Education Technology

I noted to someone the other day, "Look around almost any school, from elementary to high school to even colleges.  You'll find umpteen computer labs/rooms.  In practically every instance, the room/lab will be filled to far less than capacity."  In fact, I suggested, "It would be rare to find such rooms 20-25% full at any one time."

Yet, consider how much money is spent on "educational technologies," the overwhelming amount I'd guess on computers.  But there are other "tools," too.  Some schools place a television set in each room, more than likely mostly used to get the daily announcements, see what's for lunch, etc.  Is there a college corridor anywhere in the country which doesn't have its own television, often for running ads for the college, its bookstore, etc.  Of course, I'm exaggerating--or am I?

Nobody argues that technology can't be an effective tool in education.  But that's all it is, a tool.  Far too often it's become some more than that, worse than that. Technology has become a distraction.  Instead of focusing on what matters most, say, effective teaching and learning, technology has become the focus.  Can anyone really show that it is more effective than traditional methods?  Oh, it might be more fun and perhaps even more interesting.  But, is that the point?  Do students really study more, learn more by using a computer than a textbook?  I'd suggest that studies would probably say no.  Will they use a computer (or some other new-fangled tech tool) more than a book?  I'd guess so, until it became old hat, humdrum, no longer a novelty.  Then, regardless of the technology, it's "just school."

No doubt in some areas, with really motivated students (emphasis on really motivated, the number of whom is far, far lower than your local school or teacher claims) technology can make great tools.  Students can be taken to areas they've never been before--and more quickly, too.

Consider the often-cited benefit of "students learning at their own pace," etc.  Of course students learn at different paces and better or worse with different methods.  Traditional classrooms and methods don't always address that.  But I think that is often used as an excuse for poor performance, lack of personal drive and motivation.  Is that what education is all about, students can learn what they want and when they want, as short as their attention spans will allow?  Should education be based on what students seem to have an interest in at any one particular moment?

It would be hard to convince me that most, not all, but certainly most computers in schools today are used as encyclopedias and typewriters/word processors.  Granted, they might be faster, but is "faster" always better and, too, worth the huge expense?

"Distance learning" and on-line courses are, I think, more ways of getting students' money than actually educating them.  Years ago, I spoke with a professor who taught on-line courses, asking him if they are as effective as traditional classes.  He immediately blurted out, "Oh heavens no!"  Talking with students, those I consider good ones, who have taken on-line courses seem to echo that.  And think of the lures for students to take them.  Those colleges which offer four-year degrees in one year ultimately must rely on distance learning and on-line courses.  How would you like a doctor who finished his four-year degree in one year?  One selling point I've heard directed at students runs like this, "How would you like to earn your degree while never changing out of your pajamas?"  Now, that's a great rationale!

Remember when television was going to revolutionize education?  The so-called success of Sesame Street and other such shows proved it. But television is a much more complicated medium than that.  First, to produce such shows, far larger budgets than most schools, school districts, etc. have are required.  And, all educational television, like television in general, has accomplished is to shorten students'/people's attention spans.  That's not really conducive to quality education, is it?

I think educational technology is often based on flawed reasoning, that students and the real world are as rational and logical as technology is.  That's not the case, not at all.  Anyone who has taught and paid attention to teaching knows that students and their behavior are not always logical and rational.

I know my views are considered Neanderthal, if not worse.  I believe that there is a place, maybe even an important place, for technology in education.  But before it can be used to greater advantage, other real problems in education need to be addressed--the lack of effective and knowledgeable teachers, inept administrators, curricula that often seem based more on teachers' personal interests, weak leadership, deleterious meddling by politicians (who, since they went to school themselves, obviously know all about learning and teaching), and corporate-types who want already-trained employees.  Only then might we find some real advantages that technology can bring to education.