The future classroom or classroom of the future or classroom of tomorrow is a concept used in several different ways:
It can refer to one of the following or combinations of the following:
- different pedagogy, in particular socio-constructivism
- different physical layout (reflecting chances in pedagogy)
- technology rich classrooms, e.g. computer-integrated classrooms or technology-enhanced classroom
- videoconferencing systems designed for teleteaching and that also may include various other groupware.
- online environments of various sorts, e.g. learning management systems or virtual learning environments, etc.
- anything related to education ....
We prefer to use future classroom for describing a physical setting that integrates a variety of high performance pedagogies with educational technologies in an appropriate physical layout. Indiscriminate praise of classrooms that just use the currently fashionable technology (Film, TV, PC's, iPads or whatever) and/or pedagogies (e.g. discovery learning) and that fail to change outcomes draws quite heavy criticisms, e.g. Todd Oppenheimer's The Computer Delusion or the more academic Kirschner et al. 2006.
A similar concept is the school of the future.
- Outline Your Classroom Floor Plan (Online drawing tool)
Future classrooms pop up on a regular basis and get good funding for a while and then fade out again. Below are a few examples (there are many more):
- Apple giving out iPads (San Francisco again) (2012)
- Future classroom lab EU project (2012)
- Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow - Today (ACOT2)
- NIMIS classrooms (2000)
- Apple School of tomorrow (ACOT) (1985-).
School of the future examples
- School of the Future (New York City) (Wikpedia)
- School of the Future (Sao Paulo - Brasil) (Wikipedia)
- At Flickering Mind / Booknoise
- Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classrooms, 1980-2000. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Cuban, Larry (1986). Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology Since 1920, Teachers College Press, ISBN 080772792X
- Judith Haymore Sandholtz Cathy Ringstaff, David C. Dwyer (1997) Teaching With Technology: Creating Student-Centered Classrooms, Teachers College Press.
- Kirschner, Paul A.; John Sweller, Richard E. Clark (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching, Educational Psychologist Vol. 41, Iss. 2.
- Oppenheimer, Todd (2003). The Flickering Mind: The False Promise of Technology in the Classroom and How Learning Can Be Saved, Random House.
- Oppenheimer, Todd , The computer delusion, The Atlantic Monthly; July 1997; The Computer Delusion; Volume 280, No. 1; pages 45-62. HTML
- Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
- United States Department of Education. (2002). No child left behind. (This is now a dead project and its web site too, www.nclb.gov)
- Waxman, H. C., Connell, M. L., & Gray, J. (2002). Meta-analysis: Effects of educational technology on student outcomes.
- Waxman Hersh, Meng-Fen Lin, and Georgette Michko (2003). Understanding the No Child left Behind Act: Technology Integration, PDF
- Whale, David, (2006) Technology skills as a criterion in teacher evaluation., Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, v14 n1 p61-74 Jan 2006 Reprint ?