New York Times has a good look at the limitations of programs giving every student in a school or grade a laptop. Maine, Michigan and a number of school district have been among those experimenting with such programs. There are lots of problems: laptops break and need to be repaired; teachers often have limited technological savvy, and even those who are computer wizzes often have little idea how to use the computers effectively for instruction; kids are good at figuring out how to abuse the technology for non-educational purposes (or, at least, acquiring an education in matters adults might prefer they didn't). Moreover, equipping every kid with a laptop can be expensive, and those resources might be better spent on other activities. But the biggest reason I've been skeptical of these proposals when they've appeared in the states is that they always seem heavy on the "gee-whiz-technology-is-awesome" compenent and the "big-ideas" component, but light on any coherent theory of change about how technology is really going to improve instruction. Yes, there are a lot of cool things that teachers could potentially do with computers, but just being cool isn't enough: the activity has to produce real improvements in kids knowledge, understanding, or abilities; and those benefits have to be weighed against the benefits of alternative, possibly cheaper, investments.
Off-topic: Check out the t-shirt on the kid in the middle of the big picture at the top of this article (NYT says his name is Jeff Hendel). I think it's inappropriate for school, and am pretty sure that if one of my dad's students showed up in it, they'd be wearing their gym clothes (or at least the shirt inside out) for the rest of the day. But it kinda cracks me up.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment