Teachers Falling Behind on Technology?

Teachers Falling Behind on Technology? January 19, 2014

Here’s a list of twenty signs you are falling behind — o teacher — when it comes to technology.

What would you add? What’s the #1 sign you are falling behind?

  1. You think that ‘mobile learning’ is taking a field trip
  2. You don’t make homework assignments or other important information available to students on a web page
  3. You don’t even remember how to get to the web page your school provides you
  4. You think that ‘tweeting’ is what birds do
  5. You think a Personal Learning Network is your television
  6. You think social media is just for teenagers and housewives
  7. You think an iPad is someone’s groovy apartment
  8. You believe an ‘electronic portfolio’ is a briefcase full of CDs and software
  9. You wish you knew how to use your Blackberry better
  10. You think that ‘lecture capture’ is what students do when they take notes
  11. You think that ‘digital learning’ is something computers do
  12. You think Instagram is a new service from Western Union
  13. You think that Vine is something to swing on or pick grapes from
  14. You’re surprised that most students don’t use email
  15. You don’t let your students use Wikipedia as a reference
  16. You glance around nervously and hold on to your desk when you hear the phrase “flipped classroom”
  17. You still have a modem (okay, really just kidding on that one – the only modems left out there are in museums right?)
  18. You think MySpace is cool
  19. You miss your typewriter
  20. You think ‘gamification’ is what George W. Bush does when he plays Monopoly

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Evangelical
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Carchemish

    You think two spaces after a period is acceptable (or worse: require it!).

  • Jim Rogers

    I remember having those big binders filled with all my CDs and applications. Those were dark days.

  • Phil Miller

    I always put the extra space just as a force of habit still. After you’ve done it for years, it’s nearly impossible to train yourself not to.

  • Amanda B.

    I’m going to object to the Wikipedia one. Although I refer to Wikipedia often for casual/personal study, and I fully acknowledge that it’s generally pretty accurate stuff, it is too prone to change and/or trolling to be as solid as a printed resource (or even an official website) by a reputable publisher.

    A friend of mine, an English teacher, wanted to demonstrate an example to her students. She got on the Wikipedia page of a renowned English poet during class (sadly, I can’t remember which one). She edited the article, adding a sentence about him being notorious for his nose-picking habits.

    The following week at class, she pulled up the page again. Her edit was still there. She never had to argue with students about citing Wikipedia again.

    In my own experience, I visited Wikipedia to re-read a particularly fascinating article I had previously found there. However, the section that excited me the most had been completely deleted. Did that mean the info there had been inaccurate? Or was it deleted for other reasons? As a non-editor, I didn’t really have a way to know.

    Now, Wikipedia is still incredibly useful. I encourage students who don’t know where to begin on a research subject to give it a readthrough as their starting place. They can pull up important names, dates, and events from the article. They can go nuts mining the “cited sources” section at the bottom. It’s a massive boost in the research process, and it even has certain advantages over print materials. It’s just too malleable to be a solid cited source itself.

    Besides which, encyclopedias as a whole are generally frowned upon as cited sources. They work well as a starting place for research, but they should not be considered a final authority.