Reflection on Articles
The two writings were very much opposing on their approach
to technology and education. I think it is important to look at the dates of
the articles as they were written at very different times when social norms,
education and political governance were focused on very definite situations.
The Reigeluth article was written at a time when the
government was encouraging integration of technology into classroom, education
was becoming more holistic and computers and technology was more common place
in the home. Internet speed and access had been increased but was not universal
coverage. Technology was supposed to transform teaching and allow for greater
diversity in teaching. The table comparing the Industrial Age with the
Information Age systems was interesting but some of the word choice could be
rethought. Planned obsolescence moving to customer is “king” is debatable as
customer service has a long way to go even today. Many of the top tech
companies have monopolies on technology and can ask any price for their
products and update as soon as you have bought the “latest and greatest”
without a conscience for the consumer, Conformity moving to diversity is hard
when everybody wants the same products and the education system want all
students to reach a common standard by a certain level. Standardization is not
customization especially in education. I wonder if it is good for the demands
of industry to drive education or should education be a stand alone product that
drives invention, and new products that filter down to industry.
The concept that Reigeluth proposes of a “learning –focused
educational system that offers customization rather than standardization” is
wonderful; but will require a huge shift in educational practice. I believe
technology integration should be part of that shift. The second table could be
easily confused with explanation of the Montessori Method which is not a new
system. The learning focused paradigm is not widely practiced in the public
school system even now. Technology is a perfect match for this education
philosophy. It will allow individualized instruction, encourage, performance
based assessment rather than standardized tests and help students develop self
directed learning. My question I ask whenever new systems are proposed is how
we are going to pay for this change. The public education system has been cut
to the bone and the integration of new methods and technology are very
expensive.
Reigeluth clearly has a greater understanding of the pedagogy.
He recognizes that it would be a mistake to rely entirely on technology to
provide the answers to the education problem and that teachers need to be
facilitators while guiding students to scaffold from their peers and explore
different sources of information and technology. He recognizes that different
teaching methods are needed for each student and type of technology. I worry
that some technology driven learning can remove the teacher from the big
picture. I don’t want to see differentiated instruction becoming plug_and_play.
You need the personal interaction with students.
When Reigeluth raises the subject of new capabilities in
technology I had to smile when he listed the “hard: technologies. My fourth
grade students this Christmas received notebooks, nooks, ipads, phones,
tablets. It was amazing that they were so comfortable with the technology that
they had received and were already reading books, making movies and writing
stories. They are all working with “soft “technology like they were born wired
and ready to run. I am excited that technology is going to be a focus in their
education. Now all we need to do is get equal access to all so we can teach to
the individual.
The Postman article written in the early 90’s was at time
when people were still scared of technology. People were worried it would take
their jobs away from them; people were reluctant to trust computers with
information. The people who made decisions in education and government were of
the “Reaganomics” era and big business excesses. The article calls machines “distractions
diverting the intelligence and energy of talented people from addressing the
issues we need to confront” Postman also claims “new technologies drive old
technologies out of business.” and this causes problems rather than progress. I
feel he misses the point that change of thinking often is the catalyst of
invention. He questions the “costs intellectually and socially of putting
computers in the classroom. It is not that computers should be in every
classroom but how they are used. I have used computers to drive instruction and
augment instruction. But have also seen students go into a computer lab for an
hour a week and play games where no productive learning is evident. I agree
with Postman that we tend to invent problems to justify using new computer
technology and often do not have a clear plan on how or the best way to
incorporate technology into the curriculum.
I found the section about Stephen Hawking and how the powers
that be in Texas could draw the
“god” card as a means to generate funding from a “Christian Nation” amusing.
This was so typical of that era when people were getting huge funding dollars
for projects that had no real life significance. When Postman asks the question
about the information superhighway he clearly shows his political colors. He
fails to see the benefits of communication in real time. Al Gore was not
proposing the internet to sell more TV’s but broadening knowledge in real time
and providing equal access to all communities: urban, rural and social
economic.
When Postman moves onto his education and technology section
of the article he answers his question “What is the problem that technology is
the solution?” in such a negative way. He apparently wants to remain in the
1840’s with the telegraphy and photography. He fails to acknowledge that both
of which were improvements on prior technology. We had not solved the speed of
information distribution at that time. Also to claim that technology can not
give access to more information in the classroom than that which is already in
the classroom is ridiculous. Schools are about presenting information and
teaching skills to students so that they are able to learn. Teaching children
to behave in groups is not the primary function of schools. Claiming that the
youth of America
“no longer experience powerful and exhilarating narratives” because people want
to introduce technology into the classroom is so fatalistic. Students are being
taught these narratives but in a different more exciting way. Students are
given access to real time events and experiences that they can then relate to
the past. Teachers need to teach students how to filter out irrelevant
information and learn from the information they do access. Computers I agree
are not the solution to the nation’s education problems but they are a tool to
increase educational success.
