After reading both articles, it is difficult to know where to begin. These types of articles always get my head spinning about my opinions regarding public education and the work that we do. I find myself caught somewhere in the middle of both authors, philosophically. One the one hand, I can see many of the benefits the use of technology brings to the classroom. Recently, my own school has undergone drastic technological upgrades, which have brought about positive changes in mine, and my colleagues methods of instruction. On the other hand, I can see how thinking that technology is the sole answer to improving our educational problems is foolish and very shortsighted.
With that said, I tend to indentify more with the Postman article. I have often thought that the problems with education run much deeper, and have less to do with what goes on in the classroom, and more to do with societal issues and how the public perceives education. Postman states, “the great problems of education are of a social and moral nature and have nothing to do with dazzling new technologies”. I tend to agree, especially at the elementary level. We have placed so much importance on the use of technology that we put it into the hands of children as early as possible and demand it’s use in the classroom as early as Kindergarten. There is plenty of research that indicates children develop and learn better through authentic play and INTERACTION with other children. We already demand too much content and curriculum from lower elementary students and the addition of technology only aids in distracting younger students from real learning.
The Reigluth article makes some excellent points about changing the educational paradigm, but this philosophy always seems so frustrating to me. I agree that students should be given the opportunity to achieve and to learn at a comfortable rate, but the idea of customizing curriculum and instruction for EACH learner and allowing them as much time as they need seems like a nearly impossible task. How are we supposed to do this? Certainly not within a public educational system that is understaffed, underfunded, and held to impossible standards.
This is where I become very torn. I teach high school and believe that it is our job to teach a sense of responsibility and to prepare students for what lies ahead. I go to great lengths to provide as flexible an educational experience as possible, but often am frustrated by student’s lack of genuine enthusiasm for learning. Reigluth says that in the information age the customer is “King”. I feel like in public education we have made the learning “King” and we bow to his every whim. Perhaps we’ve gone too far in one direction. I want to believe that we can accommodate all learners, but realistically there are often times too many obstacles. As much as we try to “customize” learning, unfortunately, students won’t be able to work a job at their own pace or take college classes that allow them as much time as they need to learn the material. If we spent more time considering what is appropriate for learners at every level (especially younger levels), we might find that we would have to do a lot less damage control at higher levels. Learners might be better developed, enthusiastic, and equipped to handle higher order thinking and problem solving. More screen time won’t help to achieve this goal. I want very much to provide each of my students the
No comments:
Post a Comment