TLT470-TQ#4

Throughout Wenglinsky's book, "Using Technology Wisely", a tremendous amount of effort has gone into presenting effective and ineffective strategies to incorporate technology into learning. The three key points that I took away from this book are what, how, and why technology can be successful (or a complete failure) in an educational setting.

What - Constructivist methods

Throughout the book, Wenglinsky impresses upon the fact that constructive methods of teaching are more beneficial that didactic. I'd have to agree with this notion. A constructivist approach to teaching allows the students to engage their minds in more thought provoked learning. I think this point was made quite well with the story of Socrates and the boy. Even without the presence of modern technology, Socrates was able to teach an ill-educated child square roots by helping him visualize and wrap his mind around the problem. All it took was a stick with drawings, but something so simple helped the boy figure out something quite complex. From the technological perspective, computers can be an aid for constructive learning. The expeditionary schools are a prime example of this. The children's primary focus was related to nature, history, culture, etc. Computers allowed them to research their topics of interest and gather information prior to their real world experiences. They were able to take that research along with their personal experiences to record and communicate their thoughts. This type of learning allows the students to relate to the topic and have a much better understanding of the subject.

How - Implementation

Implementation is one of the most important factors to consider when a goal or project is presented. In Wenglinsky's book, it is clear that poor implementation of technology can lead to poor learning environments and unmotivated students. Throughout the last several years, large sums of money have been distributed by the government to schools for technology improvement. The goal was to provide teachers with additional tools to improve the learning process in classrooms, and also align student learning across gender, race, and financial standing. The problem that many schools faced with this goal, is that they did not know how to implement the technology properly. The urban school Wenglinsky wrote about exemplified the worse case scenario for poor implementation. The opportunity was present for the school to use technological resources as tools for learning, and instead they served little to no purpose in the student's educational advancement. In these situations, the technology isn't to blame. It is up to the school and its teachers to come up with a solid plan for making the resources successful learning tools.

Why - Studies and Research

Testing the effectiveness of technology integration in the classroom is a double edged sword. Although there is a need for calculating the impact that technology has on learning, the information often gathered from these studies is insufficient. What is even more disappointing is that the data compiled often initiates changes in practice. For example, the ACOT experience had the potential to make monumental changes in the way technology and instruction interact. Lack of information from poor testing methods and lack of consistency lead to its ultimate demise. As with most standardized tests, open ended questions and the ability to express opinions are virtually non-existent. Measuring higher order thinking requires studies such as the NAEP. Even this assessment isn't ideal, as the time span and patterns of data collection vary. In addition, many of the questions asked of the students, teachers and schools may be eliminated from the NAEP. This is a huge issue when trying to convince a school to fund something, when there is no documentation supporting the cost benefit.