Reflections on Postman and Reigeluth & Joseph Articles

     My initial reaction to Postman was one of complete disagreement, but with rereading and thinking about his points, I have come to agree with him to a degree. When the author of “Of Luddites, Learning and Life” wrote, “…new technologies may not always solve significant problems or any problem at all. But because the technologies are there, we often invent problems to justify our using them.” I found myself thinking of the times I’ve seen colleagues (and myself) using some web 2.0 tool just because it was “cool” not because it was truly needed or there was no other way to get a point across. We used it simply because it was there and we knew the kids would get a kick out of it. This is not, in my opinion, the proper or best use of technology. However, there are certain students who need some motivator to engage them at times. If this is the reason or the problem that technology can fix, then I am for it. Thinking of how the internet, if not properly managed and supervised can create problems with regard to surfing inappropriate sites, I found myself agreeing with Postman when he stated, “And we could be clearer about what we are getting into if there were less cheerleading about, let us say, the use of computers in the classroom and more sober analysis of what may be its costs intellectually and socially.” Such costs could also include the over use of games, for instance, on a particular learning point if a student has mastered that topic. Because it is fun and the student is engaged, doesn’t mean real learning is taking place. Perhaps that student needs to move on to the next learning goal, which may be best learned working with a peer who could not only help with the learning of the subject matter, but also provide an environment within which to learn the very important skills of cooperation, listening, and the sharing of ideas.

     When Postman states that, “…new technologies do not, by and large, increase people’s options but do just the opposite.” I immediately thought of myriad examples that refute this opinion. With tools such as netTrekker from Michigan Learn Port, I can locate resources that provide teachers with differentiated reading levels to meet the needs of all learners in our classrooms.  Skype allows for the exchange of ideas with students in completely different parts of the country or world where perspectives are totally different. Technology can expand horizons, not shrink them. Technology also gives students the means to show what they truly know in ways that best fits their learning styles. They can write with paper and pencil, if they so choose, to tell us what they learned, or they can choose to create a digital poster with Glogster if they tend to be a visual learner. Slide show presentations, video creation, blog entries are a few examples of how technology can provide options to allow students to learn and grow in the ways that best suit each individual learner. Then there is the entire area of assistive technologies that open doors to people who otherwise may be drastically hindered. For these reasons I strongly disagree with the position that technology takes away choices.

     The Reigeluth and Joseph piece brought up issues that our district is currently engaged in. The idea of taking the focus off of time and placing it on achievement made me think of how our high school will soon be providing students options to graduate in less time or more time than is traditionally taken. Learning focused educational systems is what we all are in the business of being. Yes, in times past, the focus has been on getting through the book/curriculum or teaching the material instead of teaching the student. The use of technology to track learning has become a huge part of our existence. Tools such as Data Director allow us to look at assessment information immediately and therefore direct our instruction at the needs of our students. Progess can be monitored from a variety of perspectives with the use of technology and can be improved with resources such as Read Naturally and Lexia. Study Island can be prescriptive based on students’ learning needs.

     To make the paradigm shift Reigeluth and Joseph spoke of with regard to standards-based assessment systems is one that I believe will be a difficult change to make. Teachers see the need and value in this, but parents, who were educated under the “Industrial Age” model, still believe that a letter grade tells them all they need to know about their child’s learning. Through surveys and direct communication with individual parents and parent advisory committees, I can see that this shift will come slowly.

     Overall, my position regarding the use of technology in education, at this point in my own learning process, is that blending our instruction using a variety of methods, tools, and resources is the best approach to reach all learners. We live in a technology infused world and our students need to learn to see technology not only as a means of entertainment but as tools for productivity and collaboration. However, not all of society is animated or digitized. People will always be. Relationships will always exist. Therefore, the human element should always be THE factor in the learning process of children. Technology can and is a wonderful way to assess, track, access information, etc., but alone it can not grow civil, productive, caring adults.