Week 1, Educational Technology

In response to:  
'Beyond technology integration: The case for technology transformation,' Reigeluth & Joseph
and
'Of Luddites, learning, and life,' Postman

As I read ‘Beyond Technology Integration: The Case for Technology’ (Reigeluth & Joseph), I would pause and contemplate, how can I apply these concepts to the art room, and what would these concepts look like? I gravitated to the idea of using technology to transform the way I teach versus to support a stale pedagogy. I find myself getting stuck in just dispensing information to the students and expecting them to retain it. I know that this is not effective in all cases, and I am consistently looking for ways to move toward a more learner-centered classroom. 

The idea of allowing students to progress at different rates as Joseph describes is similar to TAB, Teaching for Artistic Behavior. This approach to teaching art is choice based. Students are able to choose which medium they would like to master at their own pace. I want to move towards this concept, but I feel there is pressure for students to produce a certain aesthetic. So when art is hung up in the hallway, the art should look pretty, or look the same. I don’t agree with this, art is about breaking rules and being creative. I find myself making excuses to support ‘cookie cutter’ projects such as, ‘Well, we created butterflies, and each student could design it a different way.” But are the students REALLY able to be creative? I would like to take on a more attainment-based system.

I feel technology would allow me to move towards TAB, a more choice based or attainment-based system. I could make instructional videos on how to use a certain material. Then students could watch how to properly use a material and explore it further.

I agree, technology can help us transform the way we teach, and provide a much needed overhaul to our education system. But, technology can be expensive. My district cannot provide the art room with its own set of chrome books or iPads.  Budgets are certainly an obstacle.  As Joseph suggests, policy makers need to invest resources.

While reading Postman’s article, I was reminded of some of my fellow coworker’s arguments. A few resist using technology, because the find value in ‘getting your hands dirty.’ For instance, learning how to draw a portrait, versus tracing a face off your computer screen, or creating a print plate, versus printing something off of a computer. Postman had a much more cynical view of technology. I would argue it is in human nature to create, improve, and progress.

I do agree with Postman’s idea that, “The role of the school is to help students learn how to ignore and discard information so that they can achieve a sense of coherence in their lives.” There is more to school than information, there are societal values that cannot be learned through technology alone. I think that these values can be taught and internalized with the help of technology. Students can still learn to creative problem solve with or with out technology. The reality of the world we live in is, our community values technological skills. I know this is not what Postman is suggesting, but at this point, I think we would do our students a disservice to not include technology in our teaching.

All technology issues aside, I love his question of, “What is the problem to which ______ can answer?” I think this question can fuel dynamic and rich lessons and I plan to use this thought in the future.