Overcoming Inertia: Inhibitions and Anxiety of Using Technology in the Classroom (Part 6)

This has been an interesting discussion, and the "institutional" issues, administrators, reluctant teachers, etc. are important. However, I think the greatest reason to use more "technology" (computers, even though chalk on a blackboard is a mature technology) is that our schools have a commitment to "one size fits all," and it isn't so. Students do not come with Intel inside. Each personal computer, the one between the ears, comes with its own operating system and unique input and output devices. One would hesitate to try to write software that would work with twenty-five different operating systems on machines which range from Lego robot logic to supercomputers, yet teachers assume they can effectively transmit information to twenty-five or more very different students simultaneously. I've had classes where reading ability ranged from pre-third grade to college level, yet administrators assumed they could all profit from being handed the same book. It doesn't work that way. One-on-one tutoring or home schooling are efffective, because the teacher and student can adapt to each other and, hopefully, find a useful information bandwidth.

Since the "educational system" (which often resembles a prison system) insists on batch processing in groups of 25 or 30, the best a teacher can do is to individualize the instruction to some extent. One size does not fit all, and one lesson plan is not equally successful with many students. Better than giving each student a minute or two of individual attention (out of a largely wasted hour) is to provide each student with an individual instruction plan self-administered via computers. I have seen this work nicely in "alternative high schools", where, almost punitively, the students are made to sit in a study carrel with a computer and stay with the lesson until they master it. It works. Those who are "into" reading can curl up with a book, but something more closely resembling a computer game will appeal to other students. Computers can drill in math, can present impressive graphical simulations, can provide literature interactively -- Pause a minute and enter your thoughts on why Huck Finn said that to Jim -- and can provide heaps of historical material to relate to.

If schools were oriented to "let each become all he wants to be" instead of "each will pass the standardized test; let no one be below or above average", there would be more electronic tutors and, perhaps, fewer teachers of the "Now, class, let's celebrate spring with a new bulletin board" variety.

I know this is way overdue, but thanks for the comment esbuck. I enjoyed reading your thoughts on this topic, as well.

"... all he wants to be" this is the kind of fluff that leads to a messed up educational system. Why is it the case that some educators tend to believe education is just a case of with the application of the appropriate technique any child can create a Hiesenberg or Einstein. We don't consider athletics something that is jsut a matter of training alone, or arts, or even acting. Intellectual prowess is throughout history something particularly rare. So maybe some children get left behind to be come actors or artists. Such is the case, and you should say ".. all they are reasonably capable of". Afterall it is only about the upper 1 to 2 percent of the population who have any effect on advancing society, about 20 to 50 percent maintain society, and the remainder draft along for the ride. why waste 10 times the resources trying to bring the lowest 10 percent up to speed that it would cost to advance the education of the highest 10 percent.

Also, you must be aware that the educational standards for teachers is substantially lower than most other college degrees, and their is no expectation, unlike sciences, that they be knowledgeable of computers and technology outside of their educational course work. So unless we teach the teachers better, how can you expect them to teach the children. I am a firm believer in fewer well qualified teachers is better than many underqualified babysitters. And, just maybe the responsibility for the education of children falls in part on the parents. So we need some motivator to drive parents to aid in educating their children. We need a hammer. However, given the trend in pay scales, a standard education does not appear to be the best route to easy high paying income (when you look at athletes, singers and actors in our society). I know a real estate agent earns more per labor hour than a PhD in physics, and one of those doesn't even require a high school education and carries less responsibility/liability.

As far as student loads, many other nations perform vastly better than the US educational system with twice as many students and much less financial resources. How does a country like Tiawan or India educate their population better than the US. Break the Teachers unions, and the educational system would start to repair, as talented new people came in who could negotiate contracts based on their skills and experience. The teachers unions protect the incompetant teacher and do nothing to benefit the most capable, leading toward mediocre performance, and fewer highly skilled people wanting to become teachers. Schools should be able to compete with industry for the best and brightest at that level of education in those fields that are in high demand.

<<"... all he wants to be" this is the kind of fluff that leads to a messed up educational system. Why is it the case that some educators tend to believe education is just a case of with the application of the appropriate technique any child can create a Hiesenberg or Einstein.>>

RCE, you are missing my point. (That supports my contention that people have different input/output characteristics) We have laws mandating "education." Before there were public schools, when parents were responsible for educating their children, adult literacy rates were higher than they are now. Very few people, except perhaps the parents, want to turn a child into a theoretical physicist. They do want young adults who can join the army or work at Walmart or even, we hope, vote intelligently. Some will go on to greater things, business or the professions or the arts or organized crime, in spite of their public schooling, and they will make much more than physicists. Current public schools, which do not recognize individual differences, do not train children to grow up to be inventors or super-whores or musicians or... they just want them to pass the no-child-left-behind test, which is a waste of resources.

My point is that "technology" can make teaching more effective and less onerous for the prisoner/student.

I quite agree that teachers tend to be recruited from an intellectual class which wouldn't know a Hiesenberg if he sat in the front row reading physics journals when he should be pasting cotton balls on colored paper. Yes, the unions and bureaucrats are causes of mediocrity. I am an experienced teacher, certified to teach physics, chemistry, biology, and all the high school math courses (before I went into "real" science). I cannot get a teaching job, because I am over-qualified. By the union salary scale, with my experience and multiple degrees, I would have to be paid twice as much as a beginning teacher, so the bureaucrats don't want me. They would rather have Biology taught by a good football coach who may or may not have taken a course in Biology. I enjoy teaching, and I need a job, so I would be willing to work for the same pay as the busty blonde with a C+ average, but the union contract won't let me. I pretty much agree with your last paragraph.

However, in the US, one is up against a very egalitarian "democratic" society which has little interest in the brightest students (which are only being held back by keeping them in school). I am reminded of an experience of mine many years ago. There was some money left over. It could be spent fixing the gas leak in the chemistry lab, benefiting a handful of students who wanted to take chemistry, or it could be spent on new curtains in the school cafeteria, which all the students would enjoy. Obviously, the curtains won, as they should have in a "democracy." However, if each child had access to a computer, and maybe a Kindle, the software could perform better than the teacher, and each student would get a more or less optimal experience, instead of being bored or frustrated. Politically, a computer for every child is preferable to a chem lab for the elite. And if the child discovers chemistry on the computer, he doesn't have to tell his anti-intellectual peers.

Computers in a classroom should be used as a tool, not as a substitute. The use of technology tends to focus a student on the technology and not the subject itself. It can also free the teacher from his/her teaching job. Teachers like Walmart workers, have forsaken teaching for less work for more pay. Our public school system is a socialist driven system. Their union can be compared to the teamsters and longshoreman's unions. I'm sure you will disagree with me, but that is how I perceive education/technology. When I went to school, I was educated by the Christian Brothers. Their schools turned out scholarly graduates on a consistent basis, ready for most any college or university. They are still doing this today. Compare that with the public schools. Now when I say public schools, I don't mean those elite public schools like Beverly Hills High. When the politicians say "no student left behind", what they are saying is run them through the system and graduate them whether they have learned anything or not. I see this with my own grandchildren. It's only because we, as grandparents help them with their homework that they demonstrate their knowledge. I would prefer kids were held back a grade than to advance them without learning anything. Due to unions and budget restraints, being held back won't happen. I as a parent couldn't care less what the other kids did. I was only concerned about MY kid. That's the way of the world like it or not.

Great post thank you.

http://www.anxiety-management.co.uk