Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Issue #8 - Choose Your Own Issue

At first glance, I was worried about the ambiguity of the Issue #8 assignment.  However, once I decided upon a topic I really got into it and it seemed like I flew through it.  I hope that doesn't turn out to be a bad thing when it gets graded!

The topic that I selected was the difference between teachers that want to see technology funds spent on presentation tools (projectors, smartboards, elmo's, etc) and those that want to see them spent on student-use technolgies (laptops, digital cameras, hand-held computers, iPods, etc.). 

This topic really interested me because I feel the two factions at work in my own mind.  I teach every day using a smartboard hooked to an LCD projector hooked to a laptop.  My students very rarely get to use technology in my classroom.  I know better though.  Unfortunately, I am a slave to my 8th Grade math content standards and can't find time to dedicate time to letting the students use the technologies to learn.  I know it is possible and see it's potential, but don't have the time or patience to implement it now.

I also see this struggle regularly with colleagues.  Years ago, I went to a training on SmartBoards.  After seeing them at work--I had never seen them--I contacted my district's Technology Director (she has since retired) to ask what I'd have to do to get one in my classroom.  She argued that, while she could see it improving my instruction, she saw more value in things that the students can actually use to learn.  She said she could buy two laptops for kids to use instead of 1 smartboard for me to teach on.  She was right on all counts, but I didn't know it then.  I found another way to get a smartboard and am glad I did.  I can see her point though.  I'm not sure that it mattered in that situation--what are 2 computers going to do for a school system of 6,000 students?--but when faced with the decision between projectors in each room and equivalent worth of laptops, which would I choose?  That's my Issue #8 topic . . . 

No comments: