High-tech vs. no-tech... Which is best?

Sitting down on Sunday morning to read the Washington Post I was pleased to see an education issue made the front page. The article delves into the differences between two schools that I have worked with during my time at Latino Student Fund, Flint Hill School and Washington Waldorf School. The schools take dramatically different approaches to classroom instruction and the use of technology during class time. As a former teacher, I can speak first hand about the convenience of a "connected" classroom. Video and audio clips can support different learning styles. Resources become endless, almost overwhelming, and teachers can select materials that specifically address the needs of their students. While teaching content-based English in rural Mexico, the internet was my greatest resource. The school's limited English materials often left me with limited options for scaffolding lessons, an absolute necessity for an English as a Second Language instructor.

With that said, the spotty internet connection often forced me and my students to take a more traditional approach. I couldn't always depend on technology to pull me through with a lesson plan. As the article insinuates, kids get bored when they are expected to do the same activity for an extended period of time. Switching things up is vital to classroom management, student engagement, and consequently, student learning. In hindsight, limited access to technology made my lessons more creative, more group focused, and more student-centered. I'm not sure which approach to technology is more effective to student learning and development in the world today. I am a strong believer that every child has their own learner profile and will respond to instruction styles in different ways. Ultimately, a parent should know their child well enough to make the call when deciding which school's philosophy will best meet their child's learning needs. There is a strong case for why building a foundation of knowledge in technology is relevant and useful in the world today. But... I'm still grateful for the hands-on (real paint, muddy mud, squirming bugs) experience that I had as a student. What's your opinion? I encourage you to read the Washington Post article and weigh in.