Todd Oppenheimer's article in The Atlantic really resonated with me. For years I have been a bit of a skeptic about the value of computer use in the classroom; I've always wondered whether my 3 daughters are receiving as "in-depth" an education as I received, back in the 60's and 70's, in excellent schools that were, of course, not yet computer-equipped. I've worried that, while they are developing technological proficiency, the content of their work has suffered. But then I entered the GSEAP program, and came to understand that there are many learning styles, and that learning which is self-directed creates lasting learning. So I have come to embrace the use of computers from the standpoint of educational psychology and philosophy. Then learning in this class about the actual technology that is available to enhance education, I came to understand just how useful digital technology can be in the classroom.
That said, this article raises so many valid questions about the effectiveness of technology in the classroom. I agree absolutely that computer use won't be effective unless teachers are properly trained in the "hows" and "whens" and "whys" to use technology. Sometimes it may be a great resource; but at other times it may not be the best way to teach a topic. In addition, I am absolutely opposed to spending on technology at the expense of music, art and physical education classes. I believe strongly that the arts are central to the intellectual development of children, and that students need some physical activity in their days. And of course as a future English teacher, I could never say that computers are "more important than Shakespeare and Plato." But I believe that notion fails to appreciate the true role of computers, as tools: tools that can be used to study Shakespeare and Plato!
Other reservations the author cites include the passivity of sitting in front of computers; he too assails "Sesame Street" for teaching a generation of children to sit in front of the television. This notion runs counter to my own view that "educational" tv is far better than "junk" tv, yet it is indeed true that "Sesame Street" ushered in the age of television viewing for kids. Unfortunately, now these kids don't watch that show, which was and is actually educational and witty. In any case, the notion that motion pictures would become the next educational tool, and then portable radio receivers, is mocked by some of the interviewees; however, podcasts and youtube videos are indeed current sources of learning! So the early prognosticators were not too far off.
However, I do believe there is merit to the idea that the human and physical world holds greater learning potential than the cyber-world. Yes, computers can expand children's imaginations. And yes, "high-tech" children do think differently from the rest of us, and that should be recognized. But at the same time, I agree with the comment that the 3-D concept is better taught with Tinker Toys than with a computer simulation, or that there is great learning value in carving a figure out of balsa wood. I found it interesting that Hewlett-Packard (!) looks to hire people not with the best computer skills but those who are collaborators and innovative thinkers.
Another issue is the notion that most of the content on the Internet is "total garbage" and that the computer is merely an "amplifier" dumbing down the next generation. This concerns me greatly, as of course, do the actual dangers of the Internet (inappropriate material, predators, etc.). How do we teach students to discern what is a quality resource and what is not? Much depends on the quality of software programs, of course. And moreso, on proper guidance from teachers on how to best use resources. Just as the retrieval of information can be problematic, so too can the posting of students' work. The article notes the view that the Web can be just a "worldwide vanity press" with so much published regardless of literary merit. But conversely, the Web gives young writers an audience, and that in itself can be quite affirming.
Still, on the whole I find much to commend with the use of technology in the classroom. The global reach of the Internet should not be dismissed; my high school daughter is in an after-school club that communicates with an all-girls school in Kenya; how wonderful for the students from each of these vastly different cultures! Similarly, the notion of learning "24/7" is not to be dismissed (I'm agreeing with Newt Gingrich for the first time ever!). Students have access to information and knowledge at all times of the day, and anywhere they may be. How great is that?
Of course, in an ideal world there would be smaller class size, higher teacher salaries, better school facilities, longer hours of instruction, more after-school programs, and so forth. But the key is to understand computer technology as a tool for better learning, for helping students create their own meaning though self-directed projects, collaboration, and so forth. The thoughtful use of digital technology is surely an asset in the present-day classroom.
No comments:
Post a Comment