When I started reading the Oppenheimer’s The Flickering Mind I was a little surprised by the stand that the author was taking. I think that when we have a new “invention” and we try to implement it in our life there will be people that will be very enthusiastic about it and people that will be very pessimistic about it. Following the history of technology Oppenheimer focuses on the unfulfilled dreams that people had about technology fixing all the problems in education. After the publishing of the report The Nation at Risk a lot of educators looked at the technology as a savior and started using it without being ready for it. In the first chapter Oppenheimer says “Noting is more ridiculous than the idea that this technology can be used to save schools” When Oppenheimer talked about the connection between increasing test scores and technology during Clinton time he pointed out that the test scores rose a year before the computers actually arrived in the school that he visited. The answer is actually “smaller classes and longer periods; new books and extra time for the teachers to prepare their lessons…” Oppenheimer also pointed out that technology expands the gap between “students of color and white students and students high- poverty and low- poverty students”
In conclusion I think that Oppenheimer wants to make us aware and careful about how we use technology in our schools.
What I like about the Tech Tonic reading is it that has more optimistic point of view than The Flickering Mind. It gives more ideas for solution instead just point out the problem. The authors of this article pay more attention to the positive side of using technology in school. In chapter four the authors also state that technology can be helpful if honors developmental needs of the children.
In chapter eight the authors suggest that the use of technology in the classroom has to be carefully evaluated before implementing it and it has to have meaningful use for the students.
I think NETS.S outlines the main purposes that we should look for when we implement technology into the school curriculum. Technology has to be used to increase the students’ creativity and innovation; it has to teach students how to “use digital media” and how to communicate and work collaboratively; improve their research skills; build critical thinking skills in solving problems and making decisions.
I think these three articles have very close relations. As future educators we have to be aware of the pros and cons of using technology in school and what is the main goal that we want to achieve with it.
Veselina,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your statement that the Tech Tonic reading is much more optimistic than the Oppenheimer reading. Oppenheimer seems to only point out the problems with technology, rather than admitting that there is a positive side to technology in classrooms or suggesting changes to make technology work better in the classroom. Complaining about it will not do anything to help; we must find ways to better understand technology and use it in schools.
Although I agree that Oppenheimer tends to focus more on the disadvantages of technology in today's classroom than the advantages, there are some good points made there. If we agree that technology has to be used to increase the students’ creativity and innovation, then we must also ask ourselves the question: "Is this the case for every classroom, for every student?" The socioeconomic situation of students varies and so does the access to technology inside or outside of the classroom. As much as technology attempts to bridge this gap, the reality is that some schools cannot implement technology in their curriculum and the students do not have the chance to develop their creativity and innovation. Such students do not have the chance to access the same resources a technologically advanced school would provide for its students.
ReplyDeleteI think your post gets to the value of the Oppenheimer book. It is very easy to get swept away by the flash of new technologies. They do some really neat things. Oppenheimer is one-sided, I agree, but it is a side that I don't think gets enough airing. I agree with BeccaF that complaining by itself does not good, but if it prompts someone to ask the right questions, and helps teachers and administrators to remember "the main goal that we want to achieve", then it is worthwhile.
ReplyDeletejd