Reading Analysis

I seem to have trouble focusing on a particular idea presented in both articles, although, after reading both articles, I seemed be drawn more to Roberto Joseph’s article “Beyond Technology Integration: The Case for Technology Transformation.” That “new technology is typically used to support existing methods in the filed, over time, investment and resources, the new methods frequently result in quantum improvements.” This seems to ring true for me. The author seemed to question, will technology methods change in the same way.

As part of my job as an instructional designer, and for that matter a graphic designer, technology is a very important part of my job. I spend time, as part of what I do, searching, looking for new technologies that might enhance the productively of my job. Specific to graphic design, the field has changed dramatically since the 1980’s. When I started in graphic design, I used a drafting table with straight edge to create my designs. Another example are typesetters who were very specialized at what they did, using phototypesetting machines, that’s all they did, plug in code, typed in text producing gally proofs. Technology completely changed the industry on all levels, design, to production as well as the rolls that people played, because of technology advancements, jobs became integrated. Has this happened in education, have jobs evolved, evaporated because of technology?

In education the idea of standardization in the Joseph’s article was an interesting concept. I certainly felt that when I was in school, being part of a large group, unsympathetic to different ways we all learn. I can see technology as very useful to utilizing better ways to individualize education. As in any industry though, new technology is a investment, as well as maintaining the quality and the future relevance. There needs to be people to develop and the money to do the job well. The wonderful possibilities although does the article address what kind of change, what are the tools? Maybe because of my design background, or the lack of classroom teaching, I tend to think in terms of the tools (technology) I work with.
• Improvement in my design, problem solving
• Productivity improvements
• Technology improvement, program upgrades – elimination of one technology replacing other.

On the other hand, Postman talked about “great problems of education are of a social and moral nature and have nothing to do with dazzling new technologies.” Are we experts because of our technology, what about the overflow of technology, the balance that needs to be there and lastly a consistency of human interaction. When computer’s came to be common place, anyone could consider themselves as an expert graphic design or a typesetter or a printer of sorts. Does technology make you an expert because you have it? I don’t believe so. They are just that, it enhances a core goal.

As someone who works with online classes, I don’t see the classroom becoming a thing of the past. My belief is it’s important to continue to teach our children in how to socialize with one another, teach children how to learn, the practice of going to school is important, as stated in the article. Technology can improve on what’ve there, or can change and evolve to meet the needs of modern society. As for the “Of Luddites, Learning, and Life” article, I can see the point of the author. Is there a limit, too much growth? Although technology is here to stay and is changing the way we function as a society.