The Trouble with Technology: Common Complaints 2 of 2

Part 2 of the “Common Complaints” deals with the facts about technology in the classroom: legitimate complaints or fears that teachers about when integrating technology with pedagogy. The list will attempt to explain how I view these items as troublesome, but more importantly provide ideas for overcoming them as obstacles:

1) Time – between grading papers, writing tests, preparing lesson plans, actual teaching, and all the other time-hungry commitments teachers have, where is the time to learn about and play with and plan for technology in class? With the pace of technology, teachers are just getting comfortable with the idiosyncracies of one when they are encouraged to use something new because the other is now “out-dated.” Frustrating? Only if when the instructor feels the need to be in complete control (see “Common Complaints 1 of 2” on how problematic control-freaks can be when teaching). The issue is a matter of pedagogical principle. If an instructor is able to turn tech problems or other issues that are often alleviated by spending vast amounts of time prepping into learning situations, then the pressure of time goes down. Easier said than done for many teachers, but technology maybe just isn’t a good fit for all pedagogical philosophies.

2) Money – technology costs money. Lots and lots of money. And to stay current, budgets have begun to allocate more and more money into technology; this raises a lot of questions, eyebrows, and complaints (do we want another tenured professor, or new computers? Etc.). Even with increasing tech budgets, many schools are still struggling to find the funds to facilitate tech-enabled classrooms. There is no simple solution for this issue; if there were, I’d write a book on it and retire. Rather than confronting it as a lack of funds, many teachers approach it as an opportunity to be creative: they utilize technologies currently at hand, even out of date, because of a “something is better than nothing” mentality; they encourage public library trips (in or out of class) to make use of technologies provided there; they attempt to employ other class activities that mimic the benefits of technology without the cost, and probably have better success than instructors who ignore the issue (of technology) because of the problem (of money).
3) Rap Factor, or “Creepy Treehouse” – this may be more of a pet peeve of mine than something I’ve read or discussed with others, but it needs to be listed. When I was going through secondary education, even as early as elementary school, teachers were trying to be contemporary and cool. In order to be with the times, they tried to latch on to things they believed the students found appealing and twisted it. The result was “rapping” in a way that belittled popular culture. It was as if, at some conference every teacher at my school attended, somebody proposed incorporating “rap” exercises as a way to encourage student participation. There was nothing more alienating or embarrassing than having a wizened instructor assemble a soulless rhyme couplet to try and “rap” with her students. I felt sorry for her, even at the tender age of ten. It was painful and ineffective. Contemporary parallels can be found in teachers “friending” students or setting up mandatory course groups on the social networking site Facebook. The phrase for this is “creepy treehouse” and more information on it can be found here:

http://flexknowlogy.learningfield.org/2008/04/09/defining-creepy-tree-house/

So how can instructors know if they’re building a creepy treehouse? As GI Joe would say, “knowing is half the battle,” but also questioning the motives of technology integration. Does the technology serve a pedagogical purpose? Or is it just there to make the teacher “cool”?