Wow! Do I ever disagree with Stoll. Early in the chapter, Stoll (1995) writes, "students deserve personal contact with instructors--interactive videos and remote broadcasts are no substitute for studying under a fired-up teacher who's there in person" (p. 118). I can see his argument here. But then he spends most of the chapter degrading technology as this tool of ignorance where students merely learn how to use computers and gather information on the Internet but do not learn how to think critically and solve problems. He says that "what comes across the computer screen is a surrogate for experience" (p. 148)--and that computer technology is isolating people from each other.
This text appears to be an extension of his yearning for the good old days of libraries and card catalogues and first-hand experience with research as well as the "real world." But when were these good old days? When was this golden era? I guess it's the same goledn era of family values politicians refer to when everyone was involved in happy marriages and kids didn't pregnant. The 50s? But just because divorce rates weren't high does not mean people were happy and all those undisclosed back-alley abortions and sending pregnant teens away so the neighbors didn't know does not mean teens weren't having sex. (Sorry about that...just came to my mind and had to get it out).
This type of argument is so typical for people who seem resistant to change--in this case the "change" is technology. I won't even say "advancement" because I'd argue that technology has been around for as long as man could hold a club. So I guess the more things change the more they stay the same.
But in a more academic sense, would Stoll get rid of books? Many academics were ridiculed as children for being bookworms--people who didn't interact with others. Even Oprah remembers being reprimanded by her grandmother for reading books instead of going outside and playing with her friends.
Books, too, are a "surrogate for experience." But would Stoll prohibit a child from reading "The Grapes of Wrath," to get a sense of the Dust Bowl drought? "Old Man and the Sea?" "The Count of Monte Cristo?" Surrogate experiences found in reading a book or a computer screen are valid and belong in the development of a child. If a student has a surrogate experience it does not mean she can't also have a "real-world" experience. Plato would say its all material anyway, right?
When it comes to making meaning out of research, the use technology to gather information is comparable to the use of books for the same purpose. In both arenas, students must be able to analyze and interpret the information before they can develop opinions and solutions to problems.
The major flaw is Stoll's argument is that he assumes teachers are expecting technology to do the teaching. But I'd argue dedicated teachers understand that technology is part of a collaborative mix of content delivery that they must integrate into a classroom setting to engage students in learning. As Stoll says himself, "Meaning doesn't come from data alone. Creative problem solving depends on context, interrelationships, and experience...and only human beings can teach the connection between things" (p. 134).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I AGREE.
You have to remember, Sabby, that Stoll was writing in 1995, just as THE INTERNET as folks know it was emerging (Netscape just came about then).
Writing always depends upon technology. Writing is technology. Can't have writing without technology. So, if you're going to have "process blogging," you're going to have to develop a theory of what that is, some operational definitions, and how it might look.
That way, you'll avoid some of the comments Stoll and Sven Birkerts make about writing/technology.
Post a Comment