Wednesday, November 12, 2014

“No Child Left Untableted” by Carlo Rotella – Michelle McGuire

           Due to the digital age’s continuous growth across all aspects of society, there has been a big push to implement heavier technology-use within the classroom.  In this article published in The New York Times in September 2013, Carlo Rotella analyzes the effects of providing iPads and tablets to every student and teacher and evaluates whether these educational tools will improve or worsen the quality of education in America.  Rotella completed his undergraduate degree at Wesleyan University and later received his PhD from Yale University.  He now teaches English at Boston College.  Over the course of his profession, he has given lectures in foreign countries, published notable books, and has received numerous awards for his brilliant work and articles, which regularly appear in various distinguished newspapers and magazines.  For Rotella, a scholar interested in American history and committed to perfecting his own teaching style, this issue about improving American education is a topic he holds to the utmost importance.
            Rotella titles the article “No Child Left Untableted” to emphasize that many groups believe that the 1:1 tablet-to-student programs will achieve the goals first introduced by the “No Child Left Behind Act” back in 2001.  Although this dramatic increase in use of technology in the classroom immediately strikes Rotella as a bad idea, he decides to ignore his bias and ventures out to research the issue further to better understand the impact of these changes.  He travels to Guilford County, North Carolina to focus on the how Amplify, a company that creates tablets and other educational products, affects their first paying customer, the large school system in this county.  
           The first step of Rotella’s investigation was to sit down with Joel Klein, the CEO of Amplify.  In this first interview, Klein sells the idea that tablets have the power of customizability.  He claims that tablets can be tailored to each child’s needs and rate of learning, so that each student will be taught with the method best suited for him/her.  Klein goes on to talk about how students’ enthusiasm for the tablets should not be overlooked.  He believes tablets could maintain the students’ engagement and will quell boredom by allowing them to explore further into their studies. Rotella then talked to other educators and asked about their feelings toward this movement.  One teacher Sally Smith had tried to avoid the change but eventually realized that there were benefits to the technology and that she would have to adapt to teaching with technology if she did not want to get left behind.  He also talked to Greg Anrig who wanted to highlight the relationship between successful schools and the connectedness among the people of the school.  He believes that students could become too focused on the device and isolate themselves, but with the right engagement between teachers and students, the tablet could also enhance interactions.  Finally, Rotella addresses many of the teachers concerns that the technology will overwhelm them, weakening their ability to teach well and implement it effectively.
            I believe Rotella examined this issue very thoroughly.  As he went back and forth weighing the pros and cons of this new program, it became clear to me that there is not a clear answer to improve education.  Rotella began with an almost completely negative view on this program but concludes with an understanding that the success of a tablet is possible depending on how it is exploited, which is in the teachers’ hands.  Online, I found tons of feedback and comments from readers, most often teachers or parents, who feel very passionate about this issue.  Overall, the general consensus among readers was that tablets would primarily be distracting and would hinder the education of young children.  I think I would agree with Rotella and most of the comments and say that the teacher’s role is the most important factor in education and that some classes could be enhanced by technology while some might be impaired.
           

More info:
(a lot of comments by New York Times readers)






No comments: