1. Defense of Education Technology in the Classroom
DJ Marshall, MSN, RN
Palm Beach Community College
EME 5054
1

2. The Arguments Against Education Technology in the Classroom
The addition of Technology in the classroom has not been researched properly.
Education Technology has had No Significant Difference to learning.
Technology in the classroom is not what was promised.
2

3. The Criticism: The Addition of Technology has not been researched.
E-learning has not transformed how professors teach. Faculties still teach as they were taught: the sage on the stage instead of being the guide on the side.
3

4. The Criticism: The Addition of Technology has not been researched.
Technology mediated activities replace the interactions between students and instructors, and this can put distance learners at a disadvantage.
There is not compelling evidence that computers help children learn how to read. Books should come first.
4

5. The Criticism: The Addition of Technology has not been researched.
There is a lack of outcome evidence in special education.
5

6. The Criticism: The Addition of Technology has not been researched.
Perception and satisfaction should not be the research focus in special education.
6

7. The Criticism: Education Technology has had No Significant Difference.
Studies are more anecdotal than conclusive.
7

8. The Criticism: Education Technology has had No Significant Difference.
Learning by the students has not been increased.
8

9. The Criticism: Education Technology has had No Significant Difference.
Schools have used computers rather than known, acceptable ways to improve learning.
9

10. The Criticism: Education Technology has had No Significant Difference.
The effects of the computers on the brain are unknown.
10

11. The Criticism: Education Technology has had No Significant Difference.
Computers send the wrong message.
11

12. The Criticism: Education Technology has had No Significant Difference.
Computers give a student tunnel vision.
12

13. The Criticism: Technology in the classroom is not what was promised.
Adjunct faculty are less expensive than full time faculty.
13

14. The Criticism: Technology in the classroom is not what was promised.
Faculty will be concerned about their salary.
14

15. The Criticism: Technology in the classroom is not what was promised.
Tuition costs will increase.
With increasing numbers of online courses, the IT department would have shunt monies away from other salaries, and increase their power.
15

16. The Criticism: Technology in the classroom is not what was promised.
Classroom computers can usurp the teachers teaching time.
16

17. The Criticism: Technology in the classroom is not what was promised.
Businesses can gain too much influence over the curriculum creating a weakness in problem solving .
17

18. The Criticism: Technology in the classroom is not what was promised.
Internet beginners are at risk.
18

19. The Criticism: Technology in the classroom is not what was promised.
E-learning has not produced the numbers that were expected.
19

20. The Criticism: Technology in the classroom is not what was promised.
Students prefer technology based entertainment and social contact.
20

21. The Criticism: Technology in the classroom is not what was promised.
Millions of dollars are being spent to bring cutting edge programs to a small number of students, and this technology will be obsolete in 18 months.
Educators are not savvy consumers of technology, but educators and schools want the latest technology.
21

22. The Criticism: Technology in the classroom is not what was promised.
Educators are attracted to large cost programs that can be purchased at the store for a fraction of the package price.
There is little evidence to support that computer-assisted instruction is cost effective.
22

23. Conclusions
Move forward
Determine the purpose and need for technology
Determine goals before acquiring technology
Technology in the classroom is a supplement to education, not the replacement for education
23

24. Conclusions
Faculty must adjust their face to face courses
Research needs to be carefully designed
Research needs to report actual trends
Teaching practice needs to adjust to evidence found in research
24

25. References
Culp, K. M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E.,(2003). A retrospective on twenty years of education technology policy. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. Found at: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/20years.pdf
Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. The MacArthur Foundation. Found at: http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF
25

26. References
McMillan, R. (2009). Windows 7 may be secure, but are will still safe? Computerworld Operating Systems. Found at: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9140642/Windows_7_may_be_secure_but_are_Windows_users_safe_
Roberts, D. F., Foehr, U. G., & Rideout, V., (2005). Generation M: Media in the lives of 8-18 year olds. Keiser Foundation. Found at: http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/Generation-M-Media-in-the-Lives-of-8-18-Year-olds-Report.pdf
26

27. References
Schacter, J. (1999)The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the current research has to say. The Milken Family Foundation. Found at: http://www.mff.org/pubs/ME161.pdf
Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: what the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds) Elements of Quality Online Education, Practice and Direction. Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education, 13-45. Found at: http://www.sarahbiddlewilliams.com/articles/swan_2003.pdf
27

28. References
Waxman, H. C., Connell, M. L., & Gray, J. (2002). A quantitative synthesis of recent research on the effects of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Found at: http://online.education.ufl.edu/file.php/3277/Week7_Critics/waxman.pdf
28