XplanaZine

I wanted to wait until we were on the other side of April 1 so that no one would think this article was a joke. In the United States, we spend billions of dollars on efforts to put technology in the classroom. My purpose here is not to say that the money is necessarily misspent, but rather to point out that there is a real limit on what can be achieved by putting technology inside a physical classroom.

The issue isn’t whether or not students can learn with technology or, more important, if teachers can figure out how to use technology successfully in the classroom. The problem is that technology in the classroom simply isn’t necessary for the most part. And when something isn’t absolutely necessary in a traditional model it will often have a rather severe limit on how much it can/will be used or implemented.

What do I mean when I say that technology isn’t necessary in the classroom? Look at it this way. Classrooms per se were really only designed to have two things in them — teachers and students. One of those things, namely teachers, is always in control of the classroom ( think of the lawsuits if this weren’t a relative certainty) and almost all of our pedagogy and learning practices are based on this reality. None of the now-trite descriptions of the teacher’s role in the classroom — such as “sage on the stage” or “guide on the side” — assume anything other than a teacher-driven learning experience.

Anything we add to the physical classroom, beyond teachers and students, can only serve a supportive role of the already-defined purpose of the space and the roles of the primary players in it. That’s why broad initiatives to put technology inside of physical school buildings always have mixed results and some parents and educators end up with plenty of ammunition to oppose such initiatives. It’s the reality that drove the results of Larry Cuban’s seminal book and it’s a reality that is insurmountable as long as we’re talking about the physical classroom.

Now, none of this should be interpreted as a position against all technology in the classroom. I have been in charge of classroom technology at a major university and have consulted with many schools about its use and implementation in the physical plant. Technology has a place in traditional education ( read “bricks and mortar”) but it is limited to specific instances of efficacy.

• Technology in the classroom is valuable for discipline-specific learning needs. I’ve spent much of my life as a language instructor and audio/video teaching labs are still an important part of the curriculum. We have found it useful to be able to let students work individually on listening and speaking activities in a classroom setting with each learner having access to the instructor. There are also disciplines that rely on abundant video or simulation display and these require high-end projectors, DVD players, etc.
• Technology in the classroom is valuable for demonstrating material that otherwise could not be brought into the classroom. The Internet — via ethernet connections, laptops, and monitors for display — allows teachers to bring a bit of the world into the classroom and share materials that could not be shown in any other way.
• Technology in the classroom is valuable for managing large classes. From polling devices to multiple projectors and screens, teachers can use technology effectively to maintain students’ attention and to help transform traditional lecture halls into interactive classrooms.

Notice that I didn’t say anything about technology improving classroom lectures. Actually, I’m one of those people who thinks that PowerPoint has done more harm than good to teaching. And I have yet to see presentation technology in general do anything much more advanced or effective that chalk, a blackboard, and some creative thinking.

In each of the examples above, technology is valuable because it supplements the teacher’s efforts and purpose, a purpose that is rigidly defined in the traditional classroom setting. If we extrapolate a bit using these examples, we can build a good model for the types of classroom technology that we should try to fund and the kinds of initiative that are worthwhile (and those that aren’t).

But none of these examples, or our extrapolated model, would lead us to conclude that technology is essential for good classroom teaching or that there will necessarily be anything more than a small incremental improvement over classrooms without technology (and that assumes a perfect plan and implementation). This is because technology in the traditional teaching space is only (and can only be) a tool that supplements. If it becomes anything more it will fail because such an arrangement would violate the very nature and definition of the traditional classroom.

Again, notice that the focus here is on the traditional classroom. None of what I have said, obviously, applies to online or hybrid education models. In fact, if we include the last example above regarding large classes (250 or more), we can see that the greater the distance from our students (space or time), the greater the need for technology in teaching.

Technology actually becomes a key element of teaching (in some models equal to the teacher and student ) in non-traditional classroom models in which students and teachers are separated. And the greater the separation, the greater the need for technology.

What we have to admit is that most “separation” in a traditional classroom setting is artificial and is certainly not sufficient to require technology. What does that mean? I’m not certain. Perhaps we should probably put less emphasis on technology in traditional educational settings. At least we should not look down on teachers who just want to teach (just them and the students) and who don’t really want to add technology to an already-comfortable mix.