We hear a lot about technology and how it can benefit us in our education. Throughout the past 15 years or so some companies have jumped on the bandwagon of developing technology to improve education. Unfortunately these companies have often relied more on flash than substance.
For instance, there is a software program at my school that has students type in answers to practice problems and gives them the correct answer after either a successful attempt or two failed attempts. This software was purchased by the county for use, but to me felt gimmicky because I didn't feel it was any different than a paper and pencil (along with an answer key). Granted the software did provide explanations to the problems, but so could a solution key or a teacher.
The other technology that my county uses is a SMART board (or in this case a Promethean Board). This technology is not gimmicky because it speeds up the process in which the teacher has to prepare. It also eliminates the need for physical tools such as extra colored pens/chalk, highlighters, drawing tools, a stopwatch, and an eraser since they are all on-screen icons. A lot of information can be stored on the computer without need to rewrite or redraw notes onto a blackboard.
How will future technology help us? I am not sure, but technology cannot replace a strong teacher...but it can aide one. The important issue about educational technology, software or hardware, is that it must have more substance than flash.
I agree that companies are just joining a bandwagon. I feel that teachers are more interested in adding a technology tool into their activities that they forget about their objectives for the actual activity itself. As teachers, we need to make sure that our technology will make our activity shine more.
ReplyDeleteSo true, Tony! I have often commented to my colleagues that sometimes we need to evaluate software a bit better before we purchase it. When the software is presented to our IT Department, of course, they're going to show us all the bells and whistles, but then upon implementation we quickly learn there was more fluff than substance.
ReplyDelete