In a technological utopia, I find that Reigeluth has made several good points. His list of learning-focused paradigm of education includes many of the points that an educator wants his/her student to achieve. These include mastery learning, continuous progress, authenticity, performance-based assessment, peer-assisted learning and meaningful content, to name a few. (Reigeluth, pg. 10) However, it is what I didn't list that I have problems with. One of the areas that bother me is the self-directed learning. A student has to be self-motivated in order to be on task when needed. I taught a self-paced curriculum back in the nineties. I didn't have computers, granted, but in order for the students to pass through their courses, they had to be on task and follow a schedule. Some managed to do that without problems, but I had many that struggled with this. I think having computers would not eliminate this self-motivating problem. I also found that the honor system was greatly put to the test as well. I see nothing different happening in today's technological classroom.
Another area that I had problems with was "teacher as coach." A teacher is just that -- someone who teaches. A role model. Reigeluth defines a teacher as someone who "coaches students to become better self-directed learners while helping them to acquire domain-specific skills and topics." (Reigeluth p. 10) Really, what the teacher does is demonstrates and role plays these skills so that the learner can master them. The same would be necessary if the classroom had more technology. The teacher would still need to show in real-time the instruction needed to master the material. You shouldn't minimize the human element in this situation.
I do agree that it would be great if each student had a specific plan for each of them. It is possible to use the computer and technology to accomplish some of these plans, but I believe it would make the whole experience less warm to eliminate the actual classroom-style format.
I found Postman's point of view more my style. I understand where he is coming from and even agree with his point that sometimes "new technologies do not increase people's options but do just the opposite." (Postman, pg. 1) What I took from this is that with so much technology available, the family dynamic has gone under a considerable change. People don't seem to need each other as much as before. My boys are a great example of this. When I was younger (b.c -- before computers!), we had to work and play together. We played games together face to face. We talked with each other face to face. Now, my boys each have his own DS and computer games and TV and cell phones (i.e.texting). It's harder to make the time to spend actual quality time together face to face. We just live in a faster-paced society, and I believe that is due to technology. I want to use technology, but not if it means lessening the human experience.
Both Reigeluth and Postman pointed out one of the biggest obstacles to a technological-filled classroom. The schools just don't have the funds. To push this agenda forward when the money isn't there makes the whole point moot when it comes to using technology almost exclusively in a classroom setting.
As an educator, I want to use as much technology as would be beneficial to the student. I wouldn't use it just to make my life easier if it didn't have merit for the students. As Postman quoted Alan Kay, "the problems that schools cannot solve without machines are problems they can't solve with them." (Postman, pg. 3). Technology will not solve the problems we have in society. I believe this is something that needs to be taught to this generation.
No comments:
Post a Comment