Read and Respond #4

Chapter 7: The Ideology of Machines: Computer Technology

Postman argued in this chapter that our culture has a belief that personal and public levels require technical solutions—because our ability to get lots of information and to get it quickly as the computer has allowed. In talking about these specific problems (nuclear catastrophe, starvation, crime, etc.), he says, “Our most serious problems are not technical, nor do they arise from inadequate information . . . mathematical equations, instantaneous communication, and vast quantities of information have nothing whatever to do with any of these problems. And the computer is useless in addressing them” (p. 119). He also showed concern in this chapter about human efforts and innovations equal (or even subject to) to that of the computer. He notes that medical technology is good but doesn’t take into account how the various parts and organs of the body work as a unified whole. He says the same about modern industrialization—how can a machine work and problem solve on an emotional level as humans can?

picture found from google search here

Postman addresses what we might lose if we allow computers to take over what humans can be doing and thinking about instead of letting the technology lead us. I found his examples of the Dallas Cowboys and the writing of prose quite humorous—that they really do have nothing to do with the computers being used! But I know students (and ahem—us at times, embarrassingly enough!) use that same kind of thinking! How easily we have fallen under the thinking Postman describes here!

Burning questions:

When do you refuse the use of technology in your teaching and for what reason?
How can we use computers and use problem-solving skills simultaneously?

Chapter 8: Invisible Technologies        

In this chapter, Postman talks about human thinking that has been taken over by technological advances and that the technology is directing our thinking, our ability to generate or make changes to ideas and expose or hide facts (examples being the zero and statistics). “In Technolpoly, we tend to believe that  only through the autonomy of techniques (and machinery) we achieve our goals . . .that the technique becomes sanctified and rule out the possibility of other ones” (p. 142).

I’m not sure I am quite as radical as he is in his thinking, but I could appreciate what he said about polling—and how those same ideas are used in teaching. In some ways I think our limiting questions don’t allow students to “really think” because we have a lesson plan and a goal and we need to get so much done in so short of time that we are not interested in “outside-of-the-box” thinking or opinions. It reminds me of the pre-school answer to a question about the Bible and the darling little one answers, "Jesus!" We are trained to provide the "right" answer or give the yes or no to an opinion questions without voicing what is going on in our heads about the topic. Here he shows how we are still being treated that way. I know that in some voting opportunities (whether political or at school or at church, etc.) sometimes it feels like my vote doesn’t count or that no one really wants to hear what I have to say because there is no room for opinions or other ideas. Maybe a speaker in a conversation is not an "expert" in a discussion at hand and therefore his or her opinion becomes invalid--when it could be just what is needed to work with and find a great idea! I’ve had parents talk to me about certain issues in the school and when I encourage them to speak to the higher-ups, they shrug it off because they don’t feel like their ideas or issues are heard or seriously considered. I know those kinds of opinions have taught me to be available and be a listener to parents because their opinion does matter--I see their child as a student, while they see them as their child. That is two completely different perspectives that need to be joined if the child is going to learn well.

Burning questions: How do we encourage voicing our opinions (especially if they are based on real ideas and facts)? How do we teach students to have an opinion—and that it matters what they think? How do we learn to listen?