Postman is obviously skeptical of the use of technology while Reigeluth and Joesph seem to emebace it more. Reigluth and Joesph makes a nice point in saying "children learn at different rates and have different learning needs, we can no longer afford achievement to vary." I think this is an interesting point because there are many technologies that can be used in order to help students with learning problems. For example, there is a reading program on CD called Lexia that is phenonomal in helping students learn phonics. Therefore if there is a type of technology that will enhance student learning, then why not use it? Most students are very familiar with computers and use of internet. Why not use what they know in that respect to reach them? Reigluth and JoesphI also are trying to find technologies that will best do that bring out the learning in students. They also make an interesting point toward the end on having technology not only meeting learning needs, but also to "social and emotional development." I think with test scores and NCLB, we are very occupied with the learning aspect of education. Don't get me wrong, academics are very important. However, many times social and emotional needs sometimes get ignored and many students go out into the world not knowing social skills. Again, this brings on the point of another important use of teachnology that encourages development of social skills such as Peer to Peer communications systems.
Postman has a different view of the use of technology. He is very skepitcal, but I do not agree with the phrase "bring it up to call attention to the fact that what we too easily call "progress" is always problematic. " Progress is not always problematic. Computers have given much easier access to the world of information and is usually more updated than encyclopedias since the Internet is updating itself all of the time. However, I do agree with the statement, "that new technologies may not always solve significant problems or any problem at all. But because the technologies are there, we often invent problems to justify our using them. Or sometimes we even pretend we are solving one problem when, in fact, the reason for building and employing a new technology is altogether different." True, while technolgoies can make learning easier or more convienent at times, it does not solve all problems or serves as a replacement for teaching. Teaching must take place. Computers do not have feelings or a warm body to connect with other human beings. If is often said that building a relationship with you students is vital to a successful classroom. Well if we replace teaching with technologies, then we lost that aspect. Therefore, while I don't think Postman should be so skepital, technology is a supplement to teaching, not a replacement and must also serve a purpose that will truly benefit students, not just the teach.er.
2 comments:
"Don't get me wrong, academics are very important. However, many times social and emotional needs sometimes get ignored and many students go out into the world not knowing social skills."
- I couldn't agree more... I think that at times, certain life skills can be learned best through hands-on experiences, rather than technology-based simulations alone. Also, your statement that there can be no replacement for genuine human to human contact is quite true. Not all communication can be, nor should it be, successfully replaced with instant messaging, e-mailing, and the like, for example.
I agree that computers will never replace a teacher's warmth and caring. A teacher's relational capicity with students must come before all else, even academics. But to say that new technoologies will replace teachers is a far stretch. I feel technology will continue to enhance learning only if teachers remain aware of their first priority...whats best for each student.
Thank you for sharing your ideas.
Post a Comment