PLN 5: Britannica Debate: Will Web 2.0 be an Integral Point of Education

Many people have noticed the sudden increase in technology. The use of computers in our everyday lives has gone from rare, to more common, to the point where we can’t live without them in just a span of about 50 years. In Britannica Debate: Will Web 2.0 be an Integral Part of Education, by Will Richardson, I found that many people are debating about how much computers matter in our education today. The post comes from two different points of view, the one pro more computers in education, and the won anti-more computers in education. Both sides pointed out the pros for their viewpoint.

Steve Hargadon argues that “technologies will make a huge impact on the future of learning.” His point of view is that of pro for having computers become a bigger part in the learning process. He believes that by putting more technology into education, the way that we learn in the future will be different, but for the good. It will help students learn more efficiently, and make studies easier.

On the other hand Daniel Willingham says “not so fast”. In Willingham’s blog, he compares the project based learning now, to the project based learning that people have been trying to realize in a traditional class point. By this he means how students are being taught today, for example using the computers for the majority of homework assignments, compared to the paper and pencil that were originally used. I read an excerpt from Willingham’s blog that I found made a good point.

Hargadon is clear-eyed in his list of challenges to making Web 2.0 an important part of K-12 education, but I think he underestimates the seriousness of his third point, “Teachers will need time and training to use these tools in the classroom.”

There has been an enormous push to leverage technology in K-12 education in the last decade. The costs in infrastructure, personnel, training, and ongoing access are difficult to pin down, but conservative estimates are in the billions each year.

Why has technology not revolutionized teaching, but rather been a series of “computer fads,” in Hargadon’s term, and an all-around disappointment?

At least part of the reason is that, despite expenditures, support has been inadequate. For example, support personnel tend not to be specialized, although the technology needs of the English teacher are different than those of the Science teacher. If still more money were spent, would that alleviate the problem? It might solve the technology problem, but the inherent difficulty of executing project-based learning well would remain.

From this excerpt, I took it to mean that Willingham thought that Hargadon has some good points, but that people can’t totally transfer to computers, at least not yet. It is too early to abandon the idea of the traditional pencil and paper. The cost of replacing every school with computers would add up to billions of dollars every year, plus the cost of different programs for different schools.

Willingham asks a question “Why has technology not revolutionized teaching, but rather been a series of ‘computer fads’ in Hargadon’s term, and all around disappointment?” I found this interesting because it comes across as “Why hasn’t technology stuck in schools, and in our everyday lives, but instead in just somewhat of a phase that we have been in and out of for the past 10 years, and each time we go out of it, it is a disappointment to all?” I think that Willingham makes a good point, but I think that people need to realize that we are in a new century now, and we are moving on. We are making a new legacy in our advance. We can’t stay the same for forever. As I said in my presentation on Friday, life will be boring if we are not willing to take a risk. We are taking a risk by moving computers to our main way of learning.
Computers have become a part of everyone’s life. By adding them into our learning, we aren’t actually taking that huge of a step. Its not like we are taking a foreign device and saying “this is going to be your life for the next 16 years of education. Most people know the basis of how to use a computer, teachers especially. We now have assignments being turned in online, or homework being online. Computers have already become a big part of technology, so I don’t see the risk in making them one of the main ways of learning.

On the other hand, I also don’t think we should totally abandon the pencil and paper. I think that knowing how to write with the hand, rather than typing on the keyboard is very important. To take tests such as CSAPS, students will need to know how to write, and not rely on the computer to fix their mistakes, unless these types of tests become computerized tests, where then all of learning and education will virtually be electronically possible.

I liked how the article wasn’t biased. Both sides of the story were shown, both points were viewed. I have found both ideas to be reasonable. Overall, I think that eventually, computers will be the main way of learning, but for now, we should have a good mix of writing versus typing. How will our stand point on this topic be changed ion the next 10 years?