So far, so what?

The reading I've worked through so far has impressed upon me how little access to technology exists in the average classroom, and I agree with this observation. I'm not currently a teacher, but during the periods in which I have been an educator access to computers was appallingly limited. For instance, in a class of 13 students with whom I worked, there was 1 very old computer. It had no internet connection. So, this "technology" was basically a big paperweight that glowed. And even if I had found educational software that would run on the machine, I had no idea how I would keep the other students occupied while 2 or 3 at a time worked with the computer. It's difficult to keep up momentum and concentration when students are playing musical chairs with the ONE computer in the room.

This problem of _access_ is one I've been contemplating ever since I started the IT program at APSU. The students I want to eventually work with are in economically depressed places. That means the big question is "what does technology mean in these places?"  In other words, I'm not going to have access to 15 iPads at my classroom in Nepal, or my classroom in south Nashville for that matter. So, how do I get enough "tools" (computers, digital cameras, etc.) to reasonably service a class of 15-20 or more people? Or, do I have to rethink what the word "technology" means relative to my place and resources?

One approach would be that only I utilize technology to augment my lessons. For instance, if I have internet access, I could use my PC and Google Maps, YouTube, Animaps, etc with an LCD projector that I purchase and maintain myself. And, instead of structuring the class so that students are directly using technology, they instead are benefiting from my access and ability to make content more interesting.  Because, let's face it-- content is still king. It's about communicating the "big ideas".