We often think of these 1:1 programs where students use netbooks or tablets as a "revolution" in education and education technology. If it is a "revolution" it is a generational one, and one with about as mixed of a record as the French revolutions. You know, there's a section of reading that is incredibly apt for this discussion. It is, as far as I am aware, the only "modern" history of technology in the classroom (and the author himself was stunned about the lack of discussion that had preceded him). It is 35 years old, but it's still quite illuminating; not just because the author specifically asked the question whether the 1980s would be the decade of computer use in the classroom, but because his model was seriously worth considering. In particular, he noted that the quest has more or less always been the same. The quest has been to replace the lecture (or any de facto delivery method) and increase educational efficiency through technological progress. But there's always been a catch. Adoption and success rates have always differed from earlier projections and this new found reality caused even more controversy.
"Reformers, more often than not, were foundation executives, educational administrators, and wholesalers who saw solutions to school problems in swift technological advances. Not long after each innovation was introduced came academic studies to demonstrate the effectiveness of the particular teacher aid as compared to conventional instruction. Invariably, the mechanical or electronic device proved as effective as a teacher in conveying information to students. Marring the general favor and scientific credibility enjoyed by the innovation, however, would be scattered complaints from teachers or classroom observers about the logistics of use, technical imperfections, incompatibility with current programs, or similar concerns. At a later point, surveys would document teacher use of the particular tool as disappointingly infrequent. Such surveys would unleash mild to harsh criticism of administrators who left costly machines in closets to gather cobwebs, or stinging rebukes of narrow-minded, stubborn teachers reluctant to use learning tools that studies had shown to be academically effective. Once limited classroom use had been established, teacher-bashing (as the British label it) produced a series of sharp critiques blaming intransigent teachers for blocking improvements through modern technology. Few scholars, policy makers, or practitioners ever questioned the claims of boosters or even asked whether the technology should be introduced."-Larry Cuban, Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology Since 1920, Page 5.
Cuban's record for correctly predicting the industry and the education field's use of computers was mixed, but what should still be highlighted is the need to introduce healthy levels of skepticism to the initiatives. Indeed many teachers will be resistant to the technology, and it's not largely for reasons of Luddite intransigence, but rather being unconvinced of its value. Furthermore, enthusiasts too frequently dismiss basic logistic concerns as some sort of caveman rhetoric and overhype how the devices actually change the classroom's operations and the academic performance of pupils.
