I think both articles have valid points to consider. Reigeluth/Joseph focuses on how technology can help education "switch its focus from sorting (industrial age) to learning-and to prepare ALL learners to be problem-solvers, self-directed, and work well in groups". He proposes that by utilizing technology appropriately we can transform the way we teach to focus on the individual learners needs. Postman, on the other hand, focuses on the bigger picture of education and its role in "how to learn and how to behave as part of a community". His idea is that we are information overloaded and more technology is not going to fix the bigger social problems of today.
First I must say I love to use technology and was probably one of the first teachers to embrace its use in my classroom! I liked the idea of bringing new, innovative ways to enhance the students learning beyond what was in the classroom. I taught science so animation and real life examples were easily found on the Web. The high school I taught at also embraced Mastery Learning and block scheduling. The thought was that a longer class time would allow teaching, testing reteaching, and retesting until all the students reached Mastery. Unfortunately, Mastery Learning in its pure sense could not be successful in the way school is taught presently. I don't think technology can address individual learning until the whole structure of the school day changes. For instance, every student strives to graduate with their class and they must complete x amount of credits per semester per year. I found the adaptive form of Mastery Learning we used to be ineffective and very difficult to orchestrate with 25 plus students per period. So I would agree with Reigeluth/Joseph with the concept of transformation but I am not sure it is presently feasible.
I think Postman's view broadened my idea of the role of schools in general. It's not just about learning but rather how to help students critically filter the barrage of information coming in and then apply it to make society a better place. And he's right when he says that more information isn't necessarily making our world a better place to live in!
I think both viewpoints helped me to better understand the roles of education and technology. I think technology is a helpful tool in the educational setting both for students and teacher but cannot replace the "human" interactions of the dynamics which occur at school.
First I must say I love to use technology and was probably one of the first teachers to embrace its use in my classroom! I liked the idea of bringing new, innovative ways to enhance the students learning beyond what was in the classroom. I taught science so animation and real life examples were easily found on the Web. The high school I taught at also embraced Mastery Learning and block scheduling. The thought was that a longer class time would allow teaching, testing reteaching, and retesting until all the students reached Mastery. Unfortunately, Mastery Learning in its pure sense could not be successful in the way school is taught presently. I don't think technology can address individual learning until the whole structure of the school day changes. For instance, every student strives to graduate with their class and they must complete x amount of credits per semester per year. I found the adaptive form of Mastery Learning we used to be ineffective and very difficult to orchestrate with 25 plus students per period. So I would agree with Reigeluth/Joseph with the concept of transformation but I am not sure it is presently feasible.
I think Postman's view broadened my idea of the role of schools in general. It's not just about learning but rather how to help students critically filter the barrage of information coming in and then apply it to make society a better place. And he's right when he says that more information isn't necessarily making our world a better place to live in!
I think both viewpoints helped me to better understand the roles of education and technology. I think technology is a helpful tool in the educational setting both for students and teacher but cannot replace the "human" interactions of the dynamics which occur at school.
