Reading Response Week 1

I found these two articles to be quite thought provoking, especially given the fact that my initial reaction to both articles continued to evolve as I applied what the authors were saying to my own experiences and specifically to art education.

In reading Reigeluth and Joseph, my initial reaction was that the mentality of creating a learning-focused paradigm was very idealized.  Do I agree with the idea that learning should be student-centered and “attainment-based rather than time-based?” Absolutely.  But the reality of the situation is that the majority of school districts don’t have the resources to customize student learning to the extent mentioned in the article, a point which Reigeluth and Joseph draw on when they address the imperative role of policy makers in making education learning-focused. 

Another interesting point mentioned by Reigeluth and Joseph, which is in stark contrast to Postman’s article, is the idea that technology should be standard in learning, no matter the task.  The article even went so far as to say that a lot of tasks that we would normally think to be supplemented with technology should, in fact, fully embrace technology.  This idea made me first think about what this would mean in an art classroom.  Perhaps Reigeluth and Joseph’s intent wasn’t to take away from a hands-on approach, but it still made me wonder how the instructor/student relationship would look if students were using simulations and electronic performance support systems rather than creating in a traditional sense.     Secondly, I questioned if fully embracing this approach would hinder Postman’s point of,  “[School] has always been about how to learn and how to behave as part of a community.”  Is it possible for students to get so caught up in “hard” and “soft” technologies that they fail to learn social responsibilities?

Jumping to Postman’s article, I was quick to label him as nostalgic and somewhat of a romantic.  At first it seemed as if Postman’s yearning for a simpler time was somewhat irrational, but his questioning of the accomplishments of technology got me thinking about the role of technology in a learning environment.  I agree with the idea that too much information is being thrown at everyone, not just teachers and students.  And most of this information is completely irrelevant to what we need to attain.  In a similar way, many school districts are always on the look out for the new computer programs that will “aid” students in learning.  Perhaps these programs are promoting student-centered learning, but a lot of them beg the same question asked by Postman, “What is the problem to which _____can answer?”

So what is the role of technology in the classroom?  Is it an immersive approach that should drive student learning in all aspects as mentioned by Reigeluth and Joseph?  Or is it an approach that nearly takes technology out of the picture as presented by Postman.  I think the answer lies somewhere in between.  I have a unique position, although one that seems to be shared by a few in the class, which is finding the appropriate measure to apply technology to an art setting.  (It should be noted that I do not intend to misrepresent the potential of technology in art and what technology has already done for art.  This is strictly speaking from an elementary art teacher perspective.)  I often use technology to demo art-making techniques, take virtual tours through museums, video project tutorials, etc.  I do, however, realize the importance of hands-on, tactical experiences and I never want technology to simulate those experiences for students.  At the end of the day, I think the most successful lessons are those which focus on student-driven learning and cooperative strategies that may or may not be supplemented with technology.