Referenced Article: Matt Richtel, “In Classroom of Future, Stagnant Scores”, New York Times, September 3, 2011. Accessed October 7, 2011.
Computer technology is quickly becoming a necessity in classrooms across America and in many parts of the world. Laptops, iPods, and Internet resources are nearly as common as textbooks in numerous schools. I am opening this blog with analysis of the New York Times article that inspired me to pursue a more formalized study of this increase in classroom technology. “In Classroom of Future, Stagnant Scores” by Matt Richtel provides thought-provoking, factual information regarding the general impact of technology on students’ testing performance and considers the role of computers in classrooms.
The Kyrene School District of Arizona invested “$33 million” in innovative technology for its Arizona classrooms, encouraging middle school students to use blogs and Internet media as primary learning sources. With the aim of “turning the teacher into a guide instead of a lecturer,” the program focuses on digital skills that were previously unavailable in the area’s learning facilities. After adapting to this new technological teaching style, the district learned that its students’ test scores had not improved despite its innovative technology. Aside from these scores, the increased budget for technological resources left teachers without raises, lessened the budget for text books, and increased class sizes by several students.
While the mediocre test scores of students are not sufficient research to show that technology hinders student performance and learning, there is also a lack of research convincing the tax-paying parents of students to fund technological programs. Although technological literacy seems important, its focus in the classroom comes at the cost of time previously spent on handwritten exercises, art, gym, and other common school activities.
As a measure of intellect, test scores focus on several particular areas of student learning and development. Testing arithmetic, writing, and comprehension, standardized exams do not consider the technological literacy of the students taking their tests. Richtel’s article implies that the “stagnant scores” are a direct result of the time lost to technology; however, technology may not be the problem at all. Technology should be used as an amelioration to classroom material instead of replacing routine areas of classroom study. Computers and Internet can be integrated into classrooms as learning tools and aids in the study of areas including math, writing, and comprehension. Computers have the ability to “enable, motivate, and inspire” students by familiarizing them with the rapidly changing technology of the 21st century without taking away from their learning experiences.
The degree of success of these technologies depends greatly on the teachers and schools committed to technology-based programs. If math is taught through computer activities in addition to the standard practice of written problems, isn’t it still practice in arithmetic? Stagnant test scores may not be a reflection of the problems with technology, but instead a signal to schools such as those in the Kyrene School District that the methods by which they use technology may not yet have reached their highest degree of efficiency.
The concerns in this article regarding the test scores of students provoke yet another thought: are test scores the only way to determine the success of students in the future? While standardized testing is crucial in measuring fundamental areas of learning and improvement in school districts, other areas of study can be equally important for tomorrow’s generation of leaders. Suppose a technologically proficient class of students received the same scores as the students of a traditional, textbook-based class; the former would produce students who are more equipped to handle the rapidly changing technology of the future. Knowing how to operate a computer and make use of Internet resources will carry a student much farther in higher level education and the working world than a notebook and pencil. The challenge, then, lies not in the harm of technology in the classroom, but instead in the teachers’ ability to maintain students’ test scores with more advanced teaching methods. As a student proficient in technology at the college level, I strongly believe that resources such as this blog are invaluable components of my education as a young adult. I hope that schools continue to integrate technology into their classrooms, ensuring that they balance it with traditional learning to help cultivate a technologically literate generation for the future.
I agree that "technological literacy" is a good concept in general, but I think that it should require more than just basic technology for learning. All our actions and experiences shape our future behavior. Neural pathways are created, strengthened, or pruned. From what we have gleaned from Forster's "The Machine Stops," I think that technological literacy should include learning about the effects of spending more time in front of a screen rather than face to face with classmates as well as how to deal with those effects. By spending more time with computers, students shape themselves to me more like computer-users. As you mentioned, this has the advantages of learning to use technology later in life, which can include a number of benefits. However, it can also result in being used to propagate technology's impact where it is not necessary .
ReplyDeleteAlso, given the Turkle reading from Alone Together, it is and will be increasingly important to draw a clear boundary between computers acting as tools for educators and computers serving as educators. Taking money from the budget to fund technology over teachers already shows a change in values. So far, these choices may or may not be warranted, but as the future becomes increasingly dominated by technology, it will be a challenge for people still to value other humans.
Having read the beginning of Jenny's comment, I think it would be interesting to consider the interaction between your topic and Ami's topic, how the Internet affects your brain. I wonder how more frequent use of computers and the internet would affect the brain development of children (in general, not just in regards to their academic prowess).
ReplyDeleteFrom the description of the goal of "turning turning the teacher into a guide instead of a lecturer" it seems that their problem is primarily with the use of technology rather than the technology itself. Like you said, "The degree of success of these technologies depends greatly on the teachers and schools committed to technology-based programs." Making the teachers simply guides is not a good idea since that puts the burden of self-learning on the children, who are probably not at a state of intellectual maturity at which they can just teach themselves.