Schools face many challenges when attempting to integrate technology effectively. These challenges include training, awareness, and the prioritization of appropriate technologies based on cost and benefit. The adoption of technology is never a ‘one-stop’ solution but always a continual process of upgrading, learning, adapting, purchasing, training and implementing new tools.
It is becoming increasingly clear, at least in my classroom, that the redefinition of learning moves at a much faster pace when students, have access to a 1:1 device. This is expressed in ‘s blog post ‘A Beautiful Game’ where she compares not being 1:1 to a team of footballers not all being allowed on the pitch at the same time. Mark Prensky also highlights the impact of not having a 1:1 programme in his Edutopia article ‘Adopt and Adapt’.
Any ratio that involves sharing computers — even two kids to a computer — will delay the technology revolution from happening.
Adopt and Adapt: Shaping Tech for the Classroom by Mark Prensky (Edutopia), 2005
However, there is a lot more to implementing technology than just purchasing it. ‘Alive in the Swamp: Assessing Digital Innovations in Technology’ is a detailed report by Michael Fullan and Katelyn Donnelly. In the foreward Sir Michael Barber addresses this concern:
For years – ever since the 1970s – we have heard promises that technology is about to transform the performance of education systems. And we want to believe the promises; but mostly that is what they have remained. The transformation remains stubbornly five or ten years in the future but somehow never arrives.
Alive in the Swamp: Assessing Digital Innovations in Education, 2013
Below is a video summary of the Alive in the Swamp research paper.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1VzAIFL8ds
Whilst reading this report I came across the term ‘activator’ to describe the new role of a teacher. This struck me as an excellent way to describe how our role is now being defined with technology in the classroom. This was illustrated in the report with a teacher as a ‘change agent’ (not just a facilitator of learning), guiding students to take charge of their own learning.
This report also supports the view that just having the technology is not enough. Teachers need support and guidance to effectively implement the technology. Mark Presnsky goes on to discuss strategies that might enable educators to do this:
So, let’s not just adopt technology into our schools. Let’s adapt it, push it, pull it, iterate with it, experiment with it, test it, and redo it, until we reach the point where we and our kids truly feel we’ve done our very best. Then, let’s push it and pull it some more.
This approach to integrating technology is not necessarily easy, but it is, I believe, important. The dangers of not supporting teachers in this approach are outlined in a recent Edudemic article focusing on the pros and cons of educational technology:
If not utilized properly, the positive effects of technology become negative which continue to hinder students’ success.
https://www.edudemic.com/education-technology-pros-cons/
There are many things that administrators can do to enable teachers to be successful in integrating technology. Expectations and priorities should come from the leaders of the school, preferably supported with a proactive technology integrator. A culture of collaboration amongst teachers should also be encouraged, face to face, and also by utilizing an on-line PLN. A realization that this is a continual process for teachers and that time and guidance should be encouraged to accommodate this also helps. I also believe that teachers need to plan technology integration with a purpose. Whether modifying or redefining tasks, we need to actively plan to incorporate technology in a meaningful way to facilitate learning.
The good news is that there are many international schools leading the field in successful technology integration. By developing PLN’s and connecting with like-minded educators we can learn from each other to successfully integrate technology and move learning forward in our classrooms. Let’s get activated!
I’m definitely with you on the mindful integration of technology, rather than the use of tech for the sake of it. I had the pleasure of an observation day at a school with 1-to-1 iPads, and I really appreciated how the students had become the final decision makers. The teachers set the task, question, or problem; the students decided how best to complete it. It was fascinating to talk with them. Because it was 1-to-1, none of the programs were new to them, and they could make informed decisions. Probably about 40% decided in this particular case that paper and pencils would suit what they had in mind more effectively. The others dove into the apps, choosing precisely the right one for what they had in mind.
Hi Katherine, thanks for the comment. The observation day you mentioned sounded very productive- it’s always such a great way to learn by watching and learning from other educators. I love the idea of students making the choices about how to solve problems. This spontaneity and the opportunities that it brings are what make 1:1 ratios so effective. The students can choose the right time and the right way to use technology. Thanks for sharing.
Apologies Amanda. Something is up with my internet (hilarious considering what I’ve been writing) and in trying to post my reply things have come up twice. Here is the intended message:
Hi Amanda,
We are in a land of dismal internet and are a wee bit behind the times with around a 3:1 ratio in our Grade 5 classrooms. Last year we were 4:1. Next year we might actually go to 1:1! I couldn’t agree more that a 1:1 programme promotes the technology revolution, however I think that every little bit counts. Having said that, having more devices has drastically increased the demand for even more devices! Both teachers and students feel that they can’t really go in the direction they want until we are 1:1. And going 1:1 is incredibly costly in our context: never mind the cost of laptops, the bandwidth is the big expensive deal. And I have to wonder, are these devices advancing student learning 1) at all? 2) enough to warrant the incredible cost? The time it would take to gather the data for this would cost us valuable time in becoming more tech savvy. It’s a bit of a conundrum.
On another note, what would be an appropriate ratio for little ones? Should Grade 1 children have 1:1 access? How much is enough? How much is too much? For me these aren’t rhetorical questions. I’m actually wondering if anyone has the answers.
Hi Leah, thanks for your response- you’ve raised some really significant points. I don’t have all of the answers but I can start with my opinion.
What I have witnessed is that when technology is used effectively, it has a massive impact on learning.
I also think your point about young students is very important. I don’t think that all screen time is created equally. Students learning with technology; talking, sharing, interacting, experimenting and creating is very different to unsupervised individual screen time (which may lack purpose and interaction). Teachers are still the most valuable resource in a classroom!
As for the financial commitment of a 1:1 programme, that is for each school to decide. BYOD, parent purchase/part payment, dongles for mobile connections, are just some examples of alternatives to a big outlay of finances. I appreciate that each situation is different, and that some situations are beyond the schools control, but if teachers continue to articulate why a commitment to continuing to improve technology is beneficial hopefully they will succeed in gaining the support/hardware they require. Good Luck!