Something I’ve been noticing from our course discussions so far, that has been really highlighted in the Case Study thread, is that we aren’t talking about technology. Of course, there is discussion around technology and tools that people are using, but a lot of the discussion is really connected to pedagogy and training.
So far the larger themes that have emerged from the conversations are:
- Training
- Skepticism surrounding use of technology
- The changing role of the teacher
Training
There’s been a lot of commentary about how there isn’t enough training on how to use technology in the classroom. A challenge that many have been highlighting is that it takes a lot of time for the teacher to learn how to use the technology, how to use it for teaching, and then implement it into the classroom. From the sounds of it, many of our classmates have been experiencing teacher as DIY lone rangers.
From a public high school perspective, I can understand what the sentiments for better training. As a newer teacher, I know that my teacher’s college experience didn’t provide a ton of training on technology. We did have a really useful workshop on technology with different breakout sessions. I don’t know if there’s a way for teacher’s colleges to present everything teachers would ever need to know. At the same time, something that a professional teacher needs to demonstrate is professional knowledge and the willingness and commitment to ongoing professional development. In the mind of a pre-service teacher, directly applicable skills and the how-to are so important. Pre-service teachers need this context and sometimes the more theoretical aspects of teacher’s college can be lost. There really needs to be a balance between these competing priorities.
Linking back to technology, there are so many moving pieces. Even if a teacher candidate is “trained” with a specific device, it doesn’t necessarily mean that a public school has access to this technology or the same model of the device.
Learning how to be a teacher doesn’t end at teacher’s college. Future formal and informal learning opportunities are required to hone our practice. A really interesting suggestion from a classmate was that teachers could be required to take specific courses to be re-certified after a specific time period. I don’t know if I agree with this because this could be very expensive and I don’t know how this could be implemented. In some ways, it looks like an added layer of responsibility being added to what teachers must do.
I’m all for learning about technology and pedagogy and their implementation in the classroom, but I wonder about the push back and how this could impact informal learning. I wouldn’t want these mandatory paid courses to negatively impact the perception of training and continuing development. Instead, I think a strong culture of community of practice would be very helpful. This helps to maintain the academic freedom for teachers, while encouraging teachers to learn and develop more. The community of practice could also be integrated within the existing culture and transition into professional teaching. Perhaps newer teachers are paired with mentor teachers. The pairing could be done based on interests and include a school community of practice.
Skepticism around technology
There’s been commentary around the reliance of technology and technology as a substitute.
For example, the case where graphing calculators are shown to students and used before students learn how to graph was seen as problematic. In this case, there were concerns about students not actually knowing what they were doing and are just using the calculators to get the answer. Here I wonder if the learning objectives have really been achieved if students don’t know what they are doing. I think the calculators can be useful in supporting students in their zone of proximal development (e.g., solving harder problems, and focussing upon the logic). However, a counter argument could be that students always have access to technology.
In terms of technology being a substitute, it can be difficult to see what its role is when we look at a lesson from a reductionist perspective. Yes, technology can make things faster, it can simplify tasks, and in some cases, it does look like it’s merely there. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean we should discount its utility and role in the classroom. From a pragmatic perspective, technology is here to stay and students should learn how to work with and around it.
Something that I’m noticing is that although the activities we do may be more technology enhanced, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the products that students produce are changing. Perhaps this also needs a re-think.
The changing role of the teacher
I wouldn’t say that technology makes everyone an expert, because there are discipline specific skills and knowledge that may not be picked up by a novice. Instead, technology can help anyone access an expert. With this, the teacher role can shift to more of a facilitator. If an activity leverages collaboration and peer-to-peer instruction, the teacher could check in on the groups.
In the most ideal case, I don’t think a classroom is full of only teacher-instruction or peer-instruction, instead I think learning will cycle between the two.