New Technology and Online Exams (July 21 class)
1. While I found Postman's article Some New Gods that Fail entertaining, I appreciated Courtney's comment, during Jeff's section B discussion, about generally being critical of people that "rail against change." I agree that the marketing tools that promote new technologies can appear somewhat far-fetched, like the little kids in the article that learn algebra or Japanese history online when they can't sleep, but I don't think that these marketing shortcomings should cause us to write off new technologies immediately.
We are used to seeing commercials for products that promise miraculous solutions to our problems. For example, I don't use my cell phone to find directions, organize photos, download music as the cell phone companies' commercials suggest. However, I still find my cell phone to be a convenient and valuable tool for my own daily needs. Similarly, I'm sure the average family doesn't use their internet access to teach their children complex scholarly topics when their children can't sleep (as with the example in the article), but that doesn't mean that families do not benefit from the improved interactive features of the web.
During the discussion, we also considered who particular technologies are being invented for, and why we should care about this question. I believe that we should care about this question less than some people would think. For example, designing technologies for the disabled may not be profitable or useful for the majority of U.S. society, but does that mean we shouldn't invest in such technologies? I imagine that most people anywhere left of very conservative economists and policy makers would argue that we are still ethically obligated to continue to improve the lives of the disabled. Another example raised during discussion was designing technologies that would be useful or affordable for only the very rich or top business executives. However, we should consider the fact that many technologies were unaffordable to the average household when they initially hit the market. For example, calculators, PCs, cell phones, and air conditioning were not accessible to average families when they were initially introduced. Many new technologies tend to become adopted by the general population and mass produced for lower prices a considerable time after they are initially marketed.
Nevertheless, as exemplified by the cartoon in my last posting (see below) I do question the benefits of those technologies that take away a student's need to "think". Certainly students should learn how to take shortcuts, such as adding on a calculator, but they should also learn the fundamental processes of math, for example. Somebody commented during our discussion that it wouldn't be tragic if students couldn't add quickly because calculators make that skill somewhat obsolete, but I argue that we are not teaching children to add just for the purpose of their being able to add. When learning concepts like addition, subtraction, three-dimensions, etc, students are also learning how to make connections and a gain a new perspective of how to think about and approach problems...a skill that calculators don't have.
2. Liz's section was fun. I enjoyed particularly the quizyourfriends.com, but less for it's instructional value and more for the fact that it was fun creating a quiz for fellow SMAC-ers. QuizStar seemed more useful for the purpose of testing students, and there were much less popups and ads than the former website. However, I doubt I'll do any serious testing of students online when I'm a teacher. It just doesn't seem that much more convenient then creating, photocopying, and grading a paper exam. However, I could see how online tests could create an inconvenience for my future students, especially those without internet access in their homes. Quizzing online at QuizStar involves the student registering and entering a pre-assigned access name and password. Moreover, students that must find public access to the internet may end up in places that are not conducive to test-taking (like the noisy first floor of a public library). And, how much did we all hate not having the paper option of the GRE? As Steve pointed out to me in a conversation we had about the computer GRE test, online testing disregards many of the test-taking tecniques we learned in school, such as skipping very difficult questions and returning them at the end so time isn't wasted.
We are used to seeing commercials for products that promise miraculous solutions to our problems. For example, I don't use my cell phone to find directions, organize photos, download music as the cell phone companies' commercials suggest. However, I still find my cell phone to be a convenient and valuable tool for my own daily needs. Similarly, I'm sure the average family doesn't use their internet access to teach their children complex scholarly topics when their children can't sleep (as with the example in the article), but that doesn't mean that families do not benefit from the improved interactive features of the web.
During the discussion, we also considered who particular technologies are being invented for, and why we should care about this question. I believe that we should care about this question less than some people would think. For example, designing technologies for the disabled may not be profitable or useful for the majority of U.S. society, but does that mean we shouldn't invest in such technologies? I imagine that most people anywhere left of very conservative economists and policy makers would argue that we are still ethically obligated to continue to improve the lives of the disabled. Another example raised during discussion was designing technologies that would be useful or affordable for only the very rich or top business executives. However, we should consider the fact that many technologies were unaffordable to the average household when they initially hit the market. For example, calculators, PCs, cell phones, and air conditioning were not accessible to average families when they were initially introduced. Many new technologies tend to become adopted by the general population and mass produced for lower prices a considerable time after they are initially marketed.
Nevertheless, as exemplified by the cartoon in my last posting (see below) I do question the benefits of those technologies that take away a student's need to "think". Certainly students should learn how to take shortcuts, such as adding on a calculator, but they should also learn the fundamental processes of math, for example. Somebody commented during our discussion that it wouldn't be tragic if students couldn't add quickly because calculators make that skill somewhat obsolete, but I argue that we are not teaching children to add just for the purpose of their being able to add. When learning concepts like addition, subtraction, three-dimensions, etc, students are also learning how to make connections and a gain a new perspective of how to think about and approach problems...a skill that calculators don't have.
2. Liz's section was fun. I enjoyed particularly the quizyourfriends.com, but less for it's instructional value and more for the fact that it was fun creating a quiz for fellow SMAC-ers. QuizStar seemed more useful for the purpose of testing students, and there were much less popups and ads than the former website. However, I doubt I'll do any serious testing of students online when I'm a teacher. It just doesn't seem that much more convenient then creating, photocopying, and grading a paper exam. However, I could see how online tests could create an inconvenience for my future students, especially those without internet access in their homes. Quizzing online at QuizStar involves the student registering and entering a pre-assigned access name and password. Moreover, students that must find public access to the internet may end up in places that are not conducive to test-taking (like the noisy first floor of a public library). And, how much did we all hate not having the paper option of the GRE? As Steve pointed out to me in a conversation we had about the computer GRE test, online testing disregards many of the test-taking tecniques we learned in school, such as skipping very difficult questions and returning them at the end so time isn't wasted.
posted by Nese @ 15:33
4 Comments:
At Monday, July 24, 2006,
Liz Kolb, Ph.D. said…
Nese
Some very thought provoking issues your raise in your post. I really like your point about learning to add should be so much more than putting two numbers together on a worksheet. It really is about knowledge construction.
I also can appreciate your concerns with online testing and quizzes. The other side of the issue (as you pointed out) is that our standardized tests (and others) are moving more and more in the direction of computerized tests, rather than paper/pencil. It might be important to teach our students how to participate and navigate online assessment. I don't think this means every test or quiz should be online, but it might not be a bad idea to have a few throughout the year so that when they do encounter computerized tests they are not completely troubled (like I was during my own GRE experience).
At Thursday, July 27, 2006,
eryn said…
Nese,
On the topic of your addition to the Social Studies Wiki - THANK YOU! I have an econ minor, but sadly I've not taken an actual econ class since my sophomore year of high school. This is shameful, and I am properly ashamed. Nevertheless, I do value econ, and the FTE site seems like a terrific (useful, interesting, thorough, et cetera) way for me to reacquaint myself with the subject. I love the lesson ideas! Thank you, thank you!!
At Thursday, July 27, 2006,
Ms. C said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
At Thursday, July 27, 2006,
Ms. C said…
About "who technology benefits", I, like Mike, am less worried about the size of the target population of a technology, but the effect of the profit-driven research model currently in effect and shaping our futures. But that has been said, so I’ll move on to a related note:
For me, developing luxuries for the super-rich seems like squandering time, brainpower, and money that could be spent increasing accessibility for disabled people and working class people to the variety of technologies on which participation in mainstream society is increasingly reliant. Also, it is important to note that many disabled people, even those born into the middle class, wind up in poverty because of employment accessibility, expense of equipment to deal with disabilities, and inadequate social/governmental support. Thusly, these people are doubly shortchanged: not only are funds systemically directed away from them in favor of more profitable innovations, but disabled people, who are overrepresented in the working and working-poor classes, are also less likely to encounter mainstreamed technology.
Also, about the trickle-down of technology (ie, develop it for the rich, the middle class will eventually have access, too), it is more likely that more people will use some sort of technology created for the disabled in their lives than for the super-rich, as many people will experience disability in their lifetimes but few will experience extreme wealth. So, I propose that the “trickle down” justification is yet another argument against the slanting of research toward the desires of the super-rich.
Post a Comment
<< Home