I read the Reigeluth/Joseph article first and my reaction along the way was to ask ‘why?’ and ‘at what cost?’ I like the idea of ‘quantum improvements in learning’ as I think most of us do, but a new way of doing things isn’t always best. The vision and mission of education must be maintained or even improved through change, but it cannot be lost. Could we have a viable education system if the electric grid crashed and we had no access to modern technologies? We should be able to do this with obvious adjustments. So many problems arise in education and so many solutions are proposed that it is hard to focus on the goal. Standard of Learning tests are one example. They were created by well meaning individuals to solve a problem. Most teachers consider them a new problem, and the debate rages on.
Reigeluth quotes himself and appeals to our deeper thinking when he says, “When you really think about it, our current paradigm of education is not designed for learning; it is designed for sorting.” He gives the founders of education too much credit. A building was simply a way to gather groups of kids for learning. As an educator, I never asked, “How can I advance my agenda of sorting kids today?” But rather, “How can I effectively teach these kids today?” So he starts off by striking a bad cord and does what Postman decries; creates a problem to be solved.
Obviously, my tendency is toward Postman. As he says of technology: “They divert the intelligence and energy of talented people from addressing the issues we need most to confront.” They mission, the goal, the vision of education is of utmost concern, and must be the first button on the shirt. If that is wrong the whole shirt of education is wrong. Now I like and appreciate technology and believe it is a wonderful tool. It is not a question of whether or not to use technology, but how best to use it for our desired outcomes.
A question that came to mind as I was scoping the Table 1 comparison chart in Reigeluth was, ‘who is our customer?’ My thoughts are; the parents, the students, and society, mostly in that order. Sometimes situations arise that necessitate a change in order, like when the student is threatened at home, or a student threatens society. I feel this is import because it helps define the role of education and educators. I do not like the doctrine of in loco parentis. I believe that educators are to supplement what is being taught in the home. Unfortunately, we all know that sometimes the teachers are the only ones who give direction and affection to particular students. Frankly it is a part of the job, most of us love. Teachers we’ve had are probably a main reason we have become teachers. But defining our role is vitally important.
In the end, I liked postman’s questions and philosophy better, and found flaws with Reigeluth’s line of reasoning, but I think that the articles are actually compatible. If we can keep technology within the boundary lines of the clearly defined goals of education, we should invest in finding new ways to improve education with technology, and a main reason I am in this class. Both pointed to outcomes based, skills based, critical thinking based goals. I love Postman’s use of Kay, stating he “likes to remind us that any problems the schools cannot solve without machines, they cannot solve with them. “
No comments:
Post a Comment