August 17, 2012

Can You Teach Without Technology?

Can you teach without technology?

On some level, the answer is simple. Teaching is inherently relational and can be done pretty much anywhere. Socrates taught in a classroom without walls or texts in a time without the pencil. Same goes for Jesus and both were great teachers (who, in the long run, had terrible evaluations by those in charge).

I can teach without a whiteboard, without iPods, without a computer, without paper, without the curriculum, outside of my classroom. It's what happens on field trips, after all. And the quality of the teaching is less reflective of which tools I have available and more about how well I can ask questions, provide answers, listen, observe and provoke inquiry from a student.

So, yeah, it's possible to teach without technology.

And yet . . .

Technology still makes a huge difference. I'm in my eighth day in the classroom and my students have just begun the process of using Chromebooks, Kindle Fires (that are now essentially Android tablets) and brining in their own iPods. I'm already beginning to see a difference.

It starts out small. My monolinguals can translate words faster. Students can edit writing on their Google documents without dealing with hand-writing drafts. I can modify lessons on the spot without worrying about lesson planning. I can choose texts at differentiated levels. Students can post work and start a conversation in the blog comments section. Conversations are now podcasts, where they can hear themselves speaking more complex grammatical structures.

At this stage, technology isn't truly transformative. It's simply a faster way to do much of what we would already be doing. I could do most of this with paper and pencils. Many of my students are adjusting to a different style of teaching (more constructivist, with more critical thinking) while also adjusting to new technology skills.

For all the talk of Digital Natives, my students are still used to seeing these as consumer rather than creative devices.

However, it won't be long before they begin modeling mathematical processes, using spreadsheets, creating concept maps and editing one another's work in writer's workshops. Over time, they will film documentaries and work collaboratively with students in another city (and perhaps another country). They'll see the power in expressing their collective voice to a global audience and working with people in another social context.

Technology will be transformative, because, ultimately, technology isn't simply doing paper and pencil better. It involves learning in a way where information is readily available, repetitive tasks are minimized and interactions aren't tied to one location. It provides a platform to be creative in ways that once would have required a dark room and a film studio.

True, we can teach without technology. Good teachers always have. However, I know that technology has opened up possibilities that weren't available a decade or two ago.

photo credit: waferbaby via photo pin cc

19 comments:

  1. It's funny how the question belies the typically narrow definition of teaching - students and teacher in classroom, content delivered in one direction, teacher talks while students listen. I'm pretty sure that's not how I learned most of the useful things in m life.

    At the same time, technology in the classroom offers so many opportunities, if recognized and utilized purposefully.

    The big question that I've seen pop up over and over online is: is it right for students to be denied technology in their education?

    I say, in the 21st century and in our global economy and workforce - no, they shouldn't. In order to be able to produce in a way that will make them happy, and then successful, they need to not only understand how to use technology, but to use it to create in new and novel ways.

    An education without a purposeful use of technology is a disservice to students who are expected to go off and join a workforce and world that is more and more technology based.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The second part of your comment was something I was thinking of whilst reading through the post. You wrote it much better than I would have. :)

      Delete
    2. It is sad that the purpose of public education has been transformed to prepare students to join the workforce. They can go to McDonald's University for that.

      The purpose of public education is to prepare children to become thoughtful thinking citizens.

      Delete
    3. I think there is a paradox / balance here. Learning is vocational, which encompasses both life and a career.

      Delete
    4. The workforce has always been a base purpose behind education, but I firmly agree that it is SO MUCH MORE than just that.

      I'm not even sure that citizens isn't too limiting of a term I want my students to become thoughtful caring people.

      Thank you for pointing that out Doyle :-)

      Delete
    5. I agree, Jeff. And for what it's worth, you are one of the most holistic teachers I've seen.

      Delete
  2. Great post, John. One of the biggest questions I've always had is what kind of effect does teaching without technology have on the students as compared to teaching with technology? Does technology lessen apathy of those students who are in school simply because they have to be?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting point. I think that's possible. However, I also think it's possible that project-based learning, a debate, a deep discussion or more meaningful literature can all chip away at the apathy.

      Delete
  3. Thanks John for this great post, but I am afraid I do not share the same view with you. Technology is educationaès backnone in the 21st century. If students are not taught digital skills then they would not find a spot in the job market, things have changed and so means of education.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think I made it pretty clear that technology is crucial. I don't deny that point. I'm saying that it's possible to teach without it, but it's a bad idea. I'm arguing that technology can be transformational.

      Delete
    2. Again, public education is not about prepping kids to work for corporations--they have plenty of money to train children.

      I don't train children, I teach them. While it sounds like semantics, it exposes a huge gulf between those who focus on teaching as an act of publicservice, and those whose obsession with producing workers using public monies borders on the classic definition of fascism. (Look it up.)

      A lot of tech is great for this--the inet is a wonderful tool. A lot of tech is schlock. The SmartBoard is about as useful as the back of a napkin.

      I happen to love the back of napkins--but napkins are a whole lot cheaper.

      Delete
    3. Some of the best teachers didn't use the technology available in their day (Socrates and Jesus come to mind) but rather depended upon the human voice. They were effective for reasons that went beyond a particular medium.

      And yet . . .

      They had students who made sense out of their teachings by using the available technology.

      I'm not sure I'm making sense here, but that's what I'm trying to get at: it's vital, but there's also a deep, profound way that we teach and it has little to do with the tech.

      Delete
  4. I think that we can all teach without gadgets, yet we definitely need technology and there's a clear difference between the two.

    Your last couple of paragraphs intrigue me because I agree that the potential for creative output is so great due to better access to tools that were once only available to professionals (if only my friends and I had video editing software when we were playing around with my parents' VHS camcorder ...). Not only that, there are publishing platforms for all media that didn't exist when I was in school.

    But ... I know firsthand how frustrating it can be to see a lack of motivation on the part of those students whose creativity you're trying to encourage. Too many times have so many things been at my students' disposal and too many times have I been completely underwhelmed.

    You can lead a horse to water ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting point. I wonder if the age makes a difference. My kids seem super-excited. Then again, they're sixth graders.

      Delete
  5. Perhaps the real question is not that teachers can teach without technology, but can students learn with or without technology? Sure, technology sure helps, but we have to get away from a lecture and teaching to the test mode. The students are the ones who have to sweat out the day!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. It needs to be about more than simply tossing technology in a room. The big issues have to do with how much standardized testing we do and how often teachers lecture.

      Delete
  6. Masters in hospital administration-- The Indian health market is rising at a very good rate and therefore, there is a need of medical professionals. Masters in hospital administration is a two-year program offered by many universities. Sharda University also offers this course in its campus.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Your blog is excellent. . Let me inform u one thing that post have become most up-to-date and vital source of quality free information.
    Custom Dissertation

    ReplyDelete

Please leave a comment. I enjoy the conversation.