Your new post is loading...
“Nothing could be more absurd than an experiment in which computers are placed in a classroom where nothing else is changed.” - Seymour Papert
When it comes to improving outcomes in the digital age, efficacy matters more than ever. Billions of dollars are spent across the world on technology with the hopes that it will lead to better results. Tom Murray and I shared this thought in Learning Transformed:
"Educational technology is not a silver bullet. Yet year after year, districts purchase large quantities of devices, deploy them on a large scale, and are left hoping the technology will have an impact. Quite often, they’re left wondering why there was no change in student engagement or achievement after large financial investments in devices. Today’s devices are powerful tools. At the cost of only a few hundred dollars, it’s almost possible to get more technological capacity than was required to put people on the moon. Nevertheless, the devices in tomorrow’s schools will be even more robust. With that in mind, it’s important to understand that the technology our students are currently using in their classrooms is the worst technology they will ever use moving forward. As the technology continues to evolve, the conversation must remain focused on learning and pedagogy—not on devices."
Unfortunately, technology is not a magic wand that will automatically empower learners to think critically, solve complex problems, or close achievement gaps. These outcomes rely on taking a critical lens to pedagogical techniques to ensure that they evolve so that technology can begin to support and ultimately enhance instruction. If the former (pedagogy) isn’t solid, then all the technology in the world won’t make a difference. As William Horton states, “Unless you get the instructional design right, technology can only increase the speed and certainty of failure.”
This is an interesting article that provides the perspective of a principal. The article starts off with a quote from Seymour Papert, “Nothing could be more absurd than an experiment in which computers are placed in a classroom where nothing else is changed.” I agree with this sentiment and the article goes on to point out the same. The main idea is that we cannot continually flood classrooms with technology and expect improved learning outcomes without working on creating more active learning.