54 years. In geologic time, that is nothing. In technology time, it is nearly an eternity. Much can happen to technology in 54 years. The UNIVA 1 is considered to be the first commercial computer and, with all its parts and pieces, would fill a large bedroom. One huge computer, by today’s standards—colossal. And this computer did not even have drop down menus our a mouse. Can you imagine?

This year a new exhibit around the computer opens in Albuquerque (the place where Paul Allen and Bill Gates started Microsoft in 1975, being close to other computer folks, later moving to Seattle, Washington in 1977).

In my lifetime, the computer existed as huge, behemoths sequestered in rooms where you would have to schedule time to use them. Then, and I remember it clearly, in 5th grade, my school added a computer class. Our computers had a hard drive capacity of 64K, which is funny when you consider that a photo taken by a camera usually has double that. We learned BASIC and played games. That was the curriculum. That was all there was to do with computers and education.

However, that has changed. The computer and subsequent technology is ubiquitous in the classroom and if not, it is seen as a weakness by the community. No other instrument has been accepted as readily as the computer. No other object has as much cache power to symbolize the rosy future for little kids than a computer; think of all of those district or school brochures that show 4 or 5 elementary students huddled around a computer, smiling. It took decades for the pencil to be accepted into the school as an appropriate tool, but the computer was there before people could say, "no".

Computers have shown their strength as an educational tool, and they do seem to have limitless capabilities. However, I would argue that computers sit in most classrooms collecting dust, used for basic internet research and word processing, two activities that do have their purpose, but could be achieved with computers many years old, and in the case of word processing, decades old.

Why do we insist on using up-to-date, expensive computers when they are not used as such? Is it because the computers are a status symbol or the classroom, the school, and even the community?

I am a teacher of English so word processing makes up the majority of my classroom computer use; and this is fine as it is a real world use.

Computers are great, but they cannot replace the human quality of great teaching in the classroom. They are not flexible and cannot adjust to the immediate needs of the student. To fear the computer and to not embrace it is putting your classroom and students at risk of being behind the times. Students understand vidcasts and like to be able to play and replay a video. Is the acquisition of knowledge inherently better solely through a text book?

Some great computer trends to consider for the coming school year
1. Web site with resources, handouts, and lessons so that students and families can always be up-to-date or used for review
2. Podcasts: audio instruction that can be played on a computer or mp3 player
3. Vidcasts: the visual equivalent of a podcast, stronger because kids like videos
4. Online parental (student) access to the student’s progress in each class, through the teacher’s grade book. Emailing of progress reports to parents (students) whenever the teacher decides.
5. Using the comment feature in Microsoft Word for peer feedback
6. Student web sites of their work and current learning paths—a portfolio
7. Blogs, You Tube, Teacher Tube
8. Web search (not new, but being used more)
9. Weekly “Notes from the Classroom” email or posting on a web site or blog
10. Co-learning with another class over a great distance such as peer feedback on stories with students in Africa.

Worst uses for computers
1. Interior classroom design—the computers just sit on desks in the back
2. Word processing if that is all for which the computers are used (in this case, a decade old grey computer would work)
3. Computerized report cards as the sole use
4. Flash games on the internet
5. Power Pointing your students to death
6. Students Power Pointing their final projects to death
7. Email as the sole reason the computer is turned on in the morning

I have an opinion on the topic and teaching and technology. However, what I want to do with this post is provide an open forum for you to leave your thoughts on technology in the classroom. Check back in a week and respond to the comments left by others. I consider it an opportunity for me to hear from others.

Here are some Points to Ponder:

• To what extent should technology be used?
• What about the discrepancy of technology in the have and have not schools?
• Can computer based curriculum replace teachers?
• What are the strengths or weaknesses of technology in the classroom?
• Are today's youth "programmed" differently then when you were in school?
• For what do you use technology in the classroom?
• For what do you NOT use technology in the classroom?
• How to get enough computers for consistent use by all of the students. Can you push technology as the panacea of education, but limit the use to three computers, where you have to plan months ahead of time?
• For computers and technology to be used effectively, they need to be accessible whenever the teachable moment happens, but there is never enough technology available, why?
• Teaching the teachers how to use the technology.

Comments

I really like the point that Tom makes: what is equal is not always fair. Teachers, being that they are human and like gadgets, would certainly say "yes" to a question of would you like computers in your room. However, as Tom points out, few would actually use the computers to their fullest. So is it fair to the teacher that would use the technology in a way that is both innovative and would benefit children to not have more computers? I taught in one school where nearly every teacher had 4 computers. Most teachers did not use them on a daily basis, nor were the computers central to the learning, a social tool for education. The computers were used on occasion for word processing or doing a PowerPoint. But not daily.

I agree with Tom's statement of needing a critical number of machines to make the tools useful, 8 is about right as a minimum (student groups of 4, or some variation thereof).

If I had 8 computers, a projector, and a document camera (and the freedom to use whatever social online tool I wished so long as it was appropriate), tech would be a day in and day out process for my classroom. And I am an English teacher. We love paper and pencil. Drafts and crossing things out.

After reading another great post, I have to say one thing about computers in education: you have to have a critical number in your room in order to actually use them as an effective tool. This was a reality that the Gates Foundation accepted ten years ago when they began the TLP computer grants. They realized that doling out computers in an equitable manner (one for you, one for you, etc.) didn't and wouldn't work. This was a great way to improve "classroom interier design" but a lousy way to improve teaching practices. I think it takes seven or eight healthy machines in order for the classroom to actually use them as effective tools. Obviously, this isn't feasible or sustainable in most districts. But here's the thing: It doesn't have to be. In any given school, you're going to have teachers who love technology and have creative and effective ways to use it. And they will have colleagues down the hall who can barely read their email. So let those teachers teach without computers, and give the fancy machines to the teachers who are willing and able to use them. This has been going on in my district for the last five years and there is a surprising lack of controversy. There will always be plenty of wonderful lessons taught by effective teachers that don't require the use of technology. But it's up to us to ensure that students get a "balance diet" of techie and non-techies as they move through our schools.

Many of the questions and comments originaly posted I have considered almost daily. I mostly teach 8th grade math in a regular education classroom with a wide range of skills. I find that technology in my classroom (interactive white board, remote tablet, graphing calculators, and two stand-alone computers) have increased the engagement and excitement of students in the learning process.

I am a strong believer that these tools can only be used effectively by a trained and facilitating educator of these tools. The effectiveness of technology will only be successful as a support and diversifying forum for our students.

Unfortunately I continue to ineffectively use my two computers in a way that can support fundamental skills of my intensive or strategic learners. One of my goals this years is to implement a plan that will provide individual learning opportunities to those that struggle with number sence and basic opperation in math. Without these skills, many of the students come unequiped with the tools to attack and solve problems presented in our curriculum.

It is our responsibility to provide learning opportunities through and with technology to our students. Yes, technology is rapidly changing and the available technology to our students post K-12 will be vastly advanced. The more opportunities we provide them the more adaptable they become and the more equiped to succede in careers and society.

Kudos to your math teacher Benjamine. As for chalk and wall board failing, I know of no evidence beyond speculation to support that assertion. As for diversity, it's a convenient truism (I'd argue political myth) that diversity is new in schools. And, yes, principal's face uncomfortable, but not difficult, decisions. I'm sure you'll decide in favor of those who step forward and show achievement increases, right? Keep on truckin'.

As a building principal, I'm quite used to responding to a superintendent's concern about how to use limited resources. With high stakes testing driving the priorities in schools, we need to make sure our students are proficient in the basics of math, reading and writing. Our school could certainly be seen as a case study in how teachers have been able to use technology to close the achievement gap and raise overall student achievement. Not only are the presentations in the classrooms done at a higher cognitive level, but the need for ongoing assessment to drive instruction has improved through the use of technology. But beyond this one day, one test syndrome for measuring instructional effectiveness, we as a nation will find ourselves falling further behind gobally if our high school graduates are technologically ignorant even, if 100% of them can read and write at grade level. The world our children live in exposes them to a wide array of technology and many of them come to school with skills well beyond what our teachers possess. We could save a lot of money by teaching our children with chalk and slate boards, but that certainly hasn't proven itself to reach the diverse populations we teach nor does it allow for differentiation. But to respond at a practical level, my math resource teacher piloted a computer program last year that resulted in 17 of 24 students raising their performance on the state assessment for determining AYP. She would like me to purchase the program for this year. It might be worth the money when I see that we need to raise the scores of just 15 or fewer students for all of our subgroups to meet AYP.

Good responses, Travis, to your Qs. Now, let me ask as a former school supervisor (also called supt.) exactly to which state standard for minimum student academic performance does any response increase student learning rates beyond what a good teacher will accomplish without the tech? In other words, why would any superintendent agree to having more advanced tech in a school building?

I would like to use more technology but efficently. I want to assign podcasts, have kids read blogs for "other" opinions, etc. But all the good ed stuff is blocked at school. This is very hypocritcal, contradictory, and frustrating.

@Ben Skaught, that sounds like a reasonable, workable, proactive solution to linking sites on school web sites. How about the rest of you out there? What do your districts do?

In our district, not all outside links are blocked, but it is also not unrestricted access. Because of the size of the district, it is unrealistic to expect that every teacher has the time and expertise to monitor and screen outside sources carefully. There are more and more high quality, well monitored sources that are available to teachers, and key personnel within our district, library media persons, department supervisors, curriculum coordinators review and adverstise the availability of these sites. (I am often amazed at how many of these sites are posted on a weekly basis). In addition, whenever someone attempts to access a site that is blocked, a message is sent that informs the teacher that they can request the site be unblocked by providing information about the site and its value to the curriculum or instruction. While that doesn't guarantee that a site will be unblocked, it does open up some channels. It also allows for examination of a site that links to a link to another link. Recently a site that was unblocked had to be blocked because they allowed a link to another site that was not appropriate for school age children. The site was contacted, they removed the link, and the site was restored. If they had not removed the site, the marketplace offered other sites that could be used as alternatives. Wonderful thing that marketplace.

Great thoughts everyone. I am enjoying the variety of responses (as that allows us to think) and it looks like you all come from different backgrounds/angles so that is wonderful.

I feel the need, in this discussion, to clarify something I mentioned on which Benjamin Skaught commented. Benjamin Skaught mentioned the need for safe guards on computer systems in schools....and I agree. It would be a sad thing to have a whole network (yikes...even district) come crumbling down is a student downloaded some file of an unknown site.

However, and here is where I clarify, my issue is with being able to post links to outside sites that I feel are useful to students and parents that they can use while at home. Absolutely, guard against a program being downloaded by a student, but when it comes to me suggesting some links, as the professional, the highly-trained individual, the one who knows the needs of my students best, let me post that link.

On one teacher web page I had, I had links to many online resources, i.e., dictionary, a thesaurus, writing tips. I also had a link to a blog, showing some of my vidcasts so that parents and students do not have to download a file to view the vidcasts. I also had the vidcasts on You Tube but I have disabled the link to You Tube.

And it is the disabling of the link to You Tube that, to me, illustrates the complexity of the situation. I understand the desire of a district to not allow a link to You Tube. They would argue that there are many items on the You Tube site that the district does not want to be held accountable for (eg, a parent saying that his son was watching a vidcast on hyphens and then decided to click a link on the side bar to another video about a topic similar to "hyphens".) And yes, there are alternative sources for video sharing such as Teacher Tube (although Teacher Tube was not around when I started sharing vidcasts).

So I do not have a problem with being safe. However, in one district I taught, the essence of a memo on teacher web pages (or was it a TPS report?) went something along the lines of wanting to keep all material in-house and not linking to outside sources. When I read the memo, I thought, this will be interesting because the goal is to not allow links to questionable sites as it is far too easy for a teacher to just link things up without thinking (aghast). However, the wording will have the interesting effect of stopping science teachers from being allowed to link to a NASA video of the lunar cycle; or a 6th grade teacher wanting to show a photograph of the Declaration of Independence; or an English teacher wanting to show 9 comma rules.

When a district blocks linking to unknown sites, the other, useful sites, will be brought up as being "outside the district" as well. How will the district deal with this conundrum? Should be interesting indeed.

How does your district balance out the usefulness of outside sources online with the need to keep in check the material to which teachers are directing their students and parents?

Furthermore, what solutions are there for solving the issue of "bring down the computer network" while, at the same time, letting material in? I know that my wife's work, a hospital, come across this when they were asked by the doctors to let You Tube through the safeguards because there was valuable medical information there; a specific example of this was a doctor's lecture online (at You Tube) on the effects of a medication. And yes, the doctors promised to not abuse the rest of the site. And guess what? The hospital trusted them. Cool.