I have
always been a huge fan of technology and how it is so seamlessly integrated
into our lives; whether it’s at home, work, or school. I believe that it is a necessary function to
continue to gain knowledge and build upon what we have already learned. After reading both articles, I haven’t found
myself more or less convinced of the necessity of technology in the classroom –
but I did find both articles to be very interesting and they offered up
arguments that I had not considered in the past for both sides.
In the
Reigeluth and Joseph article, I found their distaste for the standardization of
classrooms to be a bit extreme. The
placement of students of the same age level in a classroom where the teacher is
able to provide the same instruction to all her students is a practical device. I currently do not have my teaching degree,
but I can respect the reasoning behind this set-up for a classroom and grade
level. I do agree with the idea of the “advancement
of all” in the classroom and making sure that the student masters the lesson
before moving on. The concept of
customized learning is a nice one, and I believe that it can be accomplished in
standardized classrooms as well. The
school I attended from K-8 was a very small school, where multiple grades were
in one classroom and taught by the same teacher. In this situation, the teacher was able to teach
lessons across the grades, but also break into groups when it was necessary to
provide an extra level of support to those who were not catching on as quickly
and also giving other groups more advanced lessons to work on in the
meantime. I really enjoyed this style of
learning, but I realize that most schools do not have the luxury of having so
few students to teach in this way. If it
were possible to issue students an iPad with lessons built in, it would be a
very similar set-up to my K-8 school where groups of children who are ready to
move on could, and those who needed some extra attention would be able to
receive it.
When
thinking about the Postman article where he is adamantly against the benefit of
having updated technology in the classroom, I’m not sure if all his points are
completely rational – mainly the one giving the examples of information
overload in our country (“260,000 billboards, 17,000 newspaper … 400 million
television sets” etc). It’s obvious that
these are not useful in the education of our children and I don’t believe it’s
fair to group them all together as if there were no distinction. Students using an iPad or laptop to assist
with grasping an idea or concept, or being able to type out a paper that they
researched with the use of textbooks and approved online resources is not the
same as being exposed to mindless television shows or billboard advertisements
on their way home from school. But I do agree with his statement that a
school or teacher could not be replaced by the addition of technology. I
particularly liked his statement “[t]he role of the school is to help students
learn how to ignore and discard information so that they can achieve a sense of
coherence in their lives; to help students cultivate a sense of social
responsibility; to help students think critically, historically, and humanely;
to help students understand the ways in which technology shapes their
consciousness; to help students learn that their own needs sometimes are subordinate
to the needs of the group” (Joseph, 1993).
Being afraid or resistant to technology (which is sounds like Joseph
is/was) is not the answer either. A
moderated inclusion of technology into a teacher’s lesson plan would be, in my
opinion, the best way to achieve this goal.
Using technology for the sake of technology is not the answer and never
will be – and I’d like to think that most educators realize this. Technology in the classroom will just
continue to grow throughout the years, so realizing how to integrate it
successfully early on is our best bet in having teachers and students use it
properly.
No comments:
Post a Comment