Future classroom: Difference between revisions

The educational technology and digital learning wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 25: Line 25:
'''Example projects'''
'''Example projects'''


Future classrooms pop up on a regular basis and get good funding for a while and then fade out again ....
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 [[iPad]]s (San Francisco again) (2012)
* Apple giving out [[iPad]]s (San Francisco again) (2012)
* [http://fcl.eun.org/  Future classroom lab] EU project (2012)
* [http://fcl.eun.org/  Future classroom lab] EU project (2012)
* [http://ali.apple.com/acot2/ Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow - Today (ACOT<sup>2</sup>)
* [http://ali.apple.com/acot2/ Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow - Today] (ACOT<sup>2</sup>)
* [http://www.collide.info/Projects/nimis/overview.html NIMIS classrooms] (2000)
* [http://www.collide.info/Projects/nimis/overview.html NIMIS classrooms] (2000)
* [http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/Apple_Classrooms_of_Tomorrow Apple School of tomorrow] (ACOT) (1985-).
* [http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/Apple_Classrooms_of_Tomorrow Apple School of tomorrow] (ACOT) (1985-).
Line 61: Line 61:
* United States Department of Education. (2002). No child left behind. Retrieved August 27, 2005, from http://www.nclb.gov  
* United States Department of Education. (2002). No child left behind. Retrieved August 27, 2005, from http://www.nclb.gov  


* Waxman, H. C., Connell, M. L., & Gray, J. (2002). Meta-analysis: Effects of educational technology on student outcomes. Retrieved August 27, 2005, from http://www.ncrel.org/tech/effects/  
* 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, [http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/qkey3.pdf  PDF]


* Whale, David, (2006) Technology skills as a criterion in teacher evaluation.,  Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, v14 n1 p61-74 Jan 2006 [http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Technology+skills+as+a+criterion+in+teacher+evaluation-a0143022920 Reprint ?]
* Whale, David, (2006) Technology skills as a criterion in teacher evaluation.,  Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, v14 n1 p61-74 Jan 2006 [http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Technology+skills+as+a+criterion+in+teacher+evaluation-a0143022920 Reprint ?]

Revision as of 18:13, 1 February 2012

Draft

Definition

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:

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.

Software

Links

Example projects

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):

School of the future examples

Criticisms

Bibliography

  • 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. Retrieved August 27, 2005, from http://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 ?

Further resources