Week 1
My Approach to Digital Technologies in the Classroom
Twenty years ago, I began my Navy career in a virtual classroom, alone with a laptop running a Nida training system. For months, I read webpages and plugged boards into the system to learn electronics. It was self-paced but unforgiving, broken equipment or a misread footnote could derail a test. Later, I trained on system simulators, clicking image maps and selecting “replace card” from drop-down menus. Though limited, this desktop simulation was far easier than climbing through a ship with volumes of manuals. There was some stigma, not that anyone called me a “virtual sailor”, or concern that replacing hands-on learning with simulations encouraged data-dumping or unsafe practices. Isolating power on a radar, after all, involves much more than a right-click.
That experience shapes how I use digital technologies in the classroom, leading me to question whether practicing with tools like virtual vernier calipers actually benefits students in the long run. Commonly stated benefits of educational technology include increased engagement through personalized learning, improved outcomes via AI-driven feedback, and the development of critical thinking skills (Soares et al., 2024, p. 17). The virtual caliper simulator can offer repeated practice and instant feedback on reading measurements, which seems to support these goals. However, educational technology is ultimately a tool, and its selection has consequences. Choosing one technology can restrict access to alternative pedagogical approaches and shape what other technologies or methods can effectively work alongside it (Dron, 2021, p. 162). Using the virtual calipers again, while it efficiently teaches the skill of scale reading, it may displace valuable, hands-on experience, thereby limiting students’ understanding of the tool’s physical limitations (like binding or parallax).
I am skeptical of educators who position digital technology as a silver bullet that will automatically increase student output. Positioning students as “digital natives” can encourage teachers to leverage their assumed technological fluency, but this label becomes problematic when it leads educators to make broad assumptions that overlook key factors for successful educational technology use (Lee et al., 2022, pp. 1107-1108). Using technology requires effort, not only in integrating it into a subject’s scope and sequence, but also in supporting students as they learn to understand and use it effectively. While some studies show technology use has minimal direct effect on learning, this may be because the collaborative methods or scaffolding involved increase cognitive load and limit effectiveness, suggesting that pedagogy matters more than the technology itself (Lee et al., 2022, pp. 1127-1128). Because a technology’s hardness or softness depends on the user’s role and context, the gaps or ambiguities that users must fill require additional cognitive effort; the softer we try to make a technology, the more mental resources users must expend to interpret, adapt, and navigate those gaps (Dron, 2021, p. 160). For these reasons, I remain cautious about uncritical adoption of digital tools and advocate for pedagogical considerations to drive technology use, rather than the reverse.