Views on Technology in Education
Reaction to:
The Pros and Cons of Technology in the Classroom A Debate by Drs. Roy Pea and Larry Cuban by Melanie Eve Miller Technology, by its broadest meaning, has an imperative role in today’s classrooms. The use of that technology, however, must be carefully and strategically implemented in order to be of highest value to both teachers and students. We first must consider the definition of technology in order to determine its proper role in education. Dr. Roy Pea rightfully mentions the inventions of technologies that have brought about revolutionary change throughout history. (Pea, 1998) Technology consistently changes our world in remarkable ways, observable from the Sumerians’ invention of the first known writing system of cuneiform, the Egyptians’ invention of papyrus, to the relatively more modern inventions of the printing press, television, computers, and the Internet. Even the mere definition of the word technology has changed over time. Noah Webster, a founding father of American scholarship and education, in 1828 defined technology as, “a description of arts, or a treatise on the arts.” (Webster, 1828) Today, Noah Webster’s modern predecessor, Merriam-Webster, defines technology first as the practical application of knowledge, especially in a particular area. (Merriam-Webster, 2008) Therefore, applying the modern definition to technology in regard to its place in the classroom, technology in education is not optional; it is essential. The technology in question, then, as referenced by Dr. Pea, is “whatever the most advanced technologies are available for teaching and learning in a particular era.” (Pea, ¶2, 1998) We then assume that technology in the classroom today naturally includes of the use of computers, digital media, and the Internet. Therefore, as we seek to give students the best, most advanced tools to gain and apply practical knowledge in particular areas, we must assess the implements available for each specific discipline and determine the most suitable tool. I agree with Dr. Larry Cuban in his persuasion that we must ask some complex questions regarding the use of technology in the classroom. (Cuban, 1998) Just because technology is available for all areas of education, do all aspects of education require the use of technology to be effective? I think not. Are some ages, disciplines and learning styles better suited to different, non-technological based methods? My belief is, yes. I agree with Dr. Cuban’s assertion that we must have clear goals regarding the use of technology in the classroom, just as we must have clear goals and solutions for how to achieve particular outcomes in all disciplines, both with the presence or absence of technology. “Can you reach the same goals at less cost?” (Cuban, ¶13, 1998) Dr. Cuban’s question is particularly significant in our current economy. He asserts: “[M]uch cheaper than a © Copyright 2008. Melanie Eve Milller
Views on Technology in Education
major capital investment in hardware and software that becomes obsolete in eighteen months to twenty-four months... might well be to reduce class size, adding aides to the classroom or peer tutoring.” (Cuban, ¶13, 1998) I might add that the proliferation of the use of home computers, which are inherently less expensive to update, creates the possibility (and perhaps the risk) of the classroom computers becoming largely inferior to the student’s home computer, thus demeaning the value of instruction on the classroom computer. I would also maintain that some goals might be better achieved through nontechnological methods. The stages of learning and of cognitive development, as defined by such developmental theorists as Jean Piaget, remain unchanged even in an increasingly technologically advanced society. Dr. Pea admits during audience questioning that his five year-old daughter “doesn’t spend much time on computers,” and defines the computer as another form of play than of preparation. (Pea, Q&A ¶26, 1998) In this spirit, I believe that young children, particularly in the primary grades, should not be immersed in technology as a dominant source of activity or education as their cognitive development requires a multi-sensory approach that is unrealistic to simulate through technology. Dr. Cuban iterated a valid point when addressing the question of the power of dogma as it pertains to the acceptance or rejection of technology. He asks, “How long does it really take to learn how to use a keyboard or to learn how to use it in any particular industry?” (Cuban, Q&A ¶60, 1998) In concurrence with Dr. Cuban, I do not believe students must be immersed in technology in the classroom for twelve years, or even four years, to become a proficient user of technology. Dr. Cuban, in my opinion, correctly asserts in his final statement during the audience questions segment: “The goals of the public school system are not to prepare people for work alone.” (Cuban, Q&A ¶66, 1998) Thus, I agree that we, as a society, should reject the myth that without technological immersion, our children will be unskilled. (Cuban 1998) Rather, I believe we should be more concerned about our children being uneducated. Education, as a whole, is implicitly more complex than the acquisition and application of particular skills. I believe quality education can be enhanced by technology; it is not defined by it. I do believe, as Dr. Pea states, “that through technologies we can pose and answer basic questions that lead to fundamental breakthroughs in learning and education.” (Pea, ¶8, 1998) We have, at our fingertips, the most immense access to knowledge and information that any society has ever known. That access, however, demands an acute responsibility to teach our children to think critically and logically, to recognize fallacy, and to assimilate valuable knowledge. Ten years ago, Dr. Pea maintained that students had too little access to computers to make a difference–“just a few hours a week.” (Pea, ¶4, 1998) I do not believe Dr. Pea’s assertion remains true today with the prevalence of home computers, unfiltered Internet access, cell phones that act as personal computers, more widespread use of laptop computers, wireless Internet connections, and the availability of computers in public libraries, schools, and institutions. Children of this generation often come home from school and maneuver the Internet with skills that even their parents may not possess. Children today are navigating social networking websites, downloading
© Copyright 2008. Melanie Eve Miller
Views on Technology in Education
music, uploading photos and videos, journaling, e-mailing, blogging, building personal websites, and playing video games with people from around the world. Thus, our goal as educators should be to harness those skills toward a useful purpose beyond entertainment. To this end, I believe Dr. Pea’s example, “Learners Producing and Publishing Knowledge,” becomes the key to making technology the most effective tool for the classroom environment as well as the key to unlocking the potential in each of Dr. Pea’s other assertions. (Cuban, ¶11, 1998) Through the production and publication of knowledge, I believe we will also find it possible to: bridge the school and world, establish new learning communities, revitalize the teaching profession, and use technology as a lever in the aspects of computer networking, teacher professional developments, new forms of assessments, and ultimately improve curriculum standards and make school systems into learning organizations. (Pea, 1998) How, then, can this production and publication best be accomplished in order to fulfill Dr. Pea’s goals? My belief is that weblogs hold the most immediate, effective, easily implemented and cross-disciplined promise toward that end. In fact, without specifically naming the weblog, Dr. Pea explicitly mentions using tools “that are generative by nature and design,” and he emphasizes the student’s needs for an audience and to be brought to revision–all intrinsic outcomes of the weblog. (Pea, Q&A ¶6, 1998) Drs. Brock and Fernadette Eide, national advocates for neurologically-based approaches to learning and learning differences, have compiled data regarding the effects of blogging on the brain. Their findings state: • Blogs can promote critical and analytical thinking. • Blogging can be a powerful promoter of creative, intuitive, and associational thinking. • Blogs promote analogical thinking. • Blogging is a powerful medium for increasing access and exposure to quality information. • Blogging combines the best of solitary reflection and social interaction. (Eide Neurolearning Blog, 2005) Educational weblogs allow for opportunities to use technology in countless, meaningful aspects, such as e-portfolios, collaboration, construction, experimentation, and development. I believe weblogs are viable in virtually all disciplines, and they endorse the varied learning styles of unique individuals. Blogs promote ownership–pride of ownership–over one’s work, raising the standards of productivity. Blogs may incorporate the use of text, design, digital images, video, and audio, all of which can be used toward a purpose of creating a bridge between school and world by allowing students to intellectually interact with peers, teachers, and professionals on a global level. Thus, new learning communities, as defined by Dr. Pea, are created. We may revitalize the teaching © Copyright 2008. Melanie Eve Miller
Views on Technology in Education
profession by training teachers to effectively implement this medium as a clear and attainable possibility regarding the use of technology in the classroom. Ultimately, I believe the effective implementation of weblogs in the classroom initiates the levers mentioned by Dr. Pea. Blogging, by its very nature of supporting diverse learning styles, aids in fostering “the deeper understanding and greater readiness for lifelong learning.” (Pea, ¶16, 1998) Weblogs, for many teachers, will be a new approach to teacher professional development–a new avenue that is, I believe, easily and quickly broadened with effective training. Educational weblogs implicitly require new forms of assessments, including (but not limited to) e-portfolios, rubrics, peer- and self-evaluation. I believe curriculum standards would be inherently improved and schools transform from learning structures into learning organizations when weblogs are used to their fullest potential by students and teachers. Weblogs are, at their core, an organization of knowledge. I believe Dr. Pea was correct in this assertion: “[W]e cannot ignore technology in the classrooms.” (Pea, ¶5, 1998) We must find effective ways to implement educational technology in this Information Age. Dr. Cuban, however, provides a voice of reason in an atmosphere that could easily become a frenzy based on fear, “fear for their children being unskilled.” (Cuban, ¶5, 1998). We must first ask questions about how, why, where and when the technology should be applied. Who will use the technology and what precise technology is required? These basic questions must first be answered; our goals must be clearly and specifically defined for classroom technology to be of highest value to learners, teachers, and society at large.
© Copyright 2008. Melanie Eve Miller
Views on Technology in Education
References: Cuban, L. (1998). The Pros and Cons of Technology in the Classroom, http://tappedin.org/archive/peacuban/, Retrieved 9/22/08 Eide Neurolearning Blog. (March 2, 2005). Brain of the Blogger, http://eideneurolearningblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/brain-of-blogger.html Retrieved
9/23/08 Merriam-Webster. (2008). Technology, first entry, http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/technology, Retrieved 9/22/08 Pea, R. (1998). The Pros and Cons of Technology in the Classroom, http://tappedin.org/archive/peacuban/, Retrieved 9/22/08 Webster, Noah. (1828). First Edition of an American Dictionary of the English Language, G. & C. Merriam Company, Springfield, Massachusetts
© Copyright 2008. Melanie Eve Miller
