"So What, Who Cares?" revised Technology in Education Synthesis

Technology in Education

Is it really improving our schools?

In his article, “Computers and Technology,” Richard Ohmann states that “it’s easy to get the impression that computers can save US education.” It has indeed become obvious that technology is transforming education; however, according to both Richard Ohmann and Clifford Stoll the change is not ideal for our schools, teachers, and students. In schools if something is not ultimately improving education, or in any way damaging it, then for the students’ sake it should be eliminated. Although students may not care at the time, we should care for them because as the saying goes “the children are our future.”

Many schools have rushed to buy computers with out really knowing why (computers and technology, 3). Stoll argues that computers have been “promoted as a solution to some mysterious crisis in the classroom, computers have been welcomed uncritically across the educational spectrum.” According to both of these authors the rush to buy computers has started to cause damage in education. What I am trying to say is, that now society believes that a school can’t be good unless they have the newest and best technology. Thinking such as this can greatly harm education because it puts pressures on schools to do all they can to get the technology, no matter what the retributions are. They don’t stop and realize as Clifford Stoll does that “A great school doesn’t need computers.”

What truly makes a school good are not the computer programs but the teachers. When teachers rely to heavily on technology students don’t benefit from learning interactively. Stoll said that in his own experience once the teacher started using technology the students tuned out and the teacher just sat back and felt as if they no longer needed to teach (who needs computers, 46). Even today “Students are tuning out their professors while they send e-mail messages….and otherwise multitask their way through their MBA’s” (September 7, 20001,A43). As for the educators, according to a study in Ohmann’s article there are only 14 percent of teachers who felt that technology had “improved instruction on my campus” (computers and technology, 3). If it is not improving things why do we continue to see schools relying more and more on technology to “improve schools”? Essentialy what Stoll is argueing is to completely get rid of computers in any educational setting.

He feels so strongly about computers because he is concerned about the students. Stoll emphasizes the fact that computers not only decrease student interaction (who needs computers, 48), but that “a river of instant electronic answers dampens curiosity” (who needs computers, 47). On page six in Computers and Technology, Ohmann expands on the shallowness of the internet “where knowledge dwindles into ‘information,’ research into plagiarism, and pedagogy into a search for trickier software to catch the plagiarist.” While Stoll firmly believes that computers are a horrible, useless addition to our schools, Ohmann pulls proof from the Oversold and Underused by Larry Cuban who said that “there is little evidence so far of gains in student achievement owing to use of this technology”(Computers and Technology, 3)

It is apparent that both Stoll and Ohmann agree that computers have not added anything to the educational system. They both feel that in many ways, these new technologies are hurting our schools. As Stoll said, “there are no shortcuts to a quality education.” Why should you care? Because how students are educated effects everyone and the culture we live in. Hopefully, schools will listen to that lesson and continue to put a quality education over the best, newest technology.

Synthesis Essay

In his article, “Computers and Technology,” Richard Ohmann states that “it’s easy to get the impression that computers can save US education.” It has indeed become obvious that technology is transforming education; however, according to both Richard Ohmann and Clifford Stoll the change is not ideal for our schools, teachers, and students.

Many schools have rushed to buy computers with out really knowing why (computers and technology, 3). Just as Stoll says that computers have been “promoted as a solution to some mysterious crisis in the classroom, computers have been welcomed uncritically across the educational spectrum.” According to both of these authors the rush to buy computers has started to cause damage in education. Now society believes that a school can’t be good unless they have the newest and best technology. Clifford Stoll supports many of Ohmanns arguments and states that “A great school doesn’t need computers.”

What truly makes a school good is not the computer programs but the teachers. When teachers rely to heavily on technology students don’t benefit from learning interactively. Stoll said that in his own experience once the teacher started using technology the students tuned out and the teacher just sat back and felt as if they no longer needed to teach (who needs computers, 46). Even today “Students are tuning out their professors while they send e-mail messages….and otherwise multitask their way through their MBA’s” (September 7, 20001,A43). As for the teachers, according to a study in Ohmann’s article there are only 14 percent of teachers who felt that technology had “improved instruction on my campus” (computers and technology, 3). If it is not improving things why do we continue to see schools relying more and more on technology to “improve schools”? If Stoll had things his way he would completely get rid of computers in any educational setting.

He feels so strongly about computers because he is concerned about the students. Stoll emphasizes the fact that computers not only decrease student interaction (who needs computers, 48), but that “a river of instant electronic answers dampens curiosity” (who needs computers, 47). On page six in Computers and Technology, Ohmann expands on the shallowness of the internet “where knowledge dwindles into ‘information,’ research into plagiarism, and pedagogy into a search for trickier software to catch the plagiarist.” While Stoll firmly believes that computers are a horrible, useless addition to our schools, Ohmann pulls proof from the Oversold and Underused by Larry Cuban who said that “there is little evidence so far of gains in student achievement owing to use of this technology”(Computers and Technology, 3)

It is apparent that both Stoll and Ohmann agree that computers have not added anything to the educational system. They both feel that in many ways, these new technologies are hurting our schools. As Stoll said, “there are no shortcuts to a quality education.” Hopefully, schools will listen to that lesson and continue to put a quality education over the best, newest technology.

synthesis

Synthesis statement:
Technology is starting to transform education, however, according to both Richard Ohmann and Clifford Stoll the change is not ideal for our schools, teachers, and students.

"computers and technology" summary

Although technology has been improving education in some ways Richard Ohmann warns schools against becoming dependent on it in his article “Computers and Technology. He argues that students would rather use technology, especially the Internet, as an extra activity rather than an educational tool. On top of the fact that students rather use their computers as a distraction, teachers are worried about the dependency of technology. What would happen if their whole lesson falls through because there was a glitch in the computer system? That is just one of many concerns teachers have about the integration of technology. Also, Ohmann suggest that before a school becomes to entangled with technology, they should make sure they understand it fully. This means they need to understand the economic affects and are able to work with it politically as well. Overall, Ohmann is worried that the school systems are rushing to quickly into the new world of technology and he urges schools to be cautions and really research all aspects of this new development in our world.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070907/ap_on_re_us/virtual_schools

The link above will take you to an article on Virtual Schooling. In this article the majority of it is written in an "I say" format, where the author explained how virtual learning is a better way to learn and gave many examples why he felt that way. There are a few times when the writer inserted a "they say" but two of the "they says" repeated the same statement. The writer seemed unable to find more opposing points besides the fact the virtual learning will stunt socialization. I also noticed that the "they says" were put in only after the author had made most of his "I say" points. Overall I would say that this piece was not effectively written because the "they say" points were repetitive and not well addressed.