated as well as advertised the virtues of "we geekin" at Hughes High School in Cincinnati, a predominantly black and poverty-level school. By making "geekin" a positive, admirable verb, students and teachers came to see ICT-PBL as something "neat" to do. Consequently, use of ICT in teaching as well as the student engagement rate in PBL was substantially increased (Creating Positive Culture in a New Urban High School. Virgina Rhodes, Douglas Stevens, Annette Hemmings, 2009). Finally, much of the technology already present is underutilized: Kramer, Walker, and Brill found that ICT use within even "innovative, technology-rich school settings supported student project collaboration only 17% of the time." (The Underutilization of Information and Communication Technology-Assisted Collaborative Project-Based Learning among International Educators: A Delphi Study. Barry S. Kramer, Andrew E. Walker, Jennifer M. Brill. Educational Technology Research and Development,Vol. 55 No. 5. Oct. 2007.)

The Underutilization of Information and Communication Technology-Assisted Collaborative Project-Based Learning among International Educators: A Delphi Study. Barry S. Kramer, Andrew E. Walker, Jennifer M. Brill. Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 55, No. 5 (Oct., 2007), pp. 527-543 http://www.jstor.org/stable/30220507?origin=JSTOR-pdf

Perils and promises: University instructors’ integration of technology in classroom-based practice. Jennifer M. Brill and Chad Galloway. British Journal of Educational Technology. Vol. 38 No. 1 2007. pp. 95-105. []

Creating Positive Culture in a New Urban High School. Virginia Rhodes, Douglas Stevens, Annette Hemmings. 2009. []

HP Targets Low-Cost Classroom Technology. Electronic Education Report. Vol. 16, No. 23. Nov. 30, 2009. []