What is technology? Plainly put, technology should be any technological advance that improves our lives for the better. This includes the medical field, communications, education and science just to name a few areas in which technology seems to consistently affect our lives. One can argue that many technological advances have failed, but this is not necessarily true. I believe that if a new technology improves the quality or processes in our lives, if only for a short period of time, then it is successful, regardless if a new technology eventually replaces it. Does technology have to be necessary to be a valuable tool? I do not think so. If technology makes any person’s life easier or more enjoyable, than it has some value. Therefore, from my perspective, technology is any advancement that improves the quality of a person’s life.
On the other hand, the integration of technology should only be implemented after careful and thoughtful planning, as well as in-depth training. The implementation should also include input from all stakeholders, not just those making the final decision. If the entity responsible for integration does not consider all of the ramifications of implementing a new technology, often times schools find themselves regressing, rather than progressing. Last year our county implemented new grading software that is on-line. This seemed a good idea that teachers could enter grades at home. However, they failed to consider what would happen when all of the teachers tried to enter grades on the day before progress reports. The system was overloaded and literally locked down every time progress reports were due. The county office had to manually update grades because the system could not do it. Nobody thought to question if the system could handle high volume.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In my definition of integrating technology, I stated "technology should only be implemented after careful and thoughtful planning, as well as in-depth training. The implementation should also include input from all stakeholders, not just those making the final decision. If the entity responsible for integration does not consider all of the ramifications of implementing a new technology, often times schools find themselves regressing, rather than progressing."
ReplyDeleteAfter speaking with and observing faculty in my school, I will say that most of my definition is on the mark. There does need to be careful consideration before any technology is introduced, both for financial and instructional reasons. However, after observing some teachers who truly incorporate technology into their instruction, I walked away with a different perspective on training. Technology has always intimidated me - I am not a technology person. So from my perspective, one of the greatest frustrations that I face is when technology is introduced with limited instruction. Even when instructions are provided (written), the instructor assumes that everyone understands the lingo, which builds more frustration.
However, the two teachers that I observed gave me a new perspective. One teacher saw some new software at a conference that she thought she could use in her chemistry class. She persisted, got it donated and taught herself how to use it. She loves it and so do the students.
Another teacher at our school uses her Smart board better than anyone else in school. She teaches math and has adapted many different uses for it in the classroom. She is also self-taught.
Both of them had the attitude that these technologies were something they really wanted to learn how to use, and because they were persistent, they did not give up on mastering the technology.
I too have gained this perspective after participating in this class and another that I am enrolled in. Teachers will never learn new technology until they get over their fears and just immerse themselves in it. They may make mistakes, but if they are persistent, they will can incorporate technology into their classes and actually enjoy it! So if teachers are willing and enthusiastic, them try it.