Janet

Article Review for Integrating Handhelds Professional Development class, SJS, July 7, 2006

THE Journal
November 2004
The Paradox of Integrating Handheld Technology in Schools: Theory vs. Practice
By Autumn Tooms, Michael Acomb & Jason McGlothlin, Kent State University

This article explores the problem that many schools face; technology is made available yet it remains on the shelf unused. The authors chose to do a very informal survey, i.e. beverages at the “local watering hole,” to discover why some administrators continue to rely on a leather datebook despite having training and access to a PDA or handheld.

The authors suggest that administrators need to understand the history of education technology in order to introduce new ideas and learning opportunities to students. The article goes on to outline the four major phases of computer technology that schools are all familiar with, but never does explain why it is necessary for administrators to ‘understand’ these phases. From my standpoint, administrators might gain a clearer understanding that computer technology is here to stay in all facets of life and probably should be introduced during the most formative years of a child’s life.

Citing research published in 2001, the article informed me that with handhelds:

• schools no longer spent time installing wires for computer access
• there was no longer a need for computer labs, thereby freeing space for classroom instruction
• student productivity increased
• and the cost and time of photocopying decreased due to a paperless system

I am fairly sure they were talking about a school district that had received grant money, because to blanket the entire school with a wireless operation tells me that they had ample money to upgrade as soon as wireless technology was available. The statement that computer labs were no longer needed implies that classroom teachers were trained at a very high level of competancy and were able to access further training as the technology changed. I can agree with a sweeping statement that student productivity increased. Because most students are dealing with technology at home, they are more than ready to plunge into technology at school and translate that energy into increased output in their educational accompliments. I think that the impact on the cost of photocopying would be minimal, unless there was an understanding that all lessons would employ the handhelds or there was a “paperless” goal set for the school.

A 2003 article was cited as saying that teachers who had ready access to computers had their children use the computers. This statement was a given to me. When the technology is readily available, both teachers and students are more likely to take advantage of it at the exact time and place they can have the greatest impact on learning. If technology use requires running down the hall and interrupting the flow of a class or the established demeanor, teachers are less likely to employ handhelds. Many good lessons can be accomplished with preplanning for handhelds, but I have found that some of the best lessons are the spontaneous ones that just seem “right” at the moment. The spontaneous lesson can also catch the student by surprise and liven up a slogging lesson. I have also found that the students will come up with possible used for the handhelds in the middle of a lesson. Having the technology at hand is very important!
This article labels schools as either “integrated or not” with the deciding factor being the pressure to add the phrase “integated technology” to their mission statement. The authors suggest that too often the decision to be “integrated” ends after the “how-to” meetings are done and little professional development ever happens. By embracing the term integrated technology, the school system sounds “scholarly, cutting edge and important.” Meanwhile, the teachers in the trenches are left struggling with little training and support. The authors suggest that the heart of technology, just like many currricular issues, is centered on the commitment of school leaders. Before administrators can facilitate a turn to technology, they must commit to what technology means to them. Furthermore, they must consider how technology is valued in their personal lives, as well as how they see it’s value in their schools.

When discussing the integration of technology into a school and into the culture of a faculty, the authors suggest that the plethora of digital choices might be seen as a vast buffet table. They see some people going for the fried chicken/pork roast area, some concentrating on the salad bar, and some heading straight for the desserts, while others pick little bits off each of these tables or perhaps just stick with their old favorites. And another popular scenario is that once a person is confronted with the overwhelmingly huge number of choices they lose all desire to “dine” at all. We have all seen our professional peers fall into any of these categories. We all know who to go to for help in speciality areas and who has had experience solving the kind of problem we are experiencing. As the authors say, there is no “clear global definition of technology integration.” Like so many other curricular issues in our schools, the job of figuring out technology’s role in learning and achievement is up to the leadership team of a school community. It seems rather important to spread the word that there is value in “digesting” even one part of the buffet of technology and alleviate the widespread feeling of guilt that hinders so many educators because they don’t have a handle on the whole picture.

The article concludes talking about the importance of an “initial investment in quality technology training – in a context that is relevant for the leaders.” It suggests that making the time for this to happen is often in the category of “some is better than none” and often serves to alienate and further frustrate administrators.

The article reminds all educators, not just leaders, of the importance of being willing to “sacrifice a little efficiency for a lot of effectiveness in the long run”, to look for small things that can employ technology right now today, and to look for tasks to learn for the long-term future by starting small and working the way up by baby steps.

The authors suggest that administrators and leadership teams ensure that they themselves, as well as their staff, are serious about embracing technology by sharing expectations with the staff and include those expectations in the teacher evaluation process. “Without that effort, there is no sense of accountability or assessment.”