Position #1 states: "One cannot be an excellent teacher and not be using current technology."
Position #2 states: "I don't think the use of tech defines excellent teachers. Also, the non-use of tech does not define ineffectiveness."
This conversation brings to mind a personal example. At a school that I taught at, I was doing a math project using iMovie with my kids. When it came time for students to animate their examples, none of them understood what a manipulative was (I would call this "low tech" but tech, nonetheless), and the students only knew how to do long division. When I asked them if they knew the "box method" or "lattice method," they also were unaware of what I was talking about. But they all knew how to do abstract math using the old-fashioned methods taught to my parents- and their math scores at this school were generally- excellent.
Box Method: CC image from Wikihow
The question is: was their non-tech-using teacher ineffective? Or maybe the students were getting lots of help at home from parents, after school homework clubs, and the like?
While I'm not ready to rule in technology's favor just yet on this issue, I think that the question of effectiveness is very much at stake. As a consequence of doing abstract math and not using even manipulatives, these students very well may have more trouble in the future doing "mental math." But they'll score high on their state tests.
I'd be every interested to know what other teacher's stories are. Do you have to use tech to be an effective teacher?
