Wealth and power will increasingly accrue to those countries, companies, individuals, universities, and groups who get three basic things right: the infrastructure to connect with this flat-world platform, the education to get more of their people innovating on, working off of, and tapping into this platform, and, finally, the governance to get the best out of this platform and cushion its worst side effects.(2007)
We discussed in class on 7/9/09 how "Web 2.0" is simply a tool; Friedman calls it a platform. Yet it is a revolutionary tool just like nuclear power, electricity, steam engines, sails, and even the wheel were revolutionary tools: each of these inventions significantly changed social landscapes around the world in their time. Whenever one of these inventions became established as a "platform" upon which a new form of society could be built, people were essentially forced to reexamine and restructure their lives to a great degree.
To summarize the main theme of the texts and discussions from EDUC 5414 thus far: we're in for a period of global adjustment, and that's a mild way of phrasing the idea. Though I have many questions about how this adjustment will affect me personally, I have one main concern as a (future) educator: How will this new global platform change what my students (and I) need to know in order to genuinely participate in society?
There's no way to predict the future with 100% accuracy, but Shelly, Cashman, Gunter and Gunter (2008) offer several great answers to this question. For one, students will need to know current technologies so that they may easily become comfortable with future technologies (p.11). This means that teachers today have to incorporate today's technology into their teaching, so that students may gain competency with the foundation on which tomorrow's technology will be constructed.
I agree with Shelly et. al., though I think it's appropriate to voice a cautionary note regarding the use of technology as a teaching Band-Aid. Tony Lockhart, Director of Technology and Operations at Marshall School in Duluth, MN, clarified for me how the potential of technology to improve instruction depends upon the potential of the teacher to appropriately use the technology to that end. "Technology can't make a teacher good, but it can make a good teacher better." (2009) This seems to be common sense, but as we discussed in class, many pieces of expensive technology are being provided to teachers who either lack the ability or the desire to utilize the tech tools in their teaching. A SMART board does not an Erin Gruwell make. However, the pressures that lead schools to install modern technology into potentially unprepared classrooms are not going away. Instead, they are increasing in force.
This leads me to the main question of this analysis post. Do we really need to provide students with constant exposure to advanced technology in order to prepare them for the future? I don't know if we do, and here's why.
The Partnership for 21st Century Skills identified many outcomes that the Partnership believes should result from K-12 education today (Shelley et. al., p.14). These include:
1. Core subjects and themes: English, reading, language arts, science, mathematics, foreign languages, civics, government, economics, arts, history, geography, health awareness, and financial and civic literacy. Wow - talk about despecialization! But I'll have to save that for another analysis post.
2. Learning and innovation skills: creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem solving, and communication and collaboration.
3. Information, communications, and technology literacy.
4. Life and career skills: flexibility and adaptability, initiative and self-direction, social and cross-cultural skills, productivity and accountability, leadership and responsibility. (Shelley et. al., p. 14-15).
If these are the goals for student learning in the 21st century, I don't believe we need technology to achieve them. However, I do think that we will need to spend more time in school teaching values and effective "habits of mind" (Costa and Kallick 2000). Yes, I believe technology can make teaching easier, even when it comes to values and habits of mind. But I am concerned that in our eagerness (or nervous hurriedness) to compete globally on the new "flat" platform, these very important needs will be lost amongst the push to appear competitive and effective through new technology. Technology is a tool that is constantly changing; it seems like as soon as I master one program, a new version (or new program entirely) is released and quickly becomes an industry standard. I think it's okay for us educators to lag to some degree.
Costa, A and Kallick, B. "Describing 16 Habits of Mind." (2000). Retrieved July 10, 2009 from http://www.habits-of-mind.net/pdf/16HOM2.pdf.
Friedman, Thomas L. The World Is Flat A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century. New york: Picador, 2007.
Lockhart, Tony. Lecture. Marshall School, Duluth. 7 July 2009.
Peterson, Craig. Lecture. University of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth. 8 July 2009.
Shelly, Gary B., Thomas J. Cashman, Glenda A. Gunter, and Randolph E. Gunter. Teachers Discovering Computers: Integrating Technology and Digital Media in the Classroom, Fifth Edition Integrating Technology and Digital Media in the Classroom (Shelly Cashman Series). Boston: Course Technology, 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment