Week 1 Reflection

I’d like to start this reflection by taking a step back for one moment and going to the definition of technology.  Depending on what dictionary you look it up in, there may be slightly different meaning, but looking at www.dictionary.com, the first set of definitions helps give the perspective I am looking for.  The following are the 4 definitions given:

–noun

1. the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science.

2. the terminology of an art, science, etc.; technical nomenclature.

3. a technological process, invention, method, or the like.

4. the sum of the ways in which social groups provide themselves with the material objects of their civilization. (Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.)

These definitions deal with many aspects of what technology could be, but I put them here to make the point that when anyone talks about technology, they should not talk of a machine, but rather the ideas and “invention” that is enriched by the access the a machine might grant.   Now, let me get away from sounding like this is a philosophy paper and tell you that I feel like these two articles were talking about putting machines (possibly computers) in front of students and provided two different perspectives of what may happen.

Starting with the Postman article, it seems very cut and dry.   He uses a lot of terminology that leaves very strong impression of right and wrong.   For instance, terms like “everyone”, “always”, “all”, “never”, and “nothing”.  It felt like much of the article was Postman using strong language to give an unfavorable perspective of what technology could do to our educational practice if we let machines take the place of teachers.  I agree that if we let machines take the place of a human in the classroom that we will be causing many problems, and we may not be educating students the way we desire.   However, that does not mean that you can’t enhance the educational experience through use of these same machines.  

Postman asked the question, “What is the problem to which the new technologies are the solution?”   He then went on to talk about how the early 19^th century problem of getting information to people fast was solved by telegraphy and photography and says, “It would be hard not to notice that the problem was solved and is therefore no longer something that any of us needs to work at, least of all, become worked up about.”   So, was that problem solved perfectly with no better solution?   I feel as though he used a strong statement and dropped the educational perspective all together.   We ask our students to be creative thinkers, inventors, and to go above & beyond everyday in educational and personal settings.   Parents and teachers alike ask others to go above and beyond, not to settle for mediocrity, and to strive to be the best.  The statement by Postman makes it seem like as soon we have a solution (no matter how good or bad, slow or fast, easy or hard) we need not look any further.  This is opposite of what our goals are for all people.  

I  also think Postman had some valid points, though stated in a different form, about there being so much information available with the use of technology that sometimes it is hard to find “useful” information.   He then claimed that, “Information has become a form of garbage.”   At times I agree that the abundance of information available becomes overwhelming and sometimes even useless, but at least it allows students to have many tools in their toolbox of knowledge.   A quick example: when teaching high school math, many schools require students to have a graphing calculator.  These calculators have more functions than most people would ever use in a lifetime, but just because the student has the most powerful tool that may never be used in Geometry or Algebra doesn’t mean that it’s not an important tool in another application, and wouldn’t be nice to have. 

In response to Reigeluth and Joseph, they make some very interesting points about how we must “transform the way we teach, ways that technology can allow us to teach that weren’t feasible before.”   I reflect back to my philosophical sounding comment about looking at technology as an enhancement that the access to a machine could grant.  I also loved the point that was made in the statement, “our teaching methods might not only shift from passive to active learning, but also help develop initiative and responsibility in learners for their own learning.”   I think teachers and schools have an obligation to help students understand taking initiative and responsibility for their own learning.   No one person can teach other people everything they know.  We all learn all the time from actions, interactions, reactions, and communication of all varieties.  How much someone might learn from each of these things is highly dependent on that persons desire to learn it.   I feel like through my little experience in this field that educators in general allow students to place blame on other people and experience for lack of learning, instead of holding them responsible for it.

Lastly, I would like to combine three statements made in this article to create one strong point.   Reigeluth and Joseph say, “Technology is important, but it would be a mistake to look only to technology.” Also, “we should not focus our decisions on technology but on the methods that will best facilitate learning.”  And lastly, “But such transformation will not be an easy task.”   These three statements sum up my beliefs on how I feel we should deal with the future of technology in education.   It needs to be a slow progression where we integrate things that will best enhance the learning environment.   It is going to be a hard task, and will take a lot of patience.  Furthermore, getting educators, students, and parents to understand it is not an excuse to use technology nor a complete change in education, but technology can provide additional methods to help people be more efficient learners.  After all, humans strive each day to be efficient anyway.