Christine Bowen Articles #1
First and foremost, the problem with technology in education is that technology is funded through school bonds. Therefore, technology varies from district to district. Some students have access to technology in school for the entire day while other districts have to sign out a computer lab. How do we address a curriculum for all students to access the same learning when the same tools are not supplied?
The Reigeluth & Joseph was interesting in the fact that it described that students were moving from, “sorters” to, “learners”. I understand where the authors were heading with this. I believe that students who used to take jobs in industry will now be taking jobs in retail. Let’s face it; if the great divide didn’t still exist my students would have computers at home. Out of my forty students, only ten have access to computers at home while eight of them have printers. Sixty percent of my students receive free/reduced lunch.
Moving on, the article states that education should move from, “a time-based system to an attainment based system”. I agree that technology has the ability to assist with this goal. I want to strongly emphasize the word, “assist”. I do not think that computers should replace educators. It seems that now more than ever educators are teaching life skills as well as curriculum. However, teacher blogs have been a wonderful tool as far as posting assignments and projects. It then becomes a way for the student to demonstrate their learning themselves where this sometimes becomes the teacher’s responsibility to demonstrate the learning of the class. It would be wonderful to place more curriculum on line but to do so would require more access to computers in schools and districts can move only as fast as the dollars will let them. Overall, I understood the points of the article and do agree with some aspects of attainment based education.
On the flip side, there is the Luddites article. Talk about pessimism. Why can’t moral and social values coincide with technology? Can we not teach values while using technology? I believe so. Educators all know the dark side of technology: texting, facebook and games. I still think when it comes down to it the good outweighs the bad. The article states that, “information has become a source of garbage”. When it comes to education, I disagree. Garbage definitely exists on the Internet but that is not what education and technology is all about. Educators use technology to enhance a lesson not to hurt it. Is Postman saying that dittos and encyclopedias need to make a comeback? Postman also states that the primary function of education is to teach students to behave in groups. I think people are more sensitive to other people when using technology. How carefully are emails constructed? I email so much differently than how I speak. Email makes me think before I speak and in many instances that had me overcome a social dilemma better than if I was speaking directly to the person at the time. I did appreciate Postman’s viewpoint in presenting the flip side but I definitely disagree about its usefulness in education.
First and foremost, the problem with technology in education is that technology is funded through school bonds. Therefore, technology varies from district to district. Some students have access to technology in school for the entire day while other districts have to sign out a computer lab. How do we address a curriculum for all students to access the same learning when the same tools are not supplied?
The Reigeluth & Joseph was interesting in the fact that it described that students were moving from, “sorters” to, “learners”. I understand where the authors were heading with this. I believe that students who used to take jobs in industry will now be taking jobs in retail. Let’s face it; if the great divide didn’t still exist my students would have computers at home. Out of my forty students, only ten have access to computers at home while eight of them have printers. Sixty percent of my students receive free/reduced lunch.
Moving on, the article states that education should move from, “a time-based system to an attainment based system”. I agree that technology has the ability to assist with this goal. I want to strongly emphasize the word, “assist”. I do not think that computers should replace educators. It seems that now more than ever educators are teaching life skills as well as curriculum. However, teacher blogs have been a wonderful tool as far as posting assignments and projects. It then becomes a way for the student to demonstrate their learning themselves where this sometimes becomes the teacher’s responsibility to demonstrate the learning of the class. It would be wonderful to place more curriculum on line but to do so would require more access to computers in schools and districts can move only as fast as the dollars will let them. Overall, I understood the points of the article and do agree with some aspects of attainment based education.
On the flip side, there is the Luddites article. Talk about pessimism. Why can’t moral and social values coincide with technology? Can we not teach values while using technology? I believe so. Educators all know the dark side of technology: texting, facebook and games. I still think when it comes down to it the good outweighs the bad. The article states that, “information has become a source of garbage”. When it comes to education, I disagree. Garbage definitely exists on the Internet but that is not what education and technology is all about. Educators use technology to enhance a lesson not to hurt it. Is Postman saying that dittos and encyclopedias need to make a comeback? Postman also states that the primary function of education is to teach students to behave in groups. I think people are more sensitive to other people when using technology. How carefully are emails constructed? I email so much differently than how I speak. Email makes me think before I speak and in many instances that had me overcome a social dilemma better than if I was speaking directly to the person at the time. I did appreciate Postman’s viewpoint in presenting the flip side but I definitely disagree about its usefulness in education.
No comments:
Post a Comment