Resnick Article

I ended up writing quite a bit in response to this article because of my reaction to the author’s ideas, and I would have to say that I was pretty critical of them overall. The author, Mitchel Resnick, starts the article by claiming that most of the world will have access to computer technologies in the future. This is because of the declining cost of computation we will see in the future. Mitchell claims that because of this advancement in computer technologies and their availability, the way people learn will be fundamentally transformed. The world will see what Mitchell calls a "learning revolution" which is compared to the "green revolution" brought about by advancements in biotechnologies. The fact that many environmental and social criticisms of the green revolution exist and are arguably true might be besides the point; but it seems to me that the author starts off on a note that is overly optimistic about the affect of technological advances and their impact. The author’s idea that computers will become cheaper and cheaper until the end of time is also complimented by the idea that natural resources will no longer be the driving force behind our societies and economies one day.    

The author goes on to talk about computer technologies and the access to information they allow. Mitchell compares computers to education in the way that they are both highly associated with information. Education has more to do with learning however, which is a highly dynamic and interactive process through which people construct ideas. Mitchell writes that while computers allow access to information, they will need to be highly interactive in order to promote educational experiences for students. Computers are already allowing for these experiences though, as they allow for manipulation and construction of things that were not previously possible in an educational setting. Computers allow students to explore ideas that are not taught in primary education as well, and students can learn how to become better learners by becoming more technologically fluent with computer technology.

While I would agree with Mitchell that a higher level of educational opportunities is offered to children because of computer technology, I'm critical of Mitchel's opinion that computers should play the primary role in a student’s education. Mitchel argues that we should be rethinking how people learn. Instead of breaking the shcool day up into hour sessions of separate subjects, we should be allowing children to explore the rich connections between these subjects on their own via computer technology and the internet. Teachers should not be assuming the role of "chief executives" of classrooms but rather as a  "consultant" in the students educational experiences. It is more important to be learning how to become better learners, Mitchel argues, rather than learning to multiply fractions or memorize the world’s capitals.

There are a few themes in Mitchels arguments that I agreed with, however his view that students should be primarily responsible for their own learning through computers and the internet is somewhat alarming. The fundamental philosophy of learning, where people interact dynamically with their environment, is changed to a view where people interact with a computer (with a human consultant of course). While computers allow a limitless range of information and opportunities to construct things that would not be easily possible in the physical world, the idea that they should take the forefront over actual interactions with the physical world and the social environment doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Classroom interactions serve a large function in this respect, and it seems to me that Mitchel ignores the large role teachers have to play in facilitating these experiences for students. Mitchel’s argument that classes should allow students more time to explore the connections between different subjects, rather than isolate subjects into hour periods for study; is an idea that makes a lot of sense. However, claiming that students would fully understand the connections between subjects without a rich understanding of the subjects themselves is questionable. Mitchell seems to criticize bad teaching practices when he argues that students should be learning to become better learners rather than memorize world capitals and drill math facts. What is more important than memorization and drilling is building a strong foundational understanding of world geography and number sense, as many effective teacher would understand. 

Technology is playing a bigger and bigger role in aiding a classroom teachers and facilitating educational experiences. It also cannot be ignored that computer technology and communication plays a bigger role in the world today than it ever has. The future will see an even bigger expansion of the role that computers play in society and cultures across the globe, and it is important that students understand how to navigate through a technologically advanced world. However effective computer technology might become as an educational tool though, in my opinion they should not be viewed as a replacement for real social and physical interactions with the environment. I would say that this view is becoming less and less emphasized in our culture, and perhaps that’s why I had such a strong reaction to this article.