Running head: RENDERING SCHOOLS OBSOLETE

Rendering Schools Obsolete:

The Issue of Adopting vs. Adapting Technology in Classrooms

Danielle Couture

ETEC 511-64 A
UBC

Dr. Matiul Alam

December 11th, 2015

RENDERING SCHOOLS OBSOLETE

Introduction:
Schools as we know them are obsolete(Mitra, 2013)
The end of year was approaching; the grade 10 final exam looming. I called each
student to my desk and went over their grades encouraging them to study diligently. A
student approached nervously, and asked Miss, do you think I can pass? I smiled
encouragingly and, to reassure him, opened my Excel spreadsheet and showed the student
what his final grade would be if he achieved 60% on the final exam. His eyes widened as
he said Wait, you can use Excel to calculate stuff! Two questions immediately arose in
my mind: 1) why had this student not yet been given the opportunity to explore Excel?
2) Is this student therefore truly prepared for a technologically literate society?
The current education system can no longer guarantee the production of fully
functional members of a technocratic society; schools are becoming obsolete. The
inability of schools, despite funding and resource availability, to keep up with the proper
implementation of modern technology is seen as problematic for many (Zhao & Frank,
2003). Yet this issue does not result from the intrinsic nature of technology or from its
speed of evolution; schools, and by association teachers, are becoming obsolete due to
their perception of technology in education, their manner of implementing technology in
the classroom (Daniels, Jacobsen, Varnhagen, & Friesen, 2013) and their
misappropriation of TPACK as defined by Mishra and Koehler (2006). These factors play
a crucial role in the demise of the relevance of school and teacher. This article hopes to
summarize the common misappropriations of technology that result in widened the gap

RENDERING SCHOOLS OBSOLETE

between schools and the needs of society and to provide guidelines to limit the improper
integration of technology in schools.
Common Perceptions of technology
Educational technology has been heralded as the solutions by some, denounced
as a false deity (Gregory, 1996) by others and compared to an invasive species (Zhao &
Frank, 2003). Although to the outside observer these perceptions might seem trivial or
amusing, the manner educational technology is viewed affects its implementation in the
classroom (Puckett, 2013). A teacher that views technology as the solution to all is
more likely to over-apply technology rendering it useless in most cases. A teacher that
views technology negatively might, at first sign of trouble, drop the technology and deem
it ineffective enforcing his/her original point of view. Very few teachers take the
necessary time to fully analyse technology and integrate it within the curriculum
(Barbera, Gros, & Kirschner, 2012). More often than not, technology is brought in as an
afterthought; as high tech baubles to dazzle and hopefully motivate the students. Such
practices do not prepare the students for their integration within a technologically
advanced society, and therefore such perceptions reinforce the belief that schools are
obsolete.
The current application of technology
In an attempt to bridge the gap between school and societys expectations to form
functional members of todays literate society, school are taking on various forms of
technology (Puckett, 2013). However this may be misguided. Many educators take
technological resources and apply them uniformly without consideration in a similar

RENDERING SCHOOLS OBSOLETE

fashion to Mark Twains quote: To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
They do not reflect on the manner in which to properly use the technology. This haste
actually increases the gap between the educational system and societys expectations as
the efficiency of technology in education is dependent on the manner in which it is used
(Tufte, 2003).
In this haste, educators are likely to over-consume technology; exhausting one
technological resource after another by poorly integrating them and subsequently
dismissing them as ineffective. The negative experience of one teacher as a result of this
improper implementation can dissuade others from attempting to integrate the technology
themselves. In fact this overconsumption and misuse of technology on a large scale can
increase the chance of believing and generalizing that all technology is simple ineffective
in teaching.
Also, in spite of access and funding to make technology ubiquitous in the
classroom, technology is still mainly being used by both teachers and the students for
low-level tasks (Ertmer, 2005). Students are not using technology in authentic
applications. Instead they are focussing on the basics first level of these technologies for
that is the level of comfort of many teachers. Similar to the Excel example given above,
the student had only used Excel to plot graphs, a first level function of excel, yet never as
a spreadsheet.
In our haste to appear technological literate, teachers and schools are in fact
rendering themselves obsolete. We are applying technology too quickly without
considering the social context in which the technology is to be used. Our current manner

RENDERING SCHOOLS OBSOLETE

of integrating technology is based on a techno centric view instead of a technopedagogical view as described by Yurdakul et al. (2012). We are adopting technology,
learning how to use it, yet we are not adapting it, applying it to the pedagogical and
content knowledge.
Misappropriation of Technology in the classroom: TPACK vs PCK + T
When education was developed around teacher-experts, technology could simply
sit on the sidelines as a tool. Yet technology, now ubiquitous in society, has raised itself to
the same level of importance as pedagogical and knowledge content. Therefore
technology must be integrated at an equal level.
TPACK (Technology, pedagogical and content knowledge) was a framework
designed by Mishra and Koehler (2006) to visually illustrate how to properly merge and
integrate all three components together in efficient learning. TPACK still remains elusive,
as many teachers continue to focus on the implementation of the technology: technocentric approach (Yurdakul et al., 2012). Applying TPACK is not about jumping on a
band-wagon, it is about critically analyzing your context, students and situations and
selecting the technology that suits your situation the best.
Teachers, in my personal experience, firmly believe that they are engaged in
TPACK when in reality technology is often viewed and presented as a reward (Ertmer,
2005). Instead of being used to provide authentic technologically enhanced learning
situations, computer time is given to curtail poor behavior. Reward systems, might serve
as positive reinforcements (Skinner as described by McLeod (2007)) yet this application
of technology does not result in its proper integration within a TPACK context.

RENDERING SCHOOLS OBSOLETE

Furthermore, we must consider what behaviors/ideas educators are actually being

reinforced through such actions. Are we clearly modelling technology and authentic
situations or are we modelling that technology is a source of entertainment; it is the treat
and the subject matter is dull and boring.
The true manner in which to incorporate education is not to full heartedly
embrace it with arms wide open. Educators, administrators and students need to take the
time to critically consider the use of the technology within the classroom environment
(Puckett, 2013). Wilson (2003) in his 2002 talk eLearning, Is it over? states: Its about
serving learners and not about using technology. To properly incorporate technology,
educators must carefully consider the technologies provided to them and compare the
weaknesses and strengths of each with their specific needs. The question becomes not
how to adopt a technology but how to adapt technology and how to adapt to technology.
Adapting vs. Adopting
Technology is often adopted when it is applied uniformly with little or no regard
to subject, context, student or task. It is part of the educators tool kit, but they have yet to
make it their own and as such have no idea how it should be used. By adopting
technology, educators are blind to its merits and limitations and will never see the
relevance in its application, rendering the technology eventually inefficient. By adopting
technology, educators are no longer creating; they are borrowing (Godsey, 2015), they are
no longer incorporating; they are showing off technology like a bauble.
Let us consider how a staple in todays education system, the PowerPoint
presentation, has been adopted by many. PowerPoint was originally created to

RENDERING SCHOOLS OBSOLETE

compensate for the limitations provided by the overhead projector. Presenter and
presentation were granted the ability for movement; the text was no longer confined to a
linear stream and the educator no longer restrained by the overhead. However, educators
now confine themselves behind their computer screen and to the constraints of
PowerPoint providing overloaded slides in an attempt to convey knowledge to a very
passive audience seen only in the faint glow of the projector (Adams, 2008). Why is this
technology not still dazzling audiences and providing the freedom it once promised? The
technology is the same therefore the fault must lie in its application and not in its nature.
Educators adopted PowerPoint; never adapted it to them or them to it. Instead of
modifying their practicum, they presented text-heavy cumbersome slides (Tufte, 2003);
they digitalized the acetate. PowerPoint is now deemed by many as inefficient as it failed
to deliver what was promised. Yet it is important to note that it is not the technology at
fault, it is the user that failed to discover the potential of this technology by implementing
it incorrectly. Currently, in lieu of the inefficient PowerPoint, teachers are now
adopting interactive white boards. Yet, seeing as educators still do not adapt their
practicum, and use this interactive technology as glorified projector, they are dismissing
the interactive possibilities this technology was designed to fulfill and are condemning it
to be dismissed as ineffective. The efficiency of a technology should never be judged
unless its true potential has been explored.
It has become apparent that if we wish to prove that education, school and in
association teacher still do have a relevant role to play in education, we need to carefully
consider how we are integrating educational technology. We need to ask ourselves
whether we are truly adapting our teaching methods, modernizing them to fit with the

RENDERING SCHOOLS OBSOLETE

incoming technology, or simply adopting them without consideration, relegating them to

a shadow of what they are.
In order to answer such questions we need to clearly explain why many teachers simply
adopt instead of adapt. First , teachers often do not fully understand the technology they
are expected to use (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). This might be partially due to the fact that
they did not experience such technology themselves at school, yet this does in no way
mean that new teachers will have a natural affinity to adapting curriculum to technology
(Lewington, 2012). According to Lewington (2012), new teachers lack the knowledge
and comfort level with the curriculum necessary to efficiently adapt technology to
pedagogy and vice versa. Both the feelings of overconfidence and intimidation in the
presence of technology, can lead to the poor implementation of technology in the
classroom (Clarke & Zagarell, 2012). Another concern brought up by Clarke and Zagarell
(2012) is whether teachers have the time to search for technology, assess it and then
properly integrate it within their lesson plans. Therefore it is not fully adapted to the
context, will not be considered relevant by teachers and will never be integrated within
their practices.
Adopting technology instead of adapting technology means that educators fail at
providing authentic situations in which technology will be seen as relevant to the
students. This wide spread misappropriation of technology is undermining our relevance
as educators; it is making us and the school seem obsolete. The idea of adopting
technology in a PCK + T manner, gives educators the impression of correctly applying
technology; it provides educators with a false sense of security. Similar to the frog in
boiling water analogy, we are content sitting on what we have created, oblivious to the

RENDERING SCHOOLS OBSOLETE

increasing gap forming under us. We need to act now. We need to adapt out practicum
and our view of technology in order to properly incorporate it.
Possible framework to work towards full integration
In order to properly incorporate technology and ensure that schools can adapt to
the changes and are not rendered obsolete many barriers will need to be overcome. The
following offers suggestions to reform the manner in which technology is presented and
received in schools.
First, we need to clearly identifying the role of the teacher, administrator and of
technology. The teacher must truly apply the technology and take/be given the time
(Barbera et al., 2012; King & Boyatt, 2014) to critically analyse their needs and select the
technology judiciously that will match and fill those needs. The administrator must
support the implementation of the technology both financially and philosophically. The
administrators should be knowledgeable about the technology (Clarke & Zagarell, 2012).
Technologys role in the school must be clearly defined in its educational role; technology
must be removed from its everyday context (Merchant, 2012).
Second, pre-service and in-service training must be provided to the educators
(Lin, Tsai, Chai, & Lee, 2013) and administrators. The training needs to be focussed on
the specific context and needs of the teacher so that they can perceive the technology as
relevant and hopefully incorporate successfully in their practicum. Training should be
included in 2 stages, online for beginners and face to face for the more advanced
(Anyanwu, 2015) followed by a well-established community of practice (Cochrane,

RENDERING SCHOOLS OBSOLETE

10

2014). The vision of technology needs to shift from student generated content to student
generated context (Cochrane, 2014).
Finally, technology needs to be integrated gradually starting with technologies
that support the teachers current practices with a strong support system (Ertmer, 2005).
Unrequited technology is not seen as relevant to the teacher, even in spite of professional
development opportunities and will lead to the improper implementation of this
technology in the classroom. If technology is integrated based on the current practices of
the educators this will avoid adopting flavor of the month forms of technology (Lux,
Bangert, & Whittier, 2011).
The current view of educational technology defines technology as a means
embedded in social context to convey a message efficiently: technology is no longer a
simple tool (Hlynka & Jacobsen, 2009). The use of instructional technology as the
collaboration of media, resources and content bring about purposive and controlled
learning (Ely & Plomp, 1996): it reinforces the true purpose of schools and educators by
providing such learning.
Conclusion
Technology is not insidious or intrinsically dooming schools to extinction, it is in
fact the inappropriate use of technology that has great consequences to the education
system. The only manner school can survive and not get swept away in the technology
tidal wave is by stepping back to look at their needs as well as the strengths and
weaknesses of technology. Hlynka and Jacobsen (2009) couple the concept of educational
technology with the social context, making it no longer a treatment to the educational

RENDERING SCHOOLS OBSOLETE

11

systems ailments, but a process in which technology is created, used and managed in
such a way to facilitate efficient and relevant education in a rigorous manner. Rigor is
needed in both the application and the analysis of educational technology to provide us
with reproducible conclusions regarding the efficiency of these technologies.
Educational technology, as defined by Bates and Poole (2003), encompasses the
technological tools, the skills needed to use them, an understanding on how to select the
tool based on the context, the support and organization required to properly put these
tools in place. Educators and administrators need to recognize the dual nature of
technology: being both instrumental (adapting technology to our curriculum) and
subjective (adapting our curriculum to technology) (Turkle, 2014). It is not a question of
adopting; it is a question of adapting. The only way of amending the ever increasing view
that schools and teachers are becoming obsolete is through the proper integration of
technology within our teaching. We will only become obsolete if we do not adapt.
If a teacher can be replaced by a machine, they should be(Mitra, 2013)

RENDERING SCHOOLS OBSOLETE

12

References:
Adams, C. (2008). The poetics of PowerPoint. Explorations in Media Ecology,
7(4), 283-298.
Anyanwu, K. (2015). Teachers Perception in a Technology Integration
Workshop: Implications for Professional Development in the Digital
Age. Issues and Trends in Educational Technology, 3(1).
Barbera, E., Gros, B., & Kirschner, P. A. (2012). Temporal issues in e-learning
research: A literature review.
Bates, A. W., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher
Education: Foundations for Success: ERIC.
Clarke, G., & Zagarell, J. (2012). Technology in the Classroom: Teachers and
Technology: A Technological Divide. Childhood Education, 88(2), 136139. doi:10.1080/00094056.2012.662140
Cochrane, T. D. (2014). Critical success factors for transforming pedagogy
with mobile Web 2.0. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1),
65-82.
Daniels, J. S., Jacobsen, M., Varnhagen, S., & Friesen, S. (2013). Barriers to
Systemic, Effective, and Sustainable Technology Use in High School
Classrooms. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 39(4), n4.
Ely, D. P., & Plomp, T. (1996). Classic writings on instructional technology (Vol.
1): Libraries Unlimited.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our
quest for technology integration? Educational technology research and
development, 53(4), 25-39.
Godsey, M. (2015). The Deconstruction of the K-12 Teacher. The Atlantic.
Retrieved from
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/03/thedeconstruction-of-the-k-12-teacher/388631/
Gregory, D. C. (1996). Art Education Reform: Technology as Savior. Art
Education, 49(6), 49-54. doi:10.2307/3193623
Hlynka, D., & Jacobsen, M. (2009). What is educational technology, anyway?
A commentary on the new AECT definition of the field. Canadian
Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de
lapprentissage et de la technologie, 35(2).
King, E., & Boyatt, R. (2014). Exploring factors that influence adoption of e
learning within higher education. British Journal of Educational
Technology.
Lewington, J. (2012). It's Not about the Toys: Putting Technology in Its Place.
Education Canada, 52(5), n5.
Lin, T.-C., Tsai, C.-C., Chai, C. S., & Lee, M.-H. (2013). Identifying science
teachers perceptions of technological pedagogical and content
knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Science Education and Technology,
22(3), 325-336.
Lux, N. J., Bangert, A. W., & Whittier, D. B. (2011). The development of an
instrument to assess preservice teacher's technological pedagogical
content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(4),
415-431.
McLeod, S. (2007). Skinner-operant conditioning. Simply Psychology.

RENDERING SCHOOLS OBSOLETE

13

Merchant, G. (2012). Mobile practices in everyday life: Popular digital

technologies and schooling revisited. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 43(5), 770-782.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content
knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College
Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Mitra, S. (Producer). (2013, November 27th). Build a school in the cloud.
Retrieved from
https://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_build_a_school_in_the_cloud?
language=en
Puckett, R. (2013). Educational Technology and Its Effective Use. i-Manager's
Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3), 6.
Tufte, E. (2003). PowerPoint is evil: Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts
absolutely. Wired.
Turkle (Producer). (2014, December 2nd). Relational artificats: From virtual
pets to digital dolls. [video] Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bypZPHhrAkQ
Wilson, J. M. (2003). eLearning, Is it over? Retrieved from
http://www.jackmwilson.com/ArticlesTalks/IsItOver.htm
Yurdakul, I. K., Odabasi, H. F., Kilicer, K., Coklar, A. N., Birinci, G., & Kurt, A. A.
(2012). The development, validity and reliability of TPACK-deep: A
technological pedagogical content knowledge scale. Computers &
Education, 58(3), 964-977.
Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools:
An ecological perspective. American educational research journal,
40(4), 807-840.