In response to Larry Cuban’s article, “Public School Teachers Using Machines in the Next Decade,” I would just like to say:
The question of why information technologies have not been as successfully integrated into schooling as they have been in every other major institution in our society seems to be at the heart of Cuban’s inquiry into the future of computers in schools. As he notes, public expectations for schools differ substantially from other institutions, such as business, and there is considerable resistance to changing the status quo of teaching, especially in an era of reform that is reductionist rather than progressive.
Moreover, teaching with innovative technology conflicts with popularly held beliefs about what constitutes good teaching; beliefs that are anchored in our society by a generation that grew up with a relative deprivation of information of technology. However, the same constituency aspires for greater productivity in education of the masses, and thus desires the results that technology-based educational reforms could bring about.
The preservationist doctrine seems to deny the necessity for changes to the underlying structures of schools in order to facilitate greater productivity, even though the basic structures of every other social institution (banking, commerce, communications, travel) have been completely altered by the advent of information technology. I think Cuban is right then when he points out that, “The nature of education must inevitably adapt to the nature of work in society” (p. 8).
It seems clear that the potential for greater efficiencies through technology will eventually be made plausible through, what Cuban calls, an evolutionary scenario of slowly altering school structures through creative uses of technology. Hybrid schools, those that use a combination of time-tested methods and new technologies, have the potential to help “bring schools more in sync with the technological imperatives of the larger society,” (Cuban, p. 11) and thus are a model for the future.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Friday, August 3, 2007
Teachers as Catalysts in the Digital Age
It was interesting for me to find out that it is not computers that are compelling change in teaching practices towards a more constructivist approach. I was set up to believe the premise that technology was the agent of change, to which teachers must inevitably adapt. It made sense, initially, because of how learning is changing among the generations that grow up avidly using new digital technologies.
It was welcome news, then, that teachers have a say in the matter, as the main decision-makers in their respective classrooms. It makes sense that teachers would view technology only as a tool towards their own ends – employed to achieve the goals teachers make with respect to teaching.
I think the most critical change involved is the mindset concerning the role of teacher. By relinquishing their roles as ‘information giver,’ and instead seeing themselves as facilitators of student learning, teachers are able to embrace computer programs which allow their students a greater deal of autonomy in constructing their own understandings, which is what constructivist practices are all about. Relinquishing this control, however, can be difficult for some teachers.
The facts show, however, that more progressive teaching practices are ones that can successfully integrate more technology into them. Computers allow for more student participation, getting them actively involved in their own learning and keeping them interested. It seems like every teacher would want that for their students. However, not all teachers have the same access to technology.
As many teachers’ experiences and reflections lead them to embrace the idea of more student-centered instruction, I think they will embrace computer technologies for the structure and support they can bring to the process. It is still up to the teacher to make these changes, but a supportive environment and more exposure to educational technology could help them along the way. In the end, however, teachers must see technology as helping to accomplish their personal goals for teaching, in order for it to be viewed as a worthwhile means.
It was welcome news, then, that teachers have a say in the matter, as the main decision-makers in their respective classrooms. It makes sense that teachers would view technology only as a tool towards their own ends – employed to achieve the goals teachers make with respect to teaching.
I think the most critical change involved is the mindset concerning the role of teacher. By relinquishing their roles as ‘information giver,’ and instead seeing themselves as facilitators of student learning, teachers are able to embrace computer programs which allow their students a greater deal of autonomy in constructing their own understandings, which is what constructivist practices are all about. Relinquishing this control, however, can be difficult for some teachers.
The facts show, however, that more progressive teaching practices are ones that can successfully integrate more technology into them. Computers allow for more student participation, getting them actively involved in their own learning and keeping them interested. It seems like every teacher would want that for their students. However, not all teachers have the same access to technology.
As many teachers’ experiences and reflections lead them to embrace the idea of more student-centered instruction, I think they will embrace computer technologies for the structure and support they can bring to the process. It is still up to the teacher to make these changes, but a supportive environment and more exposure to educational technology could help them along the way. In the end, however, teachers must see technology as helping to accomplish their personal goals for teaching, in order for it to be viewed as a worthwhile means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
