We share evidence-based K-12 learning strategies that empower you to improve education.
I would have chosen No, teachers will not be replaced by technology except fo the phrase " never replace the 'traditional' role of a teacher". I believe it will dramatically change the traditional role of a teacher. The focus of teaching will continue to evolve from giving students information to helping students to learn how they learn in order to be better thinkers and learners.
Technology is a tool more teachers need to use effectively, but it will never replace teachers because too much of teaching and learning is social. Kids interact with teachers and peers to expand their learning. That will always be true, but they will also turn to technology to accelerate and enrich their learnings. Teachers need to do that, too.
I originally sent a reply to “Replaced by Technology” and wasn’t sure if others were able to read. I focused primarily on the statement, “For students to learn with technology, they must at least turn the computer on and attempt to use it.” I don't know how many “students” were ever taught by a teacher to turn-on a Telstar, an Atari, the Commodore 64, a Play Station, an X-Box, a WII, an I-Pod, etc. Most children are very crafty on figuring out the basics.
The human element is real, but so is dollars and sense. With populations booming, gas prices soaring, it is only a matter of time (most likely our lifetime) that students will get up for school, not to take a bus, but to login. Why pay for busing when online courses work for colleges. Why build new schools or additions for over crowding when it’s cheaper to pay for a laptop and internet service. Why be fearful of a school shooting when staying home with mom seems safer. Students are already taking on-line courses, receiving education via a webcam or video link. A person may achieve a GED on-line. There are colleges that offer entire degrees online. If college is “higher education”, what is to stop a high school from issuing a degree on-line?
I'm not saying it’s good or bad. Many others will debate the social and psychological benefits & dangers of that. I'm saying in a capitalistic society most people are worried about the bottom line. Sometimes that’s a good thing. Nice house, nice car, great vacation, etc. I’m just saying you can’t have both. You can’t have low taxes and a super education system, universal health care, continue to be safe and live free. Technology should be used to save money; but at what cost?
I don't know how many students were ever taught by a teacher to use a Telstar, Atari, Commodore 64, Playstation, WII, I-Pod, etc. The human element is real, but so is dollars and sense. With populations booming, gas prices soaring, it is only a matter of time (most likely our lifetime) that students will get up for school to login. Why pay for busing when online courses work for colleges. Why build new schools or additions for over crowding when it’s cheaper to pay for a laptop and internet service. I'm not saying it’s good or bad. Many others will debate the social aspects of that. I'm saying in a capitalistic society most people are worried about the bottom line. Sometimes that’s a good thing. Nice house, nice car, great vacation, etc. I’m just saying you can’t have both. You can’t have low taxes and a super education, universal health care, continue to be safe and live free. Technology should be used to save money; but at what cost?
I think the question, while understandable, is the wrong question to ask. I think it depends on what is being sought. If standardized testing is all that you want then indeed technology can fill the bill. If you are looking for thinking, feeling and aware human beings, then technology will not replace teachers. Socrates did not cram facts into his students and yet all of us believe that Socrates was a good teacher. Plato did not simply pass on the "rules of philosophy" on to his students and then give them an objective test to determine if they grasped the rules. Technology can be an adjunct but not a replacement, unless teachers allow the continued march toward rote memorization to continue.
Technology is a powerful tool, but ultimately it's just that: a tool. While many tools that were once used exclusively by humans are now used by technological entities (ie: robotic automotive manufacturing), there are still many humans involved somewhere in the process, deeply and meaningfully. I like to keep in mind that there are things that humans are better at, such as creativity and problem solving. Of course the classroom will - and should - change over time. But education is a fundamentally human endeavor and the question of obsolescence seems to me driven more by fear than by hope.
Technology is facilitating dramatic changes in teaching in learning. The roles of teachers will change. People from many different walks of life will teach. There will be very specific, didactic, curriculum driven learning; there will be very unstructured, student-centered learning; and there will be all forms in between. The "norm" will become less so; and all the "other" options will become more prevalent. Learners (and their facilitators/parents) will pick and choose the learning options that best suit their needs (cafeteria style). Teachers will compete for learners by offering compelling learning opportunities.
Permanent - day in, day out - classrooms will disappear. People (teachers and learners) will use space that supports the learning at hand. They won't spend every day in the same place.
No... Absolutely not. In fact I think it will make teachers more valuable, with a bit of rethinking about the role of a "teacher". Can tech "teach" our kids? Of course. And very well. But who will "teach" our kids to use tech safely and effectively? And then there are just those things that tech will never reach in the teaching process. Such as analyzing a child's learning style through observing them engaged in activities or playing, teaching group interaction skills, observational and critical thinking skills and numerous other things a computer just can't touch. Is it the "ABC's"? No. Is it important? Now, more than ever.
I think the caveat in this topic comes in the notion that we may have to re-tool those who teach teachers to break with the "Listen to ME while I profess at the Chalkboard" methods traditionally drilled into new teachers' heads. These "traditional" methods will have to be modified or in some cases completely abandoned in order to teach "tech" because it is so non-linear and individualized.
I believe that technology will not replace teachers. Teachers will teach differently because of technology. At the beginning of a school year I am the students main tool for learning, by the end of the year I hope that I am only a resource they need to future their education.
Teachers may be replaced in the future with technology. We already know of "on-line" high school diplomas and "on-line" credit recovery. There are over one million students currently who are experiencing "virtual" classes.
While teachers may call students "illiterate"--students call teachers "illiterate about technology."
What will the 21st Century school room look like? I'm asking students to tell me.