Prompt:

“We often speak about computers in the classroom as if we and our audience have a common view of what they are and what function they serve. But the character of computers and their functionality have been very different at different points in time and…remain quite different for teachers of different subjects, teachers who teach students of different ages and backgrounds, and teachers who have characteristically different pedagogies” (Becker 2).

Becker’s research is one of the few large scale surveys that investigated what teachers are really doing with computers in the classroom. How does it compare with the data we discussed in class? How does the second research article (Addressing the NETS for students through constructivist technology use in K-12 classrooms) relate to Becker’s study? What factors/forces led teachers to use resources like computer technology to different extents and in different ways? Do you think teachers’ philosophies of education play a role in determining whether/how they will use computers?

Response:

I think an important thing to point out in regard to Becker’s study is that it was completed in 2001, and while computers were becoming more prominent in the classroom, it has not been until the past few years that things have really began to pick up. Most of us would have been in 4th grade in 2001 and at that time there was not a whole lot out in cyberspace (computer applications) for 4^thgraders other than Oregon trail (as mentioned).  While Becker’s study is very relevant to how technology began being used in the classroom, I feel it is not necessarily applicable to what is going on today.

Furthermore, this is propagated by the fact that the second research article is dated as 2006, only 3-4 years ago. The data in this article is much more applicable to our level of technology that is present in the classroom. I considered this article to be more related to the numbers we discussed in class as well as what I remember from my high school and middle school experiences. I thought it was especially intriguing that the second article pointed out that the “ pedagogical switch toward a more constructivist view of teaching and learning is incomplete” because not only is it incomplete, I consider it to be underdeveloped. With the resources that are available in the classroom environment, it should be easy to transfer to this effective teaching method.

Technology is variable in the classroom and many teachers view its effectiveness in a variety of ways. Philosophy most certainly plays a role in the form of technology utilized in a classroom, but so does subject matter as well as the group dynamics of the class being taught. In the same way that teachers do not teach 2^nd and 7^th graders the same, they would not use technology in the same way for a class of lower ability students and high ability students, it simply isn’t feasible. This is a considerable factor to recognize when looking at a school in regards to their use of technology. Computers and technology are great resources for our schools and education. But we have to recognize they are a variable resource, with them we can target specific children’s learning style and aptitude, and enhance their learning so that they can become the best students they can be.

Comments are closed