Vision Statement for Use of Technology

Revolution doesn’t happen when society adopts new technologies - it happens when society adopts new behaviors. - Clay Shirky, Here Comes Everybody, p. 160

Licensed image from PresenterMedia

With educational technology, I believe we have passed the tipping point - technology is no longer simply a tool, or even a process, but an environment. It’s ubiquitous, pervasive, and is happening with or without educator consent. It enables things never before possible, and students are doing those things, again with or without us. “Any time, any place” learning is no longer just a catchphrase for the few students enrolled in online courses, but an apt description of what our students’ lives are like. Schools must embrace educational technology, using it to its fullest potential in order to generate enthusiasm, optimize resources, remove barriers to learning, and develop ICT skills (Roblyer, 2016). 

I believe that the use of technology tools has the potential to improve learning. This is not to say that inserting a piece of technology into a classroom, or even into students’ hands, will somehow transform learning. It is important, therefore, to note the shift in the way we define technology. From being an add-on, to a tool, to being “integrated” into the curriculum - up until now technology has been a thing apart, and something that teachers chose whether or not to use. But the Common Core State Standards cannot be accomplished without integrated technology use. The projects, activities, and expectations for students are riddled with outcomes that are best accomplished through the use of technology. Selecting the right technology for the problem requires an analysis of affordances, and choosing the tool with the greatest relative advantage. Different strategies and different tools can be the “best fit” for different students at different times. I think that instruction is most effective when a teacher has a wide variety of tools in their arsenal that all facilitate research-based strategies. It makes no more sense to say that an iPad improves learning than it does to say that a pencil improves learning.

Richard Clark (1986) looked at dozens of studies that compared teaching with technology with teaching in the traditional manner, and found that use of technology had no effect on student learning, if everything else remained the same. Kozma (2001) notes that “Whether or not a medium’s capabilities make a difference in learning depends on how they correspond to the particular learning situation - the tasks and learners involved - and the way the medium’s capabilities are used by the instructional design” (p 107). The Clark-Kozma debate is one of tool vs. process; if we use technology as a replacement for other tools there is likely to be no significant difference in learning, while if we take advantage of the affordances of the tool we may change instruction and learning. And thus the research on instructional strategies and learning experiences should be the driving force behind technology integration.

I believe that instruction should be judged not by the use of technology, but by the content and the interaction it facilitates. Technology isn’t a strategy or a pedagogy or an instructional behavior, it is a powerful tool that allows us to change the way we teach and has affordances that can potentially improve educational outcomes for a wide range of students. 

Clark, R. E. & Salomon (1986). Why should we expect media to teach anyone anything? In Clark, R. E. (Ed.), Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Kozma, R. (2001). Robert Kozma’s counterpoint theory of “learning with media”. In Clark, R. E. (Ed.), Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Roblyer, M.D. (2016). Integrating educational technology into teaching (7th Ed.). Allyn & Bacon.