I found this publication to be the most informative for my practice as a teacher and technology coordinator in a secondary school. Despite the fact that it focuses on higher education, many technologies described in the document are applicable to a secondary education setting. I also looked at the K-12 version, and many predictions involve the same emerging technologies. The higher ed as well and the K-12 document follow the same format, making predictions on which technologies will be widely adopted by practitioners within one to five years. The advisory board for both document is composed of different members and each are made up of technologists, analysts, researchers, administrators, as well as business and industry leaders. Conspicuously absent from the boards are educators themselves which I found interesting. Perhaps teachers are too busy trying to connect their Smartboards properly too see the next wave of technology that will come crashing in their classrooms.
Smart aleck joke apart, I would definitely recommend that educators read the Horizon report every year to get a sense of which technologies can help them in their practice. I also think it is important for educators to know what technologies loom on the horizon, so they can participate in their development, implementation, or critic.
Learning technology specialists as well as administrators should also read the reviews to help them make informed decisions. The fact that the report revisit some of the same technologies every year may be the best tool available to them when it comes to decide which ones will fade away and which ones will stick around. Even a glimpse of what may be possible five years down the road can help them make better decisions about organizational and infrastructure upgrades.
Finally, for the entrepreneurs/developers who are not already involved in the development and implementation of the technologies reviewed, this document can point to potential ventures as it identifies problems requiring solutions. Knowing what is already taking place can also help the developers to seek simpler, cheaper, better integrated versions of these emerging technologies.
In the report do you feel there is enough information for a classroom teacher to get a sense of “which technologies can help them in their practice?
Perhaps the younger generation of teachers, or tech savvy teachers can read about an emerging technology and can envision their use in the classroom. I feel that teachers need to be shown, or have it related to their curriculum before they will adopt new to change from old. Maybe I am a bit jaded as I have seen the slow change in education. It might take an innovative mind.
Sylvain, I didn’t catch the fact that educators were missing from the boards! That really is an interesting omission. Though you mention the Smartboards in jest, I wonder how much is true. The report is not in regards to technology in education, but technologies which have a *potential* in education. Perhaps many/most teachers are busy applying available technology, and not necessarily considering how future technologies might be used.
Thanks for your review; it added a few more items for me to think about.
Based on your analysis, this article could be useful and valuable for primary grade teachers. Although not a lot of (educational) technologies are necessarily used at the primary grade level, this article could provide valuable information for primary grade teachers who wish to use more, or even new, (educational) technologies.
As for technologies crashing into classrooms, many, if not most, teachers are techno-resistors for many reasons. That is why this group of professionals is a hard market to vacuum monies out of. At the primary grade level, for example, teachers are more drawn to manipulatives, not to (educational) technologies, in order to teach the curriculum. This will not change any time soon because even parents do not necessarily want teachers to use (educational) technologies at the primary grade level, even though we might hear or see otherwise in the media and so on.
Thank-you for your analysis!
Thanks for your input, from your comments I fell I need to elaborate a bit more. The main point of my comments about the teachers was to express that they need to get involved in the decision making process when it comes to adopting technologies. This is where I was coming from: At my son’s school the PAC and the administration teamed up to raise money to get a Smartboards in every classroom. That was a significant amount of money. Unfortunately, out of 15 teachers, there are only two who use them, and they do so only once in a while. The year after, they chased some funding to get tablets. Their wi-fi network was inadequate to run them and, after another injection of money to upgrade the wi-fi, they realized that they didn’t have anyone who knew how to manage the tablets, and they had no pedagogical strategies to use them; they are now collecting dust along with the smartboard. All the while there is only 30 computers for 300 students. When I used the word crashing, it was to indicate that often when technologies are pushed on teachers “from above” it doesn’t work. I wish that the teachers at my son’s school had been involved in the process and said “please get us more computers instead of flashy smartboards and tablets”. I agree with you that teachers are resistors of, not only technology, but innovations in general. This is understandable given the amount fads they have seen coming and going. There is a golden opportunity for a venture in coming up with a system to connect developers and practitioners. To me, the whole process is backwards. It should be the teachers going to the developers and tell them: “We need this, can you make it for us?” I also agree with you that simple and inexpensive technologies such as manipulative kits make more sense for most teachers.
I agree that more tech savvy teachers can find some “cool” use of the latest technologies, and I have seen it happen. I have also seen some cool stuff that, in my opinion, had little or no educational value. As for young teachers, there is probably a correlation between their age and their ability to handle technology, and I believe there is also a correlation between teachers experience and their ability to make learning happen -even without fancy technology-. 🙂
Thanks for your question.
Absolutely! By metaphor, it is the teachers who are the boots on the ground, not the officers. Sadly, officers strategize without consulting soldiers, which, in the end, could have adverse effects. In this case, monies were spent on technologies that were seemingly unnecessary to teachers. But, then again, officers are usually concerned about placing feathers in their caps. Too many battles have been lost this way!
Great point. It’s really interesting to see how different districts go about purchasing these products. I know in New Brunswick there was a dramatic shift in the structure of the entire system, and purchasing moved away from more local regions, to a centrist model where the whole province is mandated to follow one method.
This has caused a lot of hiccups during the transformation and although I like getting rid of redundancies, I think the purchasing of Ed Tech products has become an afterthought. Needless to say, without the proper spotlight and proper due diligence, the province is missing a great opportunity to include the so called foot soldiers in this process. They have given themselves greater purchasing power, I just hope they spend it wisely.