Ayelmao. Asher Nagy
3/8/17Pr. Smith
ETEC 106
Hey guys it's me, Asher from class. To review this YT video I have to start off by saying that it was a little annoying right out the gate. I'm a naysayer and technology is a great tool but as it gets more and more advanced the harder it will be to perform a longitudinal study on consistent usage and its users in order to study the effects it has. There are plenty of valid concerns behind not wanting to integrate technology into education because it seems to dominate and control the direction of teaching and learning.
The overall video was good I just don't like or agree with the videos premise which was smugly put. The first point is to keep technology in school because "kids love it". I also remember loving it when teacher's would wheel in the TV so we could watch a movie while a teacher graded our work or took a break. Kid's "love it" is not an argument. The point of school should be to teach kid's basic skills to prepare them for life and to build on those skills. The point of technology should be to help children learn what they need to know and to NOT use it for task they find too difficult. There will inevitably come a time when mental math and writing will need to done without technology (which is all the time) and I have concerns that kid's will not know how to function without it. Look up any Mark Dice video in which he goes around and ask people about history, civics, geography etc. You will realize that the millennial generation which integrated technology in school has some of the dumbest members in it.
The question then becomes "Is it lack of technology in aid of learning?" or could it be the fact that spending has been increased and the and test scores have been totally linear. They haven't changed. At the end of the day a student will need to know how to perform rudimentary arithmetic or know what event started World War 1. And the no amount of money spent on technology can motivate him to learn. With the passing of NCLBA by President Bush it allowed children to pass a grade that they haven't earned. how does pretending they can pass a grade help them? At some point standards need to be enforced will inevitably mean that some kids will be held back. If you wanted fair you picked the wrong species. The market is not going to care about their deficit and hire them anyway. Not everyone can go on and be a lab tech, chemist doctor or engineer. The point of school is to teach kids basic skills to interact with the world successfully, not to pat them on the back for failure. I'll provide links to evidence of test scores being unchanged with increased spending.
The assumption that technology doesn't help and the integration of it in education was a failure in one generation is not valid because it can obviously improve over time and there are plenty of unknowns and great potential in the future.
The point that it saves money is concerning for this reason. When they say "it saves money" what exactly are they comparing it to? The assumption made in the video is that some kids are unable to keep up and will need extra time and resources to learn. Are they comparing projected technology costs and their training needs to the dysfunctional and money-hemorrhaging education system in the US?
In summation the video is good but my point is that there are some skills that will just have to be taught without technology. It's true that it has permeated plenty of areas of life including the professional world. What I 'am saying is that it should be treated as an ancillary to learning and teaching. Not the fulcrum. You can't cling to anything that tightly otherwise it ends up hurting you. Never bet against the human spirit.
References
1.) http://www.heritage.org/education/report/does-spending-more-education-improve-academic-achievement
2.) http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/Test-scores-highlight-ineffective-school-funding-4618923.php
No comments:
Post a Comment