I am currently also enrolled in an online course on the Internet and education. It is a worthwhile course. I it find surprising that during our online class discussions a number of my classmates continually state that it is inevitable that technology will enter the classroom. This belief of inevitability concerns me. Shouldn’t teachers be autonomous practitioners who are able to shape the learning experiences of the students? Should it not be the responsibility of the autonomous practitioner to determine how and when technology is used in the classroom?
I had not heard of the concept of the teacher as autonomous practitioner and the roles and responsibilities associated with this concept. How is it that I am able to learn about this concept and fold it into my teaching philosophy and my online classmates are not? Would my online classmates benefit from taking Society and Education from a Sociological Perspective? Maybe. I am just wondering how, even though we take different courses, we still graduate with the same degree. Even if we took the same classes would we learn the same things or take the same things out of these classes?
In the end though, I do believe that teachers can be an active agent in educating the students.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I do think that teachers should be autonomous practitioners, but I also think that we have to do what is best for the students. Why would you NOT introduce as much technology into your classroom when you know that you are sending your students into a world where technology is something constant and yet ever changing? I would be willing to bet that the number of jobs out there that have nothing to do with technology are very few. Even if students desire to be stay home mothers they will most likely set up a blog or do digital scrap-booking or something to keep their close family and friends up to date on what new adventure their children have been up to. Technology is huge and I think it is ridiculous if there is a classroom out there that hasn't already been thoroughly introduced to it. In PSI my classrooom had one ancient computer and an overhead projector. That was it in terms of technology. I was devastated! But my PSII experience made up for it when I walked into a one-to-one laptop room with its very own Smartboard! I was in heaven! With every students having a laptop I was able to do SO much more and the students were able to learn in various different ways without my even having to try! It was remarkable. If I had it my way, I would always teach in a one-to-one laptop room and every school in the world would have the same privilege. So, basically, yes, take charge and be an autonomous practitioner, but don't hold the students back from something that is going to benefit them immensely in the long run.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that technological change is inevitable and irresistible is one example of a hegemonic concept (as discussed in class) that is so prevalent that it takes on the aura of "common sense" -- everybody just knows it is true, and it is literally unthinkable to believe the opposite. But "new=improved" is an idea that is itself relatively recent, and the truth is that education is very prone to bandwagons and fads, and older/experienced teachers eventually become quite dubious about each new innovation. Alberta Education is putting a smartboard into every classroom by the end of next year -- but the fact that Smartboards are an Alberta company may have more to do with it than the demonstrated benefits of Smartboards. Indeed, the Smartboard presentation I attended in the faculty admitted that the boards being installed this year are already obsolete (only one touch point instead of the new two or four touch points of the next generation). And when I watch PSIs this term using smartboards all of them were playing Jeopardy -- and where exactly on Bloom's taxonomy does that fall? And how often can you do that before it's run its course? Smartboards are great -- when they work, when you have the knowledge how to use them, when you have the memory available to store notebook files, etc. etc., but can we really demonstrate greater learning than some guy teaching his kids in a one room school with a piece of chalk and a slate board? I'm old enough to have lived through the days of blackboards, slidestrips, 16 mm film, and that greatest of revolutions, educational Television! And yet the idea that TV was going to replace schools is just a joke today. So why should I believe in the next big thing either? Great teaching comes from teachers, not technology. Technology is just one way to prepackage learning modules to reduce the individual teacher's control over the classroom content -- to deskill teachers and teacher proof the curriculum. Tiffani, your statement that "the students were able to learn in various different ways without my even having to try" takes on a very different implication in that context.
ReplyDeleteI personally love all the toys, but one needs to approach these things with open eyes.