APLING678 Week 11 - Low Technology, Creativity, and Access

Guiding Questions:

• What can you do with technology when you have limited resources?
• What are the key challenges when we talk about technology in the language classroom?
• How do we deal with these challenges to ensure that technology integration is effective and equitable?

Readings: 

• eReserves: Lord, G. & Lomica, L. (2011). Chapter 14 Calling on Educators: Paving the Way for the Future of Technology and CALL. In Arnold & Ducate (eds.)
• eBrary: Warschauer, M. (2003) Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the digital dvide. Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 (pp. 109-135; till the end of the section: Computers in US schools…) Available throughhttp://site.ebrary.com/lib/umass/detail.action?docID=10225286
• eBrary: Pflaum, W. D. (2004). The Technology Fix. Introduction (pp 1-10) and the introduction page for each of the five sections to decide if any of the case studies are interesting for your context. Choose one. Available through: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/umass/reader.action?docID=10054295&ppg=10 

Substantive Post:

Key Challenges to Technology in the Language (or any) Classroom:

After reading Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point, William Pflaum asked himself what the tipping point would be that would finally make technology thrive in the classroom (p. 3). He noticed that lots of money had been invested in technology in schools, but we weren’t seeing a measurable impact as a result. I agree with you, Jonathan, that three of the main challenges addressed in this week’s readings are related to teacher training, strong leadership, and equitable access.

Lord and Lomicka point out that teacher training is a key factor in improving the state of CALL (p. 441). They also find that most teachers “want to learn to use technology effectively in their language classrooms” and need training (p. 449). The challenge seems to be access to and time for training; the motivation and desire is there. If strong leadership is present, the teachers might be getting the training they need at their schools; if not, they can find ways to share best practices with each other (Lord and Lomicka, p. 454). Referring to global communities, Warschauer said that we need “sufficient digital content that is relevant to people and in the language of their communities” and that this content is often produced by “people in the targeted communities themselves” (p. 108). He was speaking of communities in a more traditional, geographic sense, but I think the same applies to a community of teachers (speaking the common language of education). We can produce content and share technology training with each other. In fact, that’s what we’re doing for our final project in this class. Our VLE is supposed to be set up so that any teacher could find our site and implement our project in her class. Lord and Lomicka also offer up many suggestions for educational networking, following blogs, connecting with professional organizations, finding Language Resource Centers, finding help through textbook publisher websites, etc. (p. 450-455). It might require some time and effort if technology training is not offered to us through our schools, but they are plenty of resources out there if a teacher can put in the time to seek out training.

I chose to read the first 5 chapters of Pflaum’s book because these were about his findings in the schools that had both commitment and focus. They seemed to be the most likely to provide me with insight on what IS working with technology in classrooms. Strong leadership and equitable access are key and are possible, even in low income schools. St. Mary’s Elementary School benefited from a community approach to acquiring technology. They had parents, teachers, a nearby university, and a college student involved in setting up their labs, building their computers, and getting internet access to the school AND to teachers at home (chapter 1). Harriet Tubman Elementary used Title I funds and a grant from a church to help get the technology they wanted (chapter 2). Longworth High School allows students to come in early to use the computers if they don’t have access at home (chapter 3). Mitchell Elementary saves some money by using beta versions of software (chapter 5). There are ways around the inequality if schools are able to think outside the box, ask for help, and get the community involved. This requires strong leadership from the top and a commitment on the part of the teachers. One of the reasons these 5 schools are successful is that their teachers are involved in the decision-making. The teachers at St. Mary’s feel more ownership and more comfortable with the computers because they were a part of the process of building the computers (ch. 1). At Washington-Connors Elementary, the teachers helped design the building (ch. 4). At all five of these schools, the principals and/or technology coordinators emphasized the importance of technology complementing and supporting the teachers but not replacing them.

Pflaum concludes that the following things are important to ensure that technological integration is successful and effective: strong leadership, coordinated curriculum, a sense of ownership on the part of the teachers (p. 17-18), parental contact, the desire to serve and build communities (p. 25), a strong message of hope and confidence in the students (p. 34), pride, energy, data, and concern (p. 47).