I titled this entry as awakening as that was what I felt after doing the two readings this week. However, it is not a awakening to the authors' point of views but awakening to a more rounded perspective of how I would approach technology in my personal life and at work. The key take-away for me is that it is important to be an informed user of technology, regardless if it is a software, hardware, or online application.
I see a lot of truth in what Postman said. These include his argument that there are two sides to it, and that "once a techonology is admitted, it plays out its hand". That is so true, proven by history. Every invention has changed our lives and there is no turning back.
Then again, I thought he was too extreme in saying that television would bring an end to print medium and schoolteachers' career. We have heard this argument since the day television came into our lives but I think we are seeing a peaceful co-existence of the two medium. While we may like watching news on TV for a quick overview of the major happenings in the world and in Singapore, many people still read the newspapers for more news, greater details, and even the advertisements.
He also said that schools are teaching children to operate computers instead of more valuable things. Tell me about it! My kid has to take compulsory enrichment class that teaches keyboarding skills at his school. This sounds like some typing class to me. Why does my kid need to learn typing with proper positioning of fingers? This being compulsory, we have to pay for it but what good is this class going to do? I wonder who made the selection for this class. Is that person from the era of typing and shorthand classes? Besides, how many of these children are already surfing, gaming and blogging? Would it not be better to teach them right at the beginning, to see the merits and possible dangers and obsession that the Net can potentially become? So who is to judge what is more valuable to the kids, should it be the teachers, principals, government, or the parents?
The other point he made about how our society puts a number to a quality of thought and intelligence is indeed enlightening! I mean I am a paper-chaser through my life as a student but working is a totally different matter altogether. At work, I saw how some people can be high achievers even though they were not top students when they were studying. And I have met many wonderful people who are not highly educated. So, indeed, what does that the quantitative value mean to us as individuals? Not much.
I see a lot of truth in what Postman said. These include his argument that there are two sides to it, and that "once a techonology is admitted, it plays out its hand". That is so true, proven by history. Every invention has changed our lives and there is no turning back.
Then again, I thought he was too extreme in saying that television would bring an end to print medium and schoolteachers' career. We have heard this argument since the day television came into our lives but I think we are seeing a peaceful co-existence of the two medium. While we may like watching news on TV for a quick overview of the major happenings in the world and in Singapore, many people still read the newspapers for more news, greater details, and even the advertisements.
He also said that schools are teaching children to operate computers instead of more valuable things. Tell me about it! My kid has to take compulsory enrichment class that teaches keyboarding skills at his school. This sounds like some typing class to me. Why does my kid need to learn typing with proper positioning of fingers? This being compulsory, we have to pay for it but what good is this class going to do? I wonder who made the selection for this class. Is that person from the era of typing and shorthand classes? Besides, how many of these children are already surfing, gaming and blogging? Would it not be better to teach them right at the beginning, to see the merits and possible dangers and obsession that the Net can potentially become? So who is to judge what is more valuable to the kids, should it be the teachers, principals, government, or the parents?
The other point he made about how our society puts a number to a quality of thought and intelligence is indeed enlightening! I mean I am a paper-chaser through my life as a student but working is a totally different matter altogether. At work, I saw how some people can be high achievers even though they were not top students when they were studying. And I have met many wonderful people who are not highly educated. So, indeed, what does that the quantitative value mean to us as individuals? Not much.
No comments:
Post a Comment