In “No Child Left Untableted”, written by Carlo Rotella in
September of 2013, discusses the pros and cons of using tablets as a
transformative educational tool for public school students. Every teachers and
students in middle schools of Guilford County were to receive a tablet for the
purpose of efficient teaching and learning. Rotella includes various interviews
with professionals to have the general audience see both sides of the coin concerning
educational technology and how this can impact our future generation.
Rotella interviews Joel Klein, who is the Chief executive of Amplify
(manufacturer of tablets), and listens to his stance on the issue. One of the
biggest claims he made on why he supports spending tax dollars on educational
technology is the power of customizing an individual student. In another words,
teachers are able to help each student according to their own pace and
curriculum level. Britt, the facilitator that leads training sessions for
teachers, also supports educational technology and stresses that their job is
not to dispense knowledge but to facilitate a learning environment. He claims
that teachers are able to architect and extend the learning environment. Arne
Duncan, the U.S. secretary of education, also seems to support the use of
tablets from his concerns of students working on same materials at the same
time, which has always been inefficient.
In beginning of the article, the author somewhat criticizes the
use of tablets in a learning environment. As a professor who teaches college
students, he complains that virtual connection only displaces real interaction
between teachers and students. He also poses concerns about the increase of childhood
obesity by linking it to “screen time” and addresses privacy issues regarding
data. Larry Rosen, a psychologist at California State University, states an
ultimate question, “Now that we’re doing this, what does this do to our kids?” It
is important to note that the result of such transformation is unpredictable.
Jay Giedd, a neuroscientist, shows his future concerns by stressing that
adolescent brain undergoes enormous change from social interactions but the
isolation from technology interferes with that development. In the end, Rotella
ends with his second interview with Joel Klein and uses Finland as an example
of a country that values teachers rather than technology. He concludes that
respectable teachers are the main source of quality education and it would
not make sense to provide them with “cool new gadgets”.
Although such transformation is criticized, development of
educational technology continues to grow. Thus, instead of banning such
technologies, teachers will have to effectively exploit these tablets and
combine traditional teaching methods with new technologies that can benefit the
whole classroom.
Carlo Rotella, born in 1964, is a professor of English at Boston
College. He received a PhD from Yale University and specializes in American
Studies, urban literature and culture, American literature, and creative
nonfiction writing. He writes for the New York Times and Washington post,
writing over twenty articles. This explains why his article was more
conversational and creative in writing.
I found this article very interesting and
thought-provoking as this is a current issue that is unpredictable. The reactions I found from other audiences varied. Some
people criticized the education system for wasting excessive amount of money on
technologies when they can spend it on things that are necessary. Others stood
with Rotella stating that they should focus more on improving the abilities of teachers, rather than technologies.
Some articles that may have reached different
conclusions:
Armstrong, A. (2014).
Technology in the Classroom: It’s Not a Matter of ‘If,’ but ‘When’ and ‘How”.
Ann Arbor: Prakken Publication, Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment