Please read the following articles, discuss, and post your comments.
Why are schools using computers primarily to teach low-level skills when
technology has the potential to deepen student learning?
Revisiting
the literature from the 1990s on instructional technology is like journeying
back to a more nostalgic and hopeful time when the promise of computers—and
their potential impact on student learning—appeared boundless. Used in concert
with a learner-centered instructional approach and a curriculum that focused on
authentic learning, computers, it was thought, would serve as “mind tools”
(Jonassen, 1996) to build students' higher-order thinking skills. In fact, the
terms computers and higher-order thinking formed a sort of double helix in
instructional technology parlance. Infrastructural supports in the United States —such
as E-rate and federal funding for hardware, software, and teacher training
initiatives—exemplified a commitment to the belief that computers could
transform student learning.
How
different the present era. With proposed budget cuts for teacher technology
training programs, , and, most important, no body of research unequivocally
linking student technology use to improved learning, the pendulum has shifted.
Computers will certainly not disappear from schools, but educators and
education officials are currently scrutinizing their potential value as an
instructional tool.
This
diminished enthusiasm may prove beneficial in the long run. By reflecting on
the original goals for instructional technology and reevaluating prevailing
patterns of classroom technology use, we can begin to bridge the gap between
intention and implementation.
What Happened to Eureka?
Can
technology improve student learning? Yes. Computers can provide transformative
student learning experiences that would otherwise not be possible. One such
moment occurred during an activity I conducted with social studies teachers, in
which they were tasked with reapportioning the 435 members of the House of
Representatives across the 50 states using 2000 Census population data.
Although these teachers “covered” reapportionment in the curriculum, they had
never really understood its impact nor the impact of the Connecticut Compromise
on each state's share of electoral votes—until they used spreadsheets to model
reapportionment. They realized that each person's vote is weighted differently,
depending on the state in which he or she lives. People living in states with
smaller populations have a larger share of the vote than do residents in more
populous states.
Why are
such eureka moments the exception rather than the rule? Many educators believe
in the “exceptionality” of computers, viewing them as instructional talismans
that can do for student learning what other reforms and tools cannot. This has
resulted in a narrow focus on technology at the expense of the more important
pillars of learning—cognition, instruction, assessment, and curriculum. Four
common behavior patterns reinforce this notion of exceptionality and
simultaneously handicap the potential of computers to promote higher-order
thinking.
First, many
districts have concentrated on professional development that trains teachers in
skills instead of teaching them how computers can enhance student learning.
This focus on technology skills has diverted needed attention from helping
teachers understand the instructional practices best suited to capitalize on
technology's potential, serving instead to hide or exacerbate weaknesses in
instruction, lesson design, and assessment.
Second,
many districts have not made the kinds of accommodations necessary to allow for
the full capitalization of classroom technology, failing to provide such
supports as long-term professional development in technology integration;
access to sufficient hardware and software; creation of sufficient
instructional time for inquiry-based, technology-integrated activities; on-site
technical support; and instructional leadership to help teachers understand how
they can use computers to extend and deepen student learning.
Third,
schools have conflated technology use with instructional quality and student
engagement with improved learning and higher-order thinking. In all the
excitement about new ways of teaching with technology, we educators may have
neglected to pose the most fundamental question: Are students really learning?
Fourth, we
often classify all software applications as cognitively and instructionally
equal. This misconception has resulted in an overreliance on conceptually easy
kinds of software—lower-order applications that, although engaging, focus on
simple cognitive tasks—at the expense of more conceptually difficult kinds of
software—higher-order applications that are more aligned with higher-order
skills.
Lower-Order Versus Higher-Order Applications
Technology
alone cannot move students to higher-order thinking skills, but some
applications are more suited for this task than others. My own experience in
classrooms indicates that students generally use lower-order applications that
offer few opportunities for problem solving, analysis, and evaluation.
Observations
of middle and high school classrooms conducted between 1999 and 2003 through
the South-Central Regional Technology in Education Consortium indicate that
most schools use the Microsoft Office software suite (including word
processing, spreadsheet, database, electronic presentation, publishing, Web
editing, and e-mail programs) as well as the Internet. The most commonly used
applications are what I call show-and-tell applications—PowerPoint, Word,
Publisher, and Front Page—with the Internet the most commonly used
non—show-and-tell kind of application in terms of frequency of classroom use.
Classrooms rarely use spreadsheets or databases, which are conceptually and
technically more difficult. E-mail is virtually nonexistent because of policies
prohibiting student use.
The ability
to synthesize information using a combination of text and visuals is certainly
an important skill. But an overreliance on electronic presentation software
precludes more rigorous kinds of learning. PowerPoint does not lead students to
delve deeply into the writing process or wrestle with complex and conflicting
conceptual information. Indeed, its very architecture demands episodic,
disjointed knowledge construction. Content is reduced to a “sight bite”; the
focus is on color and visual stimulation. PowerPoint may be developmentally
appropriate for younger students who are still learning the refinements of
organizing thoughts. It may be a wonderful entry-level tool for teachers wading
into the technology waters. But as the default tool of choice at the middle and
high school levels, it fails to promote deep, complex, or even developmentally
appropriate learning.
In addition
to lower-order tools, classrooms use more robust tools, such as the Internet,
in such nondifferentiated ways that they dilute their power. Although students
use the Internet to access information, I have seen little evidence of students
engaging in more complex and dynamic kinds of online learning
opportunities—such as online collaboration or content-oriented
simulations—despite the fact that much of the rationale for broadband access in
schools was for students to take part in such opportunities.
Instead,
students generally use the Internet as an electronic textbook, often without
questioning, validating, or evaluating the information they find. Consequently,
a good deal of student Internet use is intellectually passive, with the
greatest amount of activity occurring at the fine motor level—pointing,
clicking, and copying and pasting large amounts of text (often with impunity
and without attribution) into Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, or Publisher, a
pattern emblematic of an increasingly copy-and-paste culture (Gibson, 2005).
More
developmentally appropriate and challenging tools, such as spreadsheets and
databases, offer richer opportunities to practice analytical and critical
thinking skills. Spreadsheets demand both abstract and concrete reasoning and
involve students in the mathematical logic of calculations. They enable
learners to model complex and rich real-world phenomena. Students practice their
critical thinking skills by making assumptions, coding assumptions as
variables, manipulating variables, analyzing outcomes, and evaluating and
displaying data both quantitatively and visually (Jonassen, Carr, & Yueh,
1998).
Yet how do
classrooms generally use spreadsheets? For show-and-tell: to input and graph
information. Although spreadsheets are a natural fit for math and science
classes—as the various Excel applications, from accounting to trigonometric
function, illustrate—they are often conspicuously absent from these
environments. Spreadsheets may receive their most rigorous workout in computer
classes, but often in a decontextualized, mechanical fashion (entering data,
formatting columns, and so on)—a lower-order use of a potentially higher-order
tool.
Databases,
like spreadsheets, are naturally suited to cultivating higher-order thinking
skills. By its very taxonomical nature, database design can help students
systematically organize, arrange, and classify data according to established
criteria (Adams & Burns, 1999). Such activities require students to think
inductively (in aggregating data) and deductively (in disaggregating
information). Yet databases, like spreadsheets, are “difficult,” so students
rarely use them for analytic purposes.
A number of
other software tools offer even greater opportunities for interacting with rich
content, real-world data, and complex procedures that foster higher-order
thinking. These tools are nearly invisible in most schools. Geographic
information systems (GIS), computer-aided design programs, and simulation
software programs—especially those with a problem-based component—can stimulate
students' intellectual development and enable learners to create, revise, and
reconstruct what they know to create new frameworks of knowledge.
For
example, students can use GIS to indicate a geographic area's vulnerability to
natural disaster, identifying constraints such as floodplains or areas subject
to coastal erosion. They can create an alternative land use plan in light of
such constraints. Using a free GIS-type tool, such as Google Earth, they can
show change over time for a specific city by scanning in historical photos of
the city and “rubber-sheeting” them onto the actual topography of a current
satellite view.
Why, then,
the focus on lower-order technology tools at the expense of higher-order ones?
Why the near ubiquity of PowerPoint and the dearth of databases? Higher-order
tools, for the most part, are not as user-friendly or visually appealing. They
are time-intensive to learn, integrate, and use. Teachers often don't
understand how these applications can help foster analytic skills because they
don't understand the tool or its instructional possibilities. Similarly, school
districts often lack technology trainers who are proficient in the mechanics of
these tools and in the conceptual skills they demand. It's easier, quicker, and
cheaper to teach and use PowerPoint. It's easier to ask students to write a
newsletter article in Publisher that explains the Connecticut Compromise than
to require them to use spreadsheets to model the way in which the Connecticut
Compromise influences the notion of “one person, one vote.”
Two Strategies for Change
How can
schools and school districts change such patterns of use and nonuse and address
the factors that impede teachers from capitalizing on computer technology's
instructional potential? It will require a return to original assumptions—the
need for critical thinking, for learner-centered instruction, and for students
to use computers as mind tools. It will also require professional development
for teachers that systemically and intensively addresses these needs (Boethel
& Dimock, 1999; Means et al., 1993; Roehrig-Knapp & Glenn, 1996).
Strategy 1: Teach critical thinking first and technology later.
If
higher-order thinking is a main goal of instruction, then teachers themselves
must keep sharpening their critical thinking skills. It's not enough to help
students find and communicate information. Teachers need to show students how
to evaluate the information's veracity, reason logically, come to
evidence-based decisions, create relevant new knowledge, and apply this
learning to new situations. This instruction may involve using computers, but
computer use is not the goal. Students may be engaged, but engagement is not
the goal, either. Students and teachers must become creators of information and
ideas, not simply users of technology.
For
example, a science teacher might ask students to create a survey that measures
attitudes about the environment, which they would administer to teachers,
peers, and community members. Students could input survey responses in Excel
and run a basic statistical analysis of the data, thereby creating two new sets
of information: survey data, and an analysis of survey results. Or students
could deconstruct hard-copy graphs, examining their scale, proportion, labels,
graph types, units of measure, clarity of message, and data integrity. By doing
so, they would familiarize themselves with the idea that every graph tells a
story, using numbers to stand in for words.
For
students and teachers to become creators of information, the instructional
technology community needs to focus on the role of computers as learning tools.
In our desire to advance technology use among teachers, those of us working in
the field have often resorted to cheerleading as opposed to critical thinking,
rationalization as opposed to reasoning, and complacency as opposed to critical
self-reflection regarding patterns of current classroom computer use. The
instructional technology community needs to actively encourage teachers to
reflect on technology and engage them in discussions about technology's role in
fostering learning.
Teachers
should reflect on the following questions:
What kinds of software should I use in the
classroom, and why?
When should my students use computers in
class? When should they not use them?
Does the current technology use in my
classroom support the curriculum and deepen content? How?
Do certain uses of technology match certain
learning outcomes?
Does my current technology use improve my
students' learning?
More
specific questions might deal with how teachers could use spreadsheets to help
students better understand linear algebra, what kinds of communications skills
students might develop if they heavily use PowerPoint, or how Microsoft Word
might help improve student writing in ways that would otherwise be impossible.
Strategy 2: Focus on curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
So much
current technology professional development for teachers is stalled at the
sensorimotor stage (Piaget, 1936)—focusing on tool use instead of on critical
evaluation of the tool's ability to achieve stated education aims. Professional
development must foster an intellectual environment in which teachers address
not just the lower-order what and how to questions that accompany technology
professional development, but also the higher-order how and why questions that
prompt real understanding of the true potential of computers in instruction.
To use and
integrate computers in higher-order ways, teachers must engage in intensive and
ongoing professional development that responds to a number of needs. First, the
program should model good instruction and take teachers through the learning
process so that they experience learning from the learner's point of view and
reflect on it as a practitioner. For example, in Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory's Active Learning with Technology program, teachers participate
as students in ongoing problem- and project-based activities that feature
technology as a problem-solving tool. They then reflect on these activities as
teachers and plan similar exercises in their own classrooms.
Second,
professional development should help teachers understand the conceptual
reasoning behind such higher-order software as geographic information systems
and databases. For example, in learning about geographic information systems,
teachers can begin by working with a series of base maps, transparencies, and
vellum grids. Teachers can take a sheet of transparency, overlay it on the base
map, and color in features. They can add or remove layers by adding or removing
transparencies. In this way, they become familiar with the concepts of spatial
analysis and overlaying information, and they come to understand the importance
of scale and projection.
Third,
professional development should model technology use that is deliberately
matched to a particular learning outcome so that teachers can see how activity
design, tool use, and learning connect. For example, teachers could go through
a structured exploration of various kinds of software—from those that emphasize
“drill-and-kill” to more open-ended products—in light of Bloom's Taxonomy. This
kind of analysis would reveal that not all software is equal. Some products are
good for lower-order skills and some for higher-order skills.
Last,
professional development should focus on core areas of teaching—content
knowledge, curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Once teachers have a solid
base in these areas, they can begin incorporating technology. Teachers should
familiarize themselves with the skills needed to manipulate specific software
applications, but the focus should be on integrating technology to support the
four core areas of teaching. The technology should be almost invisible. Also,
training should help teachers overcome their concerns about not being experts
in technology use. They will develop their expertise as their students do, in
time and with practice.
To
implement these recommendations, teachers need a panoply of supports. They need
opportunities to work together with colleagues to plan rich, preferably
interdisciplinary activities in which technology serves to extend learning in
ways that would not be possible without its use. They also need effective
instructional and technology leadership from school and district
administrators, access to higher-order technology tools, time to learn about
and integrate these tools, and follow-up support and coaching.
The jury is
still out on the impact of computers on student learning. But before we dismiss
computers as an expensive fad or boondoggle, schools must take measures to
ensure that they are using computers to their fullest instructional potential.
Only then can we reclaim the optimism that greeted technology's dawn in the
classroom. Only then will we witness the good work that results when schools
use good tools well.
References
Boethel,
M., & Dimock, V. (1999). Constructing knowledge with technology: A review
of the literature. Austin , TX : Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory.
Gibson, W.
(2005, July). God's little toys: Confessions of a cut and paste artist. Wired,
118–119.
Jonassen,
D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Jonassen,
D. H., Carr, C. S., & Yueh, H-P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for
engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24–32. Available:
http://tiger.coe.missouri.edu/~jonassen/Mindtools.pdf
Means, B.,
Blando, J., Olson, K., Middleton, T., Morocco , C. C., Remz, A. R., et al.
(1993). Using technology to support education reform. Washington ,
DC : U.S. Department of Education.
Piaget, J.
(1936). The origins of intelligence in children. New York : W. W. Norton & Company.
Roehrig-Knapp,
L., & Glenn, A. D. (1996). Restructuring schools with technology. Boston : Allyn and Bacon.
Mary Burns
is Senior Technology Specialist and Professional Development Specialist at
Education Development Center, 55 Chapel St., Newton, MA 02458; 617-618-2852; mburns@edc.org.
December
2005/January 2006 | Volume 63 | Number 4 Learning in the
Digital Age Pages 48-53, Mary Burns
Copyright ©
2005 by Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
What Screenagers Say About …
Pete Davidson, Alison Enzinna,
Casey Gannon, Samoris Hall, Corinne Hayward, Ogechi Irondi, Ashley Magnifico,
Terence Perry and Michael Virag
An issue on screenagers
wouldn't be complete without the perspectives of the screenagers themselves.
Fortunately, ASCD had such a group on staff last summer—our high school and
college interns. So Educational
Leadershipasked them about how they liked to learn and about
their experiences—both good and bad—with technology use in school. Here's what
they told us.
PowerPoint
"My history teacher did a
good job with PowerPoints. He would put them online, which made for really great
reviews. But my science teacher did just the opposite. She would get up and
read off her PowerPoints. And that's so boring for everyone."
"My history teacher's
PowerPoints had a lot of the key points, and he would talk around it. He would
hardly ever address what was on the slide. The PowerPoint was just to help us
focus on what he was talking about."
Using technology is good. But
you need to take it to the next level where you’re not just reading what you
wrote on the PowerPoint."
Multitasking
"My English professor got
really angry about people texting and said, 'Don't you think it's rude while
someone's talking?' But it's not. We've really become a generation where we have to do two things at once, and we can focus on each of them. It was a
five-minute argument because he was losing."
"It's not like we're so
distracted that we can't accomplish anything. It's more that we've gotten into
the habit of doing a couple of things at the same time and being able to
function adequately in both areas. I don't think that's a bad thing."
"I can write an essay and
listen to music at the same time. It actually helps me because one thing is in
the back of my mind taking up the space that the essay isn't. So I feel like
I'm working more productively."
"I doodle. I’m a writer.
I write notes in the margins about things in the back of my head. I just have
to do more than one thing at once now. There used to be a time--when I was in
1st grade maybe--where I just focused on the teacher. But not now."
"If you can have a 4.0 and
are still dialing Faceook friends and IM-ing and texting, that’s more of an
accomplishment than people back in the day who had a 4.0 but didn’t have [all
the distractions], like TV or video games."
"It’s like playing with
toys when you’re younger. You may have blocks and something else. But you play
with both equally. Just because we’re thinking about an English paper on Keats
doesn’t mean we can’t also think about football practice."
Interactive Whiteboards
"If teachers are
explaining something using a whiteboard, instead of our just hearing it and
trying to do it, we can see their screen and do what they're doing along with
them. So the explanation is easier to understand."
"I would love for more
teachers to use SMART boards. If a teacher can scroll through the SMART board,
select something, and show you everything, they're the best! But the teacher
has to know how to use it and not ask us, 'How do I close this?'"
"Make the SMART board
workshop mandatory. Some teachers in my school were good with using a SMART
board, some were great, and some just wrote on it—they literally hung a piece
of paper on it. They'd rather use it that way than use it as a SMART board.
That's my parents' tax money, right?"
"I’ve only had one
teacher who had a SMART board, and she didn’t know how to use it. She was just
like, 'Well, all right, that didn’t work. Just rely on your textbook for now.
I’m going to try and figure this out. And then we’ll get back to it.' But why
have a SMART board if you’re not going to use it?"
Technology-Challenged Teachers
"I'd much rather explain
some technology thing to a teacher than sit there and watch them try to figure
it out for themselves. Just admit you don't get it. We all know you don't know.
Because if you knew, it would be up already. Just don't be afraid to ask for
our help."
"There's a lot of
pressure for teachers to use technology, but no one teaches them how. What
drives me nuts is when we're going to watch a YouTube video, 10 minutes later
the teacher still hasn't figured out how to start it. It's kind of cute. But
it's a waste of time."
"One of the most
frustrating things is when you have to help the teacher with technology. It's
annoying. It puts you above them. And then it's hard to learn from them."
Teachers shouldn’t be afraid
of technology. Understand that it’s how we live our lives. So don’t just push
it out. Learn to cope with us and how we work.
The Downside of Technology
"Technology has become
such a social and fun way for us to do things that, in a way, it's more useful
to power down in the classroom, especially with cell phones. Because otherwise,
you'd be distracted."
"I hate reading on the
computer. I like to have something in my hand."
"I had to dish out $120
for an online textbook— and then it goes away at the end of the semester. You
can't hold onto it in case you want to reference something in the future."
"I wonder whether getting
a cell phone really young may influence the way kids end up writing because
they're texting before their writing is fully developed. At 14, your writing is
at a place where it's good enough that you're not going to be spelling 'you'
with a U instead of y-o-u. But if you're 5, it may change things."
"Sometimes you get so
caught up in technology, you forget about everything else."
"During the class, it was
all lecture. But it’s good to learn to listen and take notes. You have to
experience that, too."
Cyberbullying
"The thing about
cyberbullying is that there's a record of it that can be found and printed out.
And there you go. You're in trouble. Kids don't realize that. They hide behind
computers and cell phones and say all these things they would never, ever say
to your face."
"Cyberbullies break
others down. There's no limit to it. They can type as long as they want, say
whatever mean things they want to say."
"You have to teach kids
how to deal with cyberbullying. Kids need to know that Facebook isn't the
problem. Teachers need training so they know what they're dealing with—and not
just say we need to keep kids off the Internet because they're going to
cyberbully each other. Kids are always going to bully
each other. They're going to find ways. Schools just have to prevent this or
teach them not to do certain things. Isn't that their job?"
"Once a week, 7th and 8th
graders would get together to talk [about online conduct]. The school brought
in different people to teach us various things. One thing they told us was that
you can't hide behind the computer forever, that there are track records, that
it's becoming a big offense."
"You can block people on
Facebook. You can block people from e-mailing you. But you can't block a text.
You can block a number, but they can use a different phone or text you from a
computer. You don't know who's actually talking to you through a computer. It's
completely possible you're having a conversation with someone you don't even
know."
"If you put jk [just
kidding] after anything, you just kind of erase whatever you said. So someone
can say, 'I hope you die. jk.' And then all of a sudden, it's like, OK, wait.
Do you mean that?"
"There’s a mean version
of Facebook. You just go in there and talk about someone you don’t like. There
was a girl that people talked about there. It was bad because everybody knew.
People from outside school could access it and write and read about her."
"Someone I know used to
have a friend--but it was more like a frenemy. This girl was Googling her on
Facebook. So my friend blocked her on Facebook. So the girl started sending her
e-mails. So my friend blocked her on e-mails. Then she started texting her. So
my friend blocked her on texting. Then it escalated when the girl came out to
her house."
"The only advice my
school gave about cyberbullying was to snitch. They said, 'If you’re getting
cyberbullied, then send us an anonymous e-mail.' Then how are you going to know
it’s me? There’s something wrong with this 'anonymous.' You get back to me, and
then everybody is going to know that Sam’s getting bullied."
What's Already Working Well
"Before class, one of my
high school teachers would text us a question that you had to answer in class.
Sometimes you'd know the answer. Sometimes you wouldn't. So you'd talk to
classmates to get their thoughts. There were big separations of groups in my
school. These questions would break the separation. Because you don't usually
talk to that one guy, but he may know the answer. By the time you show up to
class, everybody has talked about everybody else's reading assignment. So it
made us study as a group. It made us more of a community."
"One of my teachers used
Skype. That's face-to-face interaction. If I had a problem with some math
problem I was working on, I could take a picture of it and put it on the Skype
screen. She could see where I was making my mistake. It really helped."
"My whole university, all
the professors, just cut their office hours because students weren't using
them. Students didn't want to truck all the way across campus to sit in a
professor's office for a few minutes just to ask a question. So a lot of my
professors said, 'Here's my AIM account. And here's how you can get a hold of
me.' It's comforting to know that they're actually there during that time.
They're not just saying, 'Your e-mail's waiting in my inbox.'"
"One professor made us
write stuff on the discussion board. I had a lot of classes like that, where
you wrote something there, and it didn't matter. But this teacher would print
it out and say, 'Hey Joe, I noticed you had this great post. You want to
elaborate on that in class?' At first, it was really scary. But then it was
really cool. Because she reminded you of something smart you said."
In one of my college classes,
I was seat 327. So if I hit my [responder] to reply to a question, the teacher
would say, 'OK, seat 327. So--here he’d look up my name--what do you have to
say on the subject?' So I wouldn’t come into the classroom and just go to
sleep. Both technology and the older methods can coexist. My English teacher
put on a version of Hamlet. And we read it from the book while watching the movie. When you’re
reading a play, a lot goes on that you don’t necessarily see. My teacher would
pause every 10 minutes and say, 'So do you guys get what this means? Tell me
about it.' As long as you’re on top of it, kids won’t be asleep.
What Educators Should Do
"The most important thing
for teachers is to be comfortable with what they're using. It doesn't have to
be super high tech. My math teacher used a projector, and it was one of my favorite
classes. Then I would go to this other class where the teacher used PowerPoints
and the SMART board, but I didn't get any more out of it because she wasn't
comfortable with the technology."
"There are some bad
things on the Internet for school purposes, like Facebook. But there are
helpful things, too. If a school knows what's helpful, what's bad, and what's
in the middle, then they can keep out all the bad stuff, monitor the stuff in the
middle, and let us free-range on the stuff that's good."
"Teachers shouldn't be
afraid of technology. Understand that it's how we live our lives. So don't just
push it out. Learn to cope with us and how we work."
Assignments don’t always need
to be papers. Assignments don’t always need to be text. There are other ways of
figuring out what kids know using technology.
Copyright © 2011 by ASCD
I found both articles very interesting as one of them showed us the theoretical part and very valuable information regarding the proper use of technology in class, and the second one was a great insight on Ss thoughts and opinions about technology being well or not so well used by teachers. I believe a key phrase is 'Students and teachers must become creators of information and ideas, not simply users of technology.' Many times, we tend to confuse the use of technology and became passive users in stead of active and critical ones. This idea had also been mentioned in Prensky's article about digital natives and digital wisdom. I find it really useful to read Ss opinions on how we use technology, sometimes we are not aware of obvious things unless someone else tells us.
ResponderEliminarMaria Pia Cejas