Why Classroom Technology Is Costing More Than Its Worth (2016)
thecoffeelicious.com
Why Classroom Technology Is Costing More Than Its Worth (2016)
1–10 of 83 posts
Re: Why Classroom Technology Is Costing More Than Its Worth (2016)
#2While interesting, and anecdotally seems correct to me, does anyone here with a background in education and/or education technology have any pointers on actionable ways to use technology more effectively? This piece never seems to get to that point, other than strongly encouraging training for teachers (that they provide if you go with their solutions).
Re: Why Classroom Technology Is Costing More Than Its Worth (2016)
#3The cookware analogy is a really good one.
A similar one can be seen in the arts:
"That's an amazing photo. You must have a really good camera!"
which you see here and there. As opposed to:
"That's an amazing painting. You must have really good brushes!"
(Disclaimer: I'm a photographer and I do know that the quality of the lens and sensor is going to play some role in the output, leaving aside things like Photoshop. But my point still stands.)
Re: Why Classroom Technology Is Costing More Than Its Worth (2016)
#4The author needs a good editor. There's something consistently "off" in both the style and the personality of this article. It made it very hard for me to assess whether what they are actually saying is worthwhile. Also the calculation mentioned in the title (and which he strangely calls 'archaic') is totally spurious.
Re: Why Classroom Technology Is Costing More Than Its Worth (2016)
#5While interesting, and anecdotally seems correct to me, does anyone here with a background in education and/or education technology have any pointers on actionable ways to use technology more effectively? This piece never seems to get to that point, other than strongly encouraging training for teachers (that they provide if you go with their solutions).
The piece isn't supposed to get to any point, really, because it's long-copy marketing. The whole idea is to keep you expecting a point for as long as possible, without delivering, then stop, hoping you decide to give the writer('s company) money.
Re: Why Classroom Technology Is Costing More Than Its Worth (2016)
#6Many schools do not make proper use of computer labs.
While you could teach practical skills such as
- how to process images, audio, video
- how to code
- math beyond silly games featuring anthropomorphic neotenized animals
- workshops for chess and go
- use one of the awesome open source software for chemistry, geometry, astronomy, etc...
Only use for computers is for people to write documents, search online, print and... waste a lot of time on games, social networks.
Re: Why Classroom Technology Is Costing More Than Its Worth (2016)
#7Chromebooks, quizlets, etc. ARE working in my kids schools. There is a lot of time and money spent teaching the teachers, and there is a high % of teachers with specialized training to start with. The tech is hard on the parents who complain about not being able to assist, monitor and support easily, if at all.
Re: Why Classroom Technology Is Costing More Than Its Worth (2016)
#8The author needs a good editor. There's something consistently "off" in both the style and the personality of this article. It made it very hard for me to assess whether what they are actually saying is worthwhile. Also the calculation mentioned in the title (and which he strangely calls 'archaic') is totally spurious.
This is a marketing piece badly masquerading as an informative article, after the pattern of awful "long copy" email/website marketing pieces. That's why it's "off".
Re: Why Classroom Technology Is Costing More Than Its Worth (2016)
#9I taught English in Japan for 2 years. I realized that the they spend less on education than America and have better results.
The solution to education problems isn't throwing money at it. Or at least spend it on teacher salaries, right?
Re: Why Classroom Technology Is Costing More Than Its Worth (2016)
#10The author needs a good editor. There's something consistently "off" in both the style and the personality of this article. It made it very hard for me to assess whether what they are actually saying is worthwhile. Also the calculation mentioned in the title (and which he strangely calls 'archaic') is totally spurious.
Agreed. It feels like a dialect issue. However the quality of the underlying ideas is good enough that I pushed through. Good analogy.