Monday, January 21, 2008

Technology to Support Learning (assignment for Jan 22)

The “Technology to Support Learning” article adds several new dimensions to our continuing class discussion regarding the role of technology in an academic setting. While the article seems a bit out of date, it is still relevant in our conversation. The article highlights five key ways in which technology can positively impact education: enhancing curricula, providing tools for learning, facilitating teacher feedback, building educational communities, and expanding opportunities for teaching. Each of these areas of impact has the potential to significantly change, and possibly even revolutionize, education overall. These innovations can make learning more interactive or problems more tangible; they can engage students, provide frameworks, and bring people together. To underscore the potential benefits of a variety of technologies, the authors cite several convincing studies and use case examples. The authors conclude by stating that technology is an “important instrument in education” and holds “great promise both for increasing access to knowledge and as a means of promoting learning” (229).

While this article is well-written and convincingly argues that technology has undeniably important impact in education, it fails to substantively discuss the complicated relationship between technology and traditional teaching, and this is one of the areas I am most interested in. At what point does technology become overbearing? At what point does it hinder social interaction? Where and how is this line drawn? These are all difficult questions. On the one hand, technology provides a new and innovative way of doing things that may be more efficient, but on the other hand, a traditional approach emphasizes interpersonal skills, teamwork, and a freedom from what, if unchecked, could quickly become a debilitating technological dependence. Finding the middle the ground between the two and balancing the costs and benefits of technology versus the traditional approach is complicated. I’d like to further discuss the issue in class.

1 comment:

Tor said...

We will certainly discuss these questions further in class. You are right--the middle group is the hardest and richest are to develop. And how interesting too that something was published in 2000 is already so outdated!