Last night I listened to Dr. Gary Stager on a live Webinar presented by #Edchat, and The Educator’s PLN. As I often do after attending such presentations, I latched on to one statement by the speaker and began noodling and reflecting for the purpose of further exploration. Dr. Stager took issue with the term “Device” in regard to it being used as a term for a specific computer used as a tool for learning. He made his point by explaining that people do not walk into an Apple Store and ask to see a device. If that is true, how did we, as educators, arrive at a place where we use such a generic term for any form of technology that we want to use in the classroom?
From my point of view I find technology to be an integral part of learning for today’s learners. Of course not every educator agrees, and I recognize that. I also acknowledge that there are many times where technology does not fit into a lesson. No educator should use tech for the sake of using tech. If it doesn’t fit, don’t force it. However, for the purpose of collection, collaboration, communication, or creation of content, technology beats out the old school methods. Of course, there are some who would not accept that.
That resistance on the part of some educators might very well be a contributing factor in the use of the word “Device” as opposed to the word “Computer” in education. I am always amazed that a profession filled with so many people holding advanced degrees can be so resistant to a tool, or apparatus, or a “device” for learning. There, I did it as well. I called it everything but a computer. Why? (Actually in this case it was to make the point) The idea of a computer is similar to garbage dump. Yes, we need it; yes, we must have it; No, I do not want it in my backyard. As long as somebody else is using a computer in some other class, educators can say that kids are using tech in education.
Many believe that the best way to engage our kids in learning and preparing them with the skills that they will need in the world in which they will live, requires a computer for each student. That idea however, is a hard sell. Once we recognize that as a fact, it commits every community to a goal that many are not willing to pay for in either intellectual or monetary currency. It would require that all educators immediately become media literate, and communities would be required to fund a computer for every child. Those commitments will not happen. The plan then becomes, “If they don’t buy into computers, let’s try to get them to accept devices.” The word itself sounds cheaper and less intimidating.
More and more schools are committing to a laptop for every student. This scares a great number of people. The costs involved initially go beyond just the cost of the computers. It requires training teachers in the use of the computers, as well as new methods in teaching while using computers as a tool for learning. This is a big commitment. Many educators have been educated with limited computer use and now they are being asked to put that aside and learn a different, less familiar, and less comfortable way of teaching. The idea of “devices” may be a baby step way of getting there. If we can use the smart phones that kids are familiar with as a “Mobile Learning Device”, that could be a baby step forward. If an IPod is small enough, and cheap enough that is another device that takes us a baby step forward. A tablet with an Interactive White Board is a cute device, and it may also take us a baby step forward. My only problem with any of this is that we are not babies. We cannot settle for baby steps.
All of these devices are great for what they do, but we need more of a total commitment, if we want real education reform. There is no way to expect reform without having to change something. Band-Aids and baby steps over time are expensive alternatives to a thoughtful commitment. If we are not yet ready for the financial commitment, we can at least claim a computer for every child as a goal. The professional development of teachers can then be focused for that in preparation of reaching that goal. “Devices”, at that point, must be recognized as stop-gap measures, and not the end goal. They are all parts of the bigger picture of technology integrated into curriculum. Technology designed to support the curriculum without replacing it. Technology should empower the teacher to do more not less. Technology should remove boundaries of time and space for students. Technology should enable learning to take place anytime and anywhere. Technology should enable life-long learning for teachers and students alike.
Your comments are welcomed
My Island View 
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tom Whitby, Shelly S Terrell, Henrick Oprea, Coopmike48, Edtech Feeds and others. Edtech Feeds said: New Post: Will a Device Suffice?: Last night I listened to D. Gary Stager on a live Webinar presen… http://bit.ly/eEAjE1 by @tomwhitby […]
I look at it as a tool for the trade…in science the tool may be computers, tablets and probes…in English it is a computer etc…in Career and Tech programs it may be more advanced machines and handheld devices…so tech tools is a better term for me…device has some interesting connotations and I agree it ihas taken on a negative term from those not wanting to use them…you know those devices…much like when the auto or bike came into vogue at the end of the 19th century…those nasty useless devices…
Nice post Tom–I have often wondered why educators shy away from the word computer. I first started noticing it in the 90’s when new admins would talk about technology as opposed to computers. Truth be told, almost everything now is a computer. There’s even a negative connotation associated with desktop computer–oh, you don’t use a laptop or a tablet or a smarthphone? Last time I checked, they are all computers.
All people, whether educators or not, who are resistant (aka afraid) of tech will always use something to make them feel more comfortable. All the techies I know and have worked with call them computers. If pressed they call them by their real names–desktops, laptops, phones, tablets, servers, etc. They never call them devices.
You’ve inspired me to get started on a post I’ve long been thinking about–I’ll let you know when it’s done.
I love these types of discussions. We need to continue to reflect on what we do and how we use “computers” to facilitate learning for ourselves and our students. I also welcome those who challenge our use of tech. I need to reflect on why a use of a certain tech didn’t work for a certain activity so that I can try something different next time. I need to reflect on why I have my students use tech or why they are gravitating towards the tech. The danger being in our students taking the quick way out instead of thinking critically and deeply about the questions.
That being said I am eternally frustrated by educators who for whatever reason refuse to use technology or refuse to have students use technology in their classes. I have to admit that I also get frustrated at the “baby steps” people take. Years ago I was helping my school put computers into teachers classes so that tech was accessible by students anytime. I am still bitter to this day that the majority, or the “right” people, chose to go with one computer lab instead. I also can’t believe that teachers quit using technology because it fails them. As much as I hate it, the reality is that no technology is perfect. It’s going to fail, freeze, quit, be blocked, take long to load, etc, etc. Accepting that will allow us to problem solve, have back up plans, or, heaven forbid, be patient.
When books became plentiful and the printed word was the tool of the time did teachers shy away from it?? When writing became something that all our students were expected to do did we ban writing utensils or confiscate them because notes were being passed or because kids were doodling?
I guess your post just stirred all those things up in me. :o)
I love integrating technology into my teaching because it reflects what we do in the real world. Outside of work, I use technology to accomplish many things in my life, so why wouldn’t my students and I do the same in the classroom?
I think I prefer the words “device” or “tool” to “computer,” not because technology frightens me, but because we have such a set idea of what a computer is. You know, it sits on a desk. I have four of them in my classroom and kids take turns using them. I know that the term really means anything that can do the work of “computing,” but the term still conjures up a picture of a desktop unit. When I talk about a “device,” I mean any piece of technology that can do what I need to get done. More importantly, it opens the discussion up to many types of computing options.
Take how I access Google Doc as an example. I use Google Docs as a tool to collaborate with other teachers and my 5th grade students. Students also use it to share their work with me in a way that we can easily communicate about their work and they can edit fluidly. I can use any range of computer/devices to access, comment, and edit: my phone, my iPad, my laptop, or my desktop. (I just realized that I don’t generally use “tool” for hardware because I have somehow come to attach the term to applications.)
I’m OK with any term that opens up the discussion to all the options out there. Laptops may be financially out of reach for some communities at the moment, but there are plenty of other “devices” that we are already using in our non-school lives that can be put to use in school.
BTW, our high school plans to go 1:1 with iPads next year and our elementary school is pursuing funding to see if we can do the same with one grade level.
Great post, Tom.
When I consider technology integration, I use the word “device” because I’m not talking exclusively about computers. It covers iPads, clickers, cell phones, iPods, and even more broadly, it opens the conversation to the incorporation of software (Google docs, Twitter) in the classroom.
The advent of the iPad and other tablet devices (I said it again!) truly have the possibility of meaningfully disrupting education. Beyond education apps and word processors, I am confident that the next big bubble will be the incorporation of curriculum delivered through such devices. I wrote more on this topic on my blog: http://www.uwemp.com/2011/02/textbooks-textbooks-textbooks/
I agree to your point: “I am always amazed that a profession filled with so many people holding advanced degrees can be so resistant to a tool, or apparatus, or a “device” for learning.” I am always confused where the fear of learning about new ways to deliver education stems from, especially considering the opposition is primarily from people who have spent their entire lives learning.
Cheers,
Jordan
@jrwolfe
I do not find the term device problematic. While I acknowledge this is generic, and in some cases a neutralizing of a specific technology plan, I find some power in flexibility.
We have been trying to jump ahead of the curve with technology long enough to realize that education cannot move fast enough to be ahead of the technology curve. I like the open nature of a generic term, so that my science class could use different technologies than your history class and her math class. If a better technology comes about a more open policy can embrace it instead of being married to a previous technology.
Since 1:1 is monetarily out of reach for many districts it is also the white flag that if students bring their own devices that district will make its infrastructure accessible. I count that alone as a huge win for student access, further more an incentive to develop a robust infrastructure over trying to prognosticate the future of devices.
If the end user has control over the quality of his/her device and a school provides minimum accessibility for any student that cannot provide their own I have no issue with the term.
Great food for thought Tom, thank you.
Hi Tom,
First, thanks for sharing your thoughts on your blog and everywhere else I seem to click. You have provided me with much to reflect upon. Secondly, I agree with your position on education reform you posted in this blog. As a very passionate 6th grade teacher, we always seemed held back by infrastructure. We found plenty of methods to engage students in learning, but so little of “it” was digital. This was not totally the fault of a downed server, no lab space, or the pace of trying to standardize everything, but we “teachers” had a lot to do with lack of digital learning. We have become learned helpless because of a few difficult digital lessons. The irony is, we hate to see young people demonstrate this quality. It typically saddens educators. In short, the 1:1 movement will change the current growth rate of educators. I engaged students in learning, but I had the opportunity to have them learn with passion. I needed to meet their needs in areas other than mastery of a standard.
I’ve enjoyed reading your blogs. I am currently one of those student teachers that you have discussed in some of your blogs, Young vs. Old; Good vs. Bad. I’ve found your viewpoint very consistent with how I view a lot of issues the education field faces today. Right now, as a student teacher I have a million things that run through my head on a daily basis. It’s very difficult at times to know the best way to implement some of the ideas and lessons that I consider, but I feel confident that as my experience continues to grow, I will better understand how to best implement increasingly effective lesson plans. With that said, many of those ideas and lessons that I consider involve the use of technology, often times a computer or as your blog states a “device”. I definitely don’t disagree with your assessment of needing at least 10 years before being considered experienced. I feel there are so many things to learn through practice, and with the culture of education under constant change, it is easy to understand why it takes so long to obtain the label “experienced”. I try to implement technology whenever possible and I gain more and more confidence with various forms of technology each time it is used in the classroom. I do like how you point out not to force it into lesson plans, as I have learned using technology without purpose is often more detrimental than not using it at all. But for some teachers to ignore technology for the simple reason of fear of the unfamiliar doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. If we are not willing to allow ourselves to learn and grow as educators, how can we expect our students to be held accountable in with their own education and growth as students? I am currently at a school where we have limited access to technology such as computers for our students. It is difficult to schedule time for classes to get into the computer lab, often competing with other classes for time in the lab. I consider a day when all students have access to their own computer. Imagine the possibilities. You stated it well when you said “Technology should remove boundaries of time and space for students”. Things such as students creating their own blogs, gaining a voice through classroom discussion boards, and having access to classroom progress and assignments from anywhere and anytime is the future I envision. There are already schools that have seen such realities, but for many this has yet to a reality realized.
I am encouraged by the fact that, as a pre-service teacher, you get it. Thanks for the positive feedback on my posts. Your response has validated my efforts. Thanks.