Justine Isard, in her article "Why mobile technology makes sense in the 21st century classroom", writes a
detailed argument for the use of
technology in schools. Isard’s position is made clear in the second paragraph
when she writes “First of all mobile technology has a place in the 21st
century classroom and yes it does get results.” Isard then hunts further and
even refers to the current generation as the ‘touch generation’.
Isard refers to a 2012 study
that was published in Time Magazine to back up her opinion. The study
'revealed' that students who used Ipad technology scored better in literacy
tests than those who did not. I have a problem with this study being used as a
evidence for two reasons, one being that Time Magazine is not a peer reviewed
source, therefore any study which gets published may not necessarily be
factual. The second reason is that schools with Ipads are generally, and I am
being general, on the higher end of the social economic spectrum. These schools
would perform better in literacy tests anyway, as they have more resources
available to them as well as supportive teachers and parents.
Other than Isard’s selective
evidence, what I also find interesting is that she does not provide a single
counter argument for the downside of using mobile technology. A couple of those
arguments would include that iPads and phones, whilst beneficial, can also be
highly distracting. On top of this, teachers would always need to provide a
back up plan if the technology is not working. I thought to myself, what does
Isard gain from writing such a one sided article, and with a quick Google
search of her name I found that she has a special interest in the expansion of
mobile technology in schools. Isard provides professional development to
schools and businesses, charging from nearly $300 to $500 per day. In regards
to this, I think parents and teachers need to be wary of sensationalized
arguments for the value of mobile technology.
No comments:
Post a Comment