In my last post, I made reference to a “$500 pencil”. I was recently asked about exactly what that meant.
Technology is filtering into more and more classrooms. Some teachers are told by principals that they must use “technology”. Frequently, this happens when Chrome books or iPads are brought into the classroom. The teacher may not have been consulted on which technology to purchase. The teacher may not have been given any training. The mandate is to “use” technology.
While listening to Andy Ihnatko, I believe that is was on the Ihnatko Almanac – Episode 162, he mentioned that technology shouldn’t just make things easier, it should do one of two things. Those two things are to solve a problem or create an opportunity. That is a much more elegantly way to express what I usually try to say. It’s not enough to do “something” using technology, there should be a reason.
This helps explain the concept of the $500 pencil. The $500 pencil is when one uses a piece of technology (most recently and stereotypically an iPad) to accomplish something that could be easier, more efficient, and more effectively done with a pencil.
This puts me in conflict with the very widely known SAMR Model. Essentially, the SAMR Model has teachers starting by using technology as a substitution for established practices. The definition of substitution is “tech acts as a direct tool substitute, with no functional change” (i.e. a $500 pencil).
The idea is that the teacher will then move on to Augmentation, Modification and then Redefinition. Far too often, I’ve seen education stopping at Substitution. Moving beyond Substitution takes time and professional development.
I’m not so big on Substitution. Rather, like Andy Inhatko, I’d rather see technology used because it solves a problem or creates a new opportunity. For example, I’ve written about using Moodle to grade students doing presentations in class. This solved the problem of feedback being too delayed for students. It also solved the problem of going back to grade presentations and entering them into a gradebook.
Technology can also provide us with opportunities to change the construct of the classroom. It can make it possible for teachers to truly differentiate opportunities for students.
Technology really should fit into the bigger landscape of education and educational change. It should be part of a well designed, well thought out, well conceived educational plan. There should be ample professional development and well defined professional learning communities established.
Under these conditions, technology could be a crucial foundation of educational advancement. Technology is already part of a change, our very culture has changed because of it. But, can it be leveraged by educators to change the way that we are constructing and delivering education?
Leave a Reply