Global technological learning is restructuring and reorganizing the interacting communication skills between teachers and students. The extreme advancement of technology is causing teaching techniques to move away from the face-to-face relationship to a broader student-directed computerized system. Machines such as computers and digital software knowledge sever the human intimacy connection. This duel union between teacher and student fosters communication skills, mutual understanding, and a sense of compassion.
Both student and teacher form a bond through the relationship when entering into a school environment. For the same reason, technology is at the forefront of our nation. Our children need to learn appropriate technological knowledge from skillfully trained teachers who facilitate guidance, spark creative potential and foster self-directed learning. Children have become technological wizards by using various computerized and digital communicators outside of the classroom. According to recent surveys by the Pew Research Center Internet & American Life Project, 95 percent of all teens (ages 12–17) use the Internet on a regular basis, 80 percent of them use social networking sites, and 75 percent have cell phones. With these numbers growing steadily, Internet and cell phone access by young people in their lives outside of school is rapidly approaching the point at which it might be viewed as nearly universal,” (Jenkins, H. , 2012). In this respect, I question, is technology replacing human interaction between teachers and students in our public school system?
Alternatively, are we as an educational system utilizing the vast potential of our children’s knowledge of technological communication to guide them toward quality educational advancement? Traditionally, teachers have been the instructional motivators for children. Teacher-directed learning is no longer conducive. Technology leads the way for collaborative resources that enhance the education of both parties. “With online learning being as widespread as it is, however, as many as one in three academic leaders consider it inferior to face-to-face instruction. (Brentson, D. , 2011). The long-term goal of educating children is to empower self-motivation, problem solving and independence. Technological devices in the public school system are limited to students and teachers. For example, if one computer is to facilitate twenty students how does its availability compensate the educational needs of the greater amount? If on the other hand, all students are using a computer, the teacher adjusts to assisting their students to be more self-directed oppose to teacher-directed.
The availability of teacher training in technology within the classroom is widespread throughout the nation. “As students become more self-directed, teachers who are not accustomed to acting as facilitators or coaches may not understand how technology can be used as part of activities that are not teacher-directed, “(Rodriguez, G. , & Knuth, R. 2000). Qualified professional educators will have a willingness to achieve the needed instructional information that would promote technical activities that stimulate the minds of our children.
They would also, instill ethical and moral standards of conducting one’s self while using technical devices. The wide range of internet usage by children outside of the classroom, children need the monitoring and guidance from professional educators to utilize equipment towards educational and skillful innovations. “Teacher quality is the factor that matters most for student learning,” (Rodriguez, G. , & Knuth, R. 2000). Teachers empower inner self-motivation, self-determination, skills and concepts during learning activities utilizing appropriate moral standards.
Utilitarianism is the theory that people should choose that which maximizes the utility of all those who are affected by a given act, (Mosser, K. , 2010, Chap. 1. 7). Understandably, that technology is an emerging force, which will never replace the emotional component of human’s. Yet, we must utilize technology for the greater good of all becoming the collaborating force. Teachers will need to reeducate themselves by embracing the technology without omitting the needed confidence that students gain from human attachment.
Neil Heffernan, researchers at Carnegie Mellon University on developing computer software to help students improve their skills, states that, “what was missing from the programs was the intervention teachers made to promote and accelerate learning. ” (Paul, M. A. , 2012a). Hefferman understanding for example, when a child demonstrates the wrong keystroke and becomes frustrated an educator is available to help; also, if a child performs correctly someone is accessible to give a wink, a smile or hooray of acceptance.
On the other hand, Ken Koedinger, a professor of human-computer interaction and psychology at Carnegie Mellon University, take a different view from Heffernan’s: computerized tutors should not try to emulate humans, because the computers may well be the superior teachers (Paul, M. A. , 2012b). Koedinger takes the position of using computers in the public or private secular to educate children will promote knowledge ability as a rote learning system. His software is to generate monies for corporations without the consideration of emotional issues.
Children deal with frustration, confusion and management problems within a classroom. Teacher-student relationship during interaction with each individual cannot be compensated with a machine. Machines cannot be operated without human interaction. “Even when totally clear explanation is the goal, this will not be achieved because “clarity is in the mind of the beholder,” (Rusbult, C. , 2007). Children that engage in using computerized technology need guidance to ensure adequate precision that they are downloading into their minds.
The machines give information it is the educators creating strategies through communication verbal and non-verbal, that helps develops the students creative potential Furthermore, Henry Jenkins, Director of the Comparative Media Studies Program at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, gives understanding to our goals as educators, “Our goals should be to encourage youth to develop the skills, knowledge, ethical frameworks, and self-confidence needed to be full participants in contemporary culture.
Many young people are already part of this process through: Affiliations — memberships, formal and informal, in online communities centered around various forms of media, such as Friendster, Facebook, message boards, metagaming, game clans, or MySpace). Expressions — producing new creative forms, such as digital sampling, skinning and Modding, fan video making, fan fiction writing, zines, mash-ups). Collaborative Problem-solving — working together in teams, formal and informal, to complete tasks and develop new knowledge (such as through Wikipedia, alternative reality gaming, spoiling).
Circulations — Shaping the flow of media (such as podcasting, blogging)” (Jenkins, H. , 2012). Internet apparatus and social networking use by young people is ubiquitous. Students who own their devices are now using them in and outside of the schools. Parents and Early Children Care Centers are introducing students to computerized games and educational aides. Jenkins, (2012), quoted, “The use of student owned mobile devices for classroom instruction is growing, and more schools are moving from policies that ban their use of integrating them in the classroom. The public school system acknowledges the long-term quality of learning that students have that will enhance their technical abilities. Naturally, teachers and administrator alike, know that without appropriate guidance, bonding, relationships and human attachment students will struggle to utilize critical thinking skills, problem-solving techniques, self-confidence, self-control and independence. These components for learning manifest through the guidance of teacher-student directed learning.
The addition of technology to promote inner creativity enhances ones spectrum of knowledge. To help promote the greatest good for the majority may stand to reason, be the right thing to do. Public school officials need to find cost efficient ways that will include teacher-training, technical equipment. The utilitarian looks at the various options one confronts, and argues that the choice that leaves the largest group better off than any other option will be the right thing to do,” (Mosser, K. , 2010, Chap. 5).
Technology cannot overtake the given knowledge or devices of humankind because humans are the creators and users of the devices. The computers, software, iPads, Smartphone and so many more devices are created from the imaginations of humans. When one creates, they envision the most valuable usage of their structure. Technology can be thought of as a utility that will grossly enrich globally. When used appropriately though professional guidance, students will be able to tackle numerous activities. The ethical concept of what is right and what is wrong is not questionable.
The decisions that are made by Educational Administrators about the future generation’s educational learning, in the usage of technology and the quality of professional teachers that interact with our next generation, will determine the value of the human interaction in the classroom. Although, as (Rusbult, C. , 2007), states, “The process of learning new knowledge, when it’s required by an activity, can occur by any combination of mentally meaningful reception and/or discovery, using information or explanation from a teacher. ” Knowledge is obtained from machinery but compassion and acceptance can only come from human interaction.
Student need interaction and acceptance from another experienced expert to simplify information to gain clarity ignite creativity and encourage self-directed learning. Helping children learn is the ultimate goal of each teacher. Employing the means of technology when embraced can only enhance the educational growth of our children. How that goal is obtained should not be based upon ethical egoism, as identified by Mosser, (2010), “as the view that all human behavior should be regarded as done in the self-interest of the individual person to satisfy that person’s goals and desires. The technology that is used to educate our children will not replace the relationship that is needed to develop confidence, determination, motivation but it will empower children to utilize their skills in a technological manner. The long-term goal will be to master the machinery of the world and usage of technology for the good of all students, teachers and school administrators.
Brentson, D. , (2011), How Has the Internet Changed Education – infographic, Search Engines Company, (SEC. com), Retrieved from, http://www. eo. com/blog/internet-changed-education-infographic/#ixzz2DiJxdDGq Jenkins, H. , (2012), Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century, Why We Should Teach Media Literacy: Three Core Problems, The MacArthur Foundation, Retrieved from, http://www. macfound. org/media/article_pdfs/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER. PDF Mosser, K. (2010). Ethics and Social Responsibility. (Ashford University Ed. ). San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc Retrieved from https://content. shford. edu/books/AUSOC120. 10. 2 Paul, M. A. , (2012), N. Y. Times, The Education Issue, The Machines are Taking Over, Retrieved from, http://www. nytimes. com/2012/09/16/magazine/how-computerized-tutors-are-learning-to-teach-humans. html? pagewanted=all Rodriguez, G. , ; Knuth, R. (2000).
Critical Issue: Providing professional development for effective technology use. Pathways to School Improvement, retrieved from, http://www. ncrel. org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te1000. htm Rusbult, C. (2007), Active-Learning Theories (constructivism … ) 2. Teaching Strategies for Effective Instruction, Pure Discovery versus Guided Discovery, Retrieved from, http://www. asa3. org/ASA/education/teach/active. htm Scheffler, F. L. , ; Logan, J. P. (1999). Computer technology in schools: What teachers should know and be able to do. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31 (3), 305-326. Tinzmann, M. B. (1998). How does technology affect students’ learning and engagement in collaborative activities? Unpublished manuscript.