Category Archives: A. Video cases

Video Cases 5 & 8

I chose to observe video cases 5 and 8 because of their elementary context. In video case 5, I appreciated how the teacher used project based learning with technology to enhance their understanding. She mentions how technology supports the language barrier in her community of learners who are majority English language learners. She mentions that her students go onto msn, which makes me wonder how old this interview is, considering msn was popular in the early 2000’s. I also know this teacher because I took a coding workshop of hers in the Surrey school district recently, which makes me wonder what her classroom would look like today. I was amazed to see the coding quest projects she presented at the ADST robotics and coding showcase last week. Listening to her explain how technology enhances their classroom, I especially appreciated how she promotes it as a way for her students to express their understanding, rather than simply in written form. This is something I have become passionate about in my own practice. Students respond positively when have they choice, and when they have an option to share their learning outside of the typical test and written assessments. What I noticed and found distracting was how noisy the classroom was and I wonder if all of her students can focus in an environment like this. I had a hard time hearing the interviewer’s questions. She explains that her classroom is always noisy, and yet they still do awesome work, but does this benefit everyone? Or just the extroverted students? One thing she mentioned, which I also do in my classroom is use rap songs to explain understanding. My students recently learned about matter, and the rap song they learned helped them understand the concept so clearly. I would hear them quietly singing to themselves throughout the day. We use a website called Flocabulary in our class and the students love listening to different big ideas or learning intentions during our inquiry. Many students memorize the lyrics and then create their own rap video in iMovie during our Makerspace time. What I loved about this classroom was how technology was used in all subjects, and the focus wasn’t on what technology they were using, but how they could use it to support their inquiry.

In video case 8, I thought the teachers approach to brining the water cycle to life through stop motion was creative. It reminds me of the new ADST curriculum and the approach to design thinking in the classroom. In my classroom, my students use a stop motion app with a  similar process. We 3D print characters, use Lego people, and cut out different scenes. Students love the idea of creating their own animation videos, and attaching a learning intention to it creates an engaging environment of learners. She explains that using this approach goes far beyond what a textbook can offer in terms of arrows and diagrams. Stop motion animation breaks down the concept into layers and it supports her visual learners. In my classroom, we use a similar approach through Scratch Jr. We recently coded the water cycle and the students enjoyed designing and coding precipitation and evaporation. Each student approached it differently, and enjoyed sharing and teaching the other students. Some included a weather man who was coded to speak text. Others went through a number of different scenes to share their learning with the viewer. In the video attached to this case, one of the student pairs discusses how great this project is, and the other remarks on how time consuming it is. Looking at this video through a design lens, we can see that it’s set up similarly to a Makerspace, which gives students an opportunity to make, design, and create an artifact. It appears that this is happening over a large block. I wonder if it was broken up in days if the two students would have a different opinion or outlook on the time aspect.

Solving problems as a team

Before I began my analysis, I wanted to pick out 3 videos that I felt would give me a solid overview of technology from different contexts.

I examined Case 1 – a secondary STEM “shop” class, Case 5 – an elementary science classroom, and Case 6 – a middle school life science class.

As I examined each of the cases, I noticed that a recurring issue that teachers would often face was their personal lack of knowledge in how to use the technology. From statements made by the preservice teachers, retiring teacher and current teachers, they found they were most successful when approaching technology as a team. Students were often the solution to teachers who struggled to get started.  They all learned by doing, by becoming self-taught and self-directed. I wonder how much time needs to go into finding which technologies are worth exploring with the students if the technology is not already familiar with the teacher?

Another issue that was raised was time. Teachers in these cases felt they sometimes struggled juggling the curriculum with the technology integration. Interestingly enough, however, none of the students mentioned feeling pressured from time when applying aspects of technology to science or math. Often it felt “seamless” and was “infused” within what they were working on (Case 5). Teacher M in case 1 did a miraculous job of explaining how he overcame this issue by using complex layering of the projects and making sure it related to real life problems. Through a problem-based approach, he would knock off multiple areas of the curriculum and beyond. Meanwhile, the students were applying and analyzing a variety of aspects in their learning that a traditional class could not accommodate.

Throughout the cases, many similarities arose in how the technology was being used successfully. Self-direction was a key component for the teacher and students to be risk-takers. Having some students become experts, many more were able to learn from each other as well. This tied into the collaboration aspect that was prevalent in each. Although some classes became loud, such as the class in case 5, there were many opportunities for students to get up and discuss their ideas with others. I really liked Teacher C’s method of creating a collaborative class atmosphere by taking the role of ‘coach’ for a ‘team’ rather than an instructor for her pupils.

Finally, it seemed that project-based or problem-based learning was an important component to successfully apply technology within the classroom. Students were no longer exploring a single concept, but were exploring a complex layering of real-life issues within a project. Case 1 presented a bridge building project that had the students question what the components for the construction might be. It was not explicitly stated, and neither were the techniques that they ended up discovering. I loved how open each project question was that Teacher M presented. Once the students had completed the project, the challenge wasn’t over. The teacher added another layer of making the structure as light as possible, exploring tension from an entirely new lens. This method of teaching using real-life problems seems to overcome issues of time, by combining multiple curricula, and knowledge, by making it a collaborative process.

In a science or STEM specific classroom in secondary such as this, the approach appears to be relatively simple to implement, given the expertise of the teacher in that field. In the elementary classroom, however, where teachers have more general knowledge, how might these problem-based projects be created, I wonder? How do we make good use of technology and make it applicable to the problems they are exploring if the science and math content at that level is so vast?

Across Contexts

It was very interesting witnessing technology being integrated across so many contexts. Watching how situational factors influenced opinions and decision-making demonstrated how complex technology integration really is. The range of student experiences in all the contexts demonstrates the importance of pedagogy but also of the willingness of larger educational systems to support meaningful technology integration. Access to technology, professional development opportunities, professional/school culture, instructional level, etc. all impacted the way teachers integrated technology in their contexts.

Case 1

Case one demonstrated the benefits of an integrated, interdisciplinary approach. The concepts are connected to real world problem solving and technology is used as facilitator to explore the concepts. The student’s knowledge is connected and constructed through authentic experience. I love how the teacher is excited that the kids figure concepts out on their own and independently problem solve, instead of just remembering what they were told to do. Technology is integrated but is not the focus of instruction. The students were applying the concept with the help of technology, within a theoretical framework. For example, he mentions an Arduino, but only within the context of the project. The students had a functional understanding of the technology and how they were using it to learn. The teachers discussed independence, communication, critical thinking, creative thinking, problem solving as a main focus. I also thought the point about getting student teachers to engage in projects similar to the students was a great idea. I just went to a Makey Makey PD attended by a lot technologically novice teachers. The facilitator had us just do the same projects we were going to do with our students. In one day, he had everyone happily coding away in Scratch. If it the PD would have been done with a ‘stand and deliver’ approach, it would not have been nearly as successful.

Case 5

The teacher in the case 5 classroom has a very positive view of the potential of technology. She views it as an effective scaffold for English language learners. She integrates technology across the curriculum to facilitate her form of project-based learning and incorporates a lot of collaboration. I was wondering how much focus was on just incorporating a lot of technology and how much was on the topics they were learning. It was interesting to listen to the retiring teacher and the new teacher focusing on the reasons why technology is difficult to incorporate. It is a common viewpoint that using technology is a separate ability, or pet interest, that only some teachers possess. Many teachers have a growth-mindset for most subjects, but for math and technology ability is viewed as more fixed.

Case 6

The teacher talked a lot about content and being “right” in his interview. I got the impression he viewed learning as retaining content and regurgitating the answers provided to them. I think his integration provided an upgrade from traditional direct instruction, but I did wonder about the value of students just repackaging provided information through PowerPoint or podcasts. I wondered if the style of integration would allow students to address conceptual challenges. The student teacher made some good points about the benefits of hands-on, collaborative and creative learning.

Case 7

I was struck at the difference between case 1 and case 7. The participation in learning went from immersion with concepts and technology to pressing a button on a remote. Having said that, I would have loved to have access to that during my undergrad educational experience. Actively involving so many students is a very difficult task and at least they are provided with some means of participation.

Case 8

I thought the teachers in case 8 did a good job connecting the use of technology to the concepts they were teaching. They had a convincing rational explaining how the specific technology would help students understand the concepts. They also explained why the technology was more effective than using other methods. They were trying to incorporate the students work into the learning as much as possible. Some of the teachers did identify a significant issue regarding how time intensive integrating technology can be in the early years. The relative lack of independence results in a heavy burden on the teachers. I wonder if the reduced participation of kids impacts its overall educational value for students.

Technology and learning

The one issue that really stood out to me was how vastly the use of technology in the classroom varied from one example to the other. For example, in case 6, the technology itself had nothing to do with the science lesson. This is in contrast with the STEM class from Case 1. So, if the technology has nothing to do with the lesson, does using it actually translate to better engagement and understanding of the topics in question? Specifically, does making a powerpoint presentation, animation or podcast lead to a deeper understanding of the material? I guess the only way to answer this question is to conduct research to look into this or do a literature review to see if anyone has researched this particular question. Making a presentation is a time consuming activity and uses resources, and it would be great to be able to justify this by stating that this leads to deeper understanding of the material, or higher level of understanding/knowledge per Bloom’s taxonomy.

Case 4 – Preservice Biology Teachers

The underlying issue in Case 4 is that a professor who has been teaching for many years is lecturing to preservice teachers the benefits of introducing technology in the biology classroom.  The professor goes on to speak about how it is so important to have a support network of other teachers of similar subject areas; his own experience was two physics teachers who were his seniors.  This support network allows an educator feel comfortable trying new technologies and if something is to fail then the support teachers are there to help.  I’m not sure when this case takes place, but the professor also goes on to say that the district is not going to provide tech support and this is definitely not the case in my current place of employment.

The professor mentions that there are three levels of technology integration in the classroom.  Level 1 – Lecture enhancing

  • Teacher doesn’t have to do much
  • No real change in pedagogy
  • Allows teachers to become used to software and don’t need

Level 2 – Student use of technology

  • Need to have more than one computer in the room
  • Maybe 8 computers in the room
  • Students do all the activities at the same time
    • Simulations etc

Level 3 – Students directed, self paced learning

  • Here’s what you have to know, go know it
  • Progress through a study guide
  • Teacher really needs to know the curriculum and the technology

Finally the professor mentions that with curriculum limitations and the amount of content that needs to be taught, there is a significant time crunch on all teachers.  He mentions that in Science 10 all of his fun labs are gone as there is a provincial exam in that course.  Since the time of this writing a lot has changed in the BC K-12 Education system including the provincial exams and the curriculum.

We are then given a chance to hear from the preservice teachers about their upcoming practicum and how likely they are to attempt the use of technology in their own classrooms.  The answer is the same ‘not likely’ across almost all of the educators and the reason is also the same: “I don’t feel comfortable with the technology and what if something goes wrong”.  I think there is a fundamental problem here and one where both the educators and the students lose out.  Many educators have brilliant ideas but are afraid to implement them with the fear of failure.  The last two years of my teaching career have been transformational as I have been encouraged by my district and school administration to take risks with the potential to “fail forward”; the results have been amazing – I have implemented large, inquiry based projects in almost all of my classes.

Case 2: Graphing calculators in the classroom

I decided to analyze Case 2. To summarize, case 2 described a classroom in which the teacher suggested the use of graphing calculators as a way of engaging students in a grade 11 math class. The videos showed different ways the teacher used the calculators, and also gave some insight into the students’ experiences with the devices.

What are the underlying issues and why are they issues?

The first issue that always arises with the use of graphing calculators are their prohibitive cost. Texas Instrument has held a monopoly over the graphing calculator industry for the better part of 2 decades now and have charged a premium for a device that is outdated, and in today’s smartphone proliferated classroom environment, quite unnecessary. Desmos calculator for example, is an app that is available on smartphones that performs the same graphing functions as a TI 84, but is also free. Cost is an issue because it acts as a barrier of entry for students who cannot afford the devices. Although the summary of the case suggested that a number of calculators were purchased by the district and the school, how would these calculators help students outside of the classroom?

One other issues exist that prevent programmable calculators from being used in post secondary settings: How do you stop students from programming the calculator with information or programs that allow for academically dishonest activities? Short of checking everyone’s calculators before the test, this is pretty much impossible. That is why graphing calculators are typically outlawed in post secondary exams.

Some other issues described by the videos suggested that some students preferred to use traditional pencil and paper to problem solve before diving into the calculator because they thought it helped them better understand the concepts that needed to be learned, which could lead to problems for some students as some would move right onto the calculator before attempting to conceptualize the ideas that needed to be learned. Another issue that I have seen in the videos, and from my own experiences working with graphing calculators are their ease of use. In many cases, the number of buttons and functions that needed to be used for some students could prove to be a challenge.

What further questions does the video raise for you?

The videos were not dated in this case, but I am thinking they are likely from 2000-2010. Would the teacher have a different opinion of graphing calculators today with the abundance of smartphones that most students own? Furthermore, given Desmos calculator (an app available on their smartphone), would they choose this over a TI 84?

How would I explore a response to this issue?

I have explored the alternatives to the graphing calculator in my own classrooms by essentially eliminating all problems that required the use of a graphing calculator on tests. While there is value in using graphing technology in the math classroom, I have instead allowed students to use Desmos to solve problems in various assignments as another way of assessing their ability to use graphs to problem solve.

How might the issue that is raised exacerbate or ameliorate a conceptual challenge held by students?

As with the use of any calculator, giving students free reign to use technology before they have understood the fundamental concepts would allow students to solve problems without understanding the concepts, as a result, the graphing calculator has the potentially to exacerbate ANY numerical, or graphical misconception by giving students a free pass to avoid spending time learning the concepts at a high level.  For example, adding numbers like 1/2 + 3/4 is very easily on a calculator, and giving students these devices at an early age allows them to bypass the need to understand how to add fractions, by giving them a way to solve the addition problem that does not require an understanding of fractions.

On the other hand, by simplifying the process of graphing, students have greater access to visual information that could be useful in unlocking concepts that are best understood with visuals. For example, graphing a straight line on a graphing device may help bridge the concepts of intercepts and why one would need to substitute 0s into an equation to determine their values.

Moving Toward E-Learning 2.0

In reviewing the videos and use of digital technology, I chose the lens of how we can truly change teaching from didactic presentation to facilitating student-centred learning.

The video case 7, Tek Grassroots Project at BCIT, deals with the issue of misconceptions.  The use of iClickers is a great way to address misconceptions of a large group in real-time.  The quick-and-often formative assessment during the introduction of concepts is a big gain over traditional lecturing because it affords “risk free” participation and removes the time restriction barriers of “one-at-a-time” communication.  On the other hand, it is ultimately a didactic activity in which the teacher rolls out what is important and students follow along in a Socratic lesson delivery mode.  In other words, development of the lesson requires that the instructor ideally has a priori knowledge of the misconceptions of students.  Do clickers address misconceptions that are not anticipated?  Do they connect the new concept in any meaningful way to the lifeworld in which the student lives?

In Video case 4, pre-service teachers (circa late 1990-early 2000?) share their views on the potential use of digital technologies in their own practice.  My overall impression is that they are cautious but see the potential for value.  They almost all identify the need for teacher-specific technology training as a major issue for effective use of the tools.   In Thwarted Innovation, What Happened to E-Learning and Why, Zemsky and Massy (2004) claim that early failures in adopting technology rests in part with the assumption that teachers would know how to direct their own required professional development to integrate technologies into their classroom.   Are these students receiving pedagogical training in the effective use of technology, or merely being introduced to what is available?

Both of these video cases involve effective digital technology teaching tools, but not necessarily in a way that is often called “E-Learning 2.0” in which the affordances of technology allow students to pursue topics with a much higher degree of differentiation and teachers act as designers and facilitators of curriculum rather than as presenters of knowledge.  What are the barriers to differentiation and what can be done to help realize the true potential of learning technology by changing the role of teachers?


Edelson, D.C., Gordin, D. N., Pea, R.D., (1999). Addressing the Challenges of Inquiry-Based Learning Through Technology and Curriculum Design, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8:3-4, 391-450.

Massy, W.F., Zemsky, R. (2004). Thwarted Innovation:  What Happened to E-Learning and Why

Kalantzis, M. & Cope, B. (2010). The teacher as designer: Pedagogy in the new media age. E-learning and Digital media 7(3).200-222.

Fear of the unknown

I found a common theme running through the videos which linked back to my previous blog post.  That is the use of technology in the math and science classroom should be interdisciplinary, interactive and meaningful. I chose to focus on cases 5 and 8 as these videos relate directly to my grade levels, broadened my views on what platforms can be used in the classroom and raised an important question.  Both cases provided an insight into what I see as the 3 central functions of technology. Technology allows content and competencies to be woven together in a rich tapestry that blends core subject areas in ways that help students gain meaningful insight into how our world connects.  The interactive platforms the teachers use combine text, sound, images and video that is not just consumed by students but created by students, allowing for authentic learning experiences.  The students take the skills outside the classroom into their homes and continue with projects on their own time which indicates meaningful learning activities.


Looking at case 5 answered questions as to the effectiveness of technology in the elementary classroom but also raised some questions.  As the teacher in this class is doing I am also working towards combining subjects into silo’s or interdisciplinary projects.  Her use of music in science was obviously a creative way to engage students in artistic impression using digital tools but also linking into a larger science theme, based on space.  I am currently having my students build a colony in Minecraft on Mars using a modification called Galacticcraft which provides realistic gravity, atmosphere and day night cycle environment.  We are also coding a song for a video based on our colony using the excellent musical coding tool called SonicPi on our raspberry Pis.


I was excited to see how she promoted understanding by challenging them to use a piece of digital technology to break through subject barriers.  We do not have a large ESL base in our school but another great point she made was how the technology levels the playing field for ESL students and allows them to express their ideas using a multimodal medium instead of just text.  Her project based learning approach seemed to be applied across her subjects and it was heartening to see that someone is working towards a similar goal as I am. 


However the two teachers who felt uncomfortable with technology at the end raised a huge question for me.  While we worry about our students concepts and dispositions they bring into the classroom I am more concerned teachers.  So many have little to no interest in applying technology into their classroom because of their fear of the unknown.  It seems to me at the heart of the problem is the uncomfortable position technology places teacher in.  Their role is no longer gatekeeper of all knowledge, as it has been for hundreds of years. Both teachers felt as if they should know “it” before they teach it, they had no time to learn new ideas. This is where a shift in attitude needs to occur about technology.  It is ok to make mistakes and learn new tools along with the students.  I find their engagement level increases as they realize you are both on a journey of knowledge together.  I have been teaching the new ADST coding curriculum for 3 years now.  I have had many times when I have asked students for help, or find that with the tools they have been given they create and share their ideas with me. I gain knowledge from their creations and further my problem solving abilities.  Teachers do not have to be experts in technology but must be willing to understand that tech savy students need to be given control over how they want to show and grow their knowledge.


This brings me to case 8 where new teachers are learning how to take text and images and create a new engaging way to present the information to the students.  It seemed that technology was not a standalone subject in their practicum but a tool to help integrate content into a optimal learning presentation.  This is where hope lies for technology integration into our practice in the Science and Math curriculum.  It is through education and professional development, so that the fear of the unknown vanishes and is replaced with a certain comfort level with digital literacy.  Too many teachers feel as if they don’t have time, or the students are already the experts so why bother.  So while some of my questions about technology enhancing learning have been answered I still wonder what is the answer to having all teachers understand the interdisciplinary, interactivity and meaningful learning it can inspire?

Elementary and Middle School – Video Cases 5 & 6

The video cases I watched (case 5 and 6) gave an interesting perspective of the use of technology in elementary and middle school classrooms.

Case 5

Some initial thoughts around this video. The class is LOUD! How fortunate that their neighbours are so understanding! The teacher in case 5 said that they use technology almost everyday though I wonder how the technology is shared throughout other classrooms?

I appreciate the teacher’s (Teacher “S”) thoughts regarding technology leveling the field, especially with students from a variety of backgrounds and English language abilities. She recognizes technology as a tool that allows students to overcome some challenges, as well as allowing them to reach out to their families – often on other sides of the world.

Students appeared actively engaged (and noisy) and were all smiles that they got to use technology everyday. The young girls are able to articulate some of the scientific concepts of hurricanes, and were able to describe challenges they faced using technology in their classroom (the amount of information available is overwhelming, though they are learning from their teacher how to search). These are important life skills that technology allows; information is rapidly changing and access to the Web allows for more current information than, say, researching from a book.

I was a bit confused about the Sound Scape project they were working on and subsequent illustrations of the girl in the hurricane. Was this an artistic representation of a hurricane? How is the addition of technology adding to the experiences? I am always concerned that educators are purposeful of the “why behind the technology.

If technology is being used everyday, are students written output needs in English being addressed? Are students being challenged to think critically about space science?

Finally, the retiring teacher feels the way many teachers (even new teachers) feel; there has not been enough professional development opportunities to learn HOW to use technology, let alone the time to devise ways to incorporate it into our classrooms effectively. Using a model, such as SAMR, SECTIONS or the Seven Principles, has definitely given me more direction as to the how/why, but the T (time) still poses significant challenges for many.


Case 6

This teacher uses a variety of technology in his classroom and for a variety of purposes. I think his use of technology to communicate with parents/guardians is very important as it facilitates the home/school connection. I appreciate that he not only sends “marks” and “homework” (that’s another big topics….) but also interesting links, and reminders.

His stations-based approach to this lesson is also interesting. This is a great way to utilize technology when large of amounts of technology is not available. Listening to podcasts, text-books (or other physical books), PowerPoint, scanners, and hands-on dissections address a variety of student learning styles and gives them different experiences. His acknowledgement of the creativity needed to acquire funding for these supplies, ”know who to ask” is important. PAC, admin, district, grants, etc. are available – you just have to know where to look. I do wonder how often he brings in all of these technologies. What does a typical lesson look like without the video cameras there?

Tapping into the technology interests of students does allow for an opening into the content. Many students are going to be paying attention when the material is presented in an engaging way other than a text or video. Students have the material at their fingertips that address their conceptual challenges.

The effort that these teachers are putting into utilizing technology is their classroom is apparent. We can also see that they feel that the amount of time (whether as a beginner or to stay on “the cutting edge”) is a challenge. Pro-D Days offer some solutions. The teacher in Video 6 mentioned talking with colleagues who are also using tech in their classrooms. I think that this is an excellent way to facilitate the use of technology as well as growth. Using the time teachers are given, such as collaboration afternoons, to discuss and learn about the technology available may be a realistic way to address these needs.





Video Case Issues

One underlying issue arises from multiple functionality: Graphing calculators have capabilities beyond mathematical computation, serving as mobile computers with emerging potential and continual source of distraction. Calculator tricks provide automaticity to iteratively work out kinks, but may also promote laziness. Technology enhances learning helping to visualize concepts quicker and easier than paper concepts. Ideas can be observed during the process, which is more fun than writing all out, allowing students to engage even if they missed certain theory. Along with Clickers, technology enables tactile learning, participating with rapid feedback and peer teaching in risk free environments. Students view experiences as more hands-on than textbooks, acquiring knowledge of what to do without thinking about it. It frames homework less as questions assigned towards working for time period to accomplish goals. It makes me wonder how much background instruction is needed before teachers can leave students towards free inquiry. No doubt teachers use open questions as blueprints to have learners solve problems, playing without necessarily knowing the answer beforehand.

Gender equity was raised as another issue with differing proportions of boys and girls interacting differently with technology. Not only are certain subjects traditionally dominated by one gender, boys for example are stereotypically excited to try stuff, pulling on force sensors to test limits whereas girls maybe feeling less experienced are not as eager to explore, potentially giving up early. Here perhaps students can benefit through collaborative projects between interdisciplinary fields. Learners can focus on final products to inform the planning process, putting greater effort into presentations and developing media literacy related to curriculum. Accessibility issues are less common now as rarely do students lack home internet. What students were graphing on TI-83’s have evolved towards open platforms like Desmos, providing instant results for critical analysis with data interpretation.

Activity-based planning gives control back to students to balance traditional instruction, encountering personal teachable moments. Technology can be implemented at three levels: teacher-directed instruction, lock-step student and self-paced inquiry. No doubt students can teach each other, but again how much content do learners need before technology can be effectively used, and how is the role of teacher changing in response? 21st century learning is more interactive than transmissive, reflecting upon how to learn and developing transferable life skills. Technology can help bypass measurements and focus on key concepts over static components. Teachers can use problem-based learning for students to design labs, solving problems like friction coefficient with force sensors. Data Studio still requires critical thinking when computers show incredible detail, doing additional runs to average minor fluctuations. Everyone has a part to play in groups, with opportunities to correct in low risk environments.

Technology provides real-world relevance, giving students images that professionals work with to come up with similar conclusions. Computer simulations replace physical needs, though learners might feel disconnect lacking manual application, feeling like computers are merely programmed to do that, not actually representative of life. Many educators dream of incorporating technology, but simply do not have time to balance work, feeling pressured to know everything before teaching kids. Professional development workshops can help, though is easily forgotten without application. Another issue is lack of familiarity as some teachers begin with initial hatred, being unsure and afraid of technical problems. Colleagues can provide support networks to troubleshoot, though people may not want to continually be a bother. While upgrading technology, districts should prioritize training, introducing tools as early as teacher education programs, though pre-service teachers may find jumping into teaching is difficult enough already. An interesting perspective arose from one such teacher wanting to actively teach than watch students learn, viewing technology as medium and accessory. A possible response is letting go of being the expert, and promoting student ownership as it is much easier for students to pick up and conduct peer teaching. Group-based learning may come with noisier classes, but can often lead to surprising results.