D/B1: My Reaction to the Week 1 Articles

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

(image reference: http://www.classroom20.com/photo/649749:Photo:99972?context=album&albumId=649749%3AAlbum%3A100006)

Article 1:

Reigeluth, C.M. & Joseph, R. (2002). Beyond technology integration: The case for technology transformation.Educational Technology, 42(4), 9-13.

I found the list of comparisons between the industrial and information age in Table 1 of the article very interesting. When you just isolate and contemplate on the words used to describe the industrial age: standardization, compliance, conformity, compartmentalization, etc..., it is very plain to see that this is the current picture of public education. Then in contrast, it is exciting for me to envision such an educational environment that could be described by the words found in the information age column: customization, team-based, autonomy with accountability, networking....

To an extent, I think the author is on to something when he talks about standards-based, or task-oriented learning. I, too, have been bothered by the fact that "receiving a B- in U.S. History tells us nothing about what that students knows." However, when he suggests a paradigm shift from "advancement of the fittest" to "advancement of all", I tend to become a bit skeptical. While it is ideal to think that all learners could become doctors given a customized amount of time, resources, and accommodation, the fact remains that we will continue to need workers of all different skill levels, including garbage collectors. And this prompts me to ask the question: which occupation is more important after all? In other words, is it more necessary to cure diseases, or prevent diseases? I suppose I am digressing. My point is that standards-based reporting is a much more effective indicator of a learner's ability, but I don't quite agree that all learners should strive to match the highest level of mastery in each subject. Perhaps we should continue allow achievement to vary in order to help guide students toward their most passionate and successful pursuits.

Article 2:

Postman, N. (1993). Of Luddites, learning, and life. Technos Quarterly, 2(4).

The author begins by discussing Luddites, which seems to imply that he does not advocate for technology as a useful learning tool, but rather thinks of technology as something that will inhibit learners' abilities to become successful and meaningful contributors to society. I could not disagree more. I believe that in our current culture, equipping students with useful technology skills is almost as important as the content of many classes. The trend of today's workforce is headed toward more and improved technology at a pace that is almost impossible to keep up with. He goes on to warn that we are "suffering from information glut", because of our access to the Internet, among other source of technology. I find it curious that a statement such as this is also available for our reading pleasure, thanks to our access to the article via the Internet.

In the author's story about purchasing a Honda, he asks the question of the dealer several times, "What is the problem to which [technology] is the answer?" I believe he is contemplating a question that doesn't deserve our time or energy. Must there always be a problem to warrant us to work toward improvement? Would not our progress become stagnant if we all thought this way? If I consider his question as it applies to education, "What is the problem to which new technologies are the solution?", here is how I might answer: The problem is that our workforce is progressing while our educational system is not. Within the classroom, the problem is that our students are capable of learning this technology which will equip them for success in their post-secondary lives, but we withhold it from them. Furthermore, the problem is that our current generation craves instructional delivery in ways that captivates their attention, and without the implementation of new technologies, we lose them, and they are uninspired.