Cassidy, D. P.
When
constructing an argument piece authors should rely on a mixture
logistics and data. If an author is not making an argument, they
should make that known, and instead try to convey a belief through a
lens of experience. In line with this, I will first deconstruct
Postman's primary argument. I will then assert my own belief, which
in part-coincides with Postman's. Finally, I will contrast both with
Joseph's argument.
If
Postman's intent was to say, 'progress for the sake of progress is
ill sought', then I agree, especially if it is sought within the
context of learning. Unfortunately the author did not provide
evidence that such ill sought progress was occurring. Instead the
author smithed empty words in the form of anecdotes and parables.
Postman's
argument relies on questioning the reasoning behind progress, 'What
problem does this answer?' I would turn to the author's story about
shopping for a new car. In this story the author asks a car
salesperson, 'What is the problem to which cruise control is the
answer?' The author iterates that he has no need for cruise control
because he can simply use the gas pedal. He reiterates this logic and
transfers it to other scenarios; e.g. he has no need for automatic
windows because he can roll them up himself, and he has no need for
educational technologies because most offer no solution to any
problem that he does not already have some answer to.
I
would ask Postman, 'What problem does the car itself answer?' The
author should have no need for the car, because he could take the
less advanced horse to work. But wait! What problem does the horse
solve? The author should have no need for the horse, because he could
just live closer and walk to work. Of course the argument I am using
is a fallacy, a slippery slope, but it does convey the flaw in the
author's logic. That it is impossible to transfer this logical across
scenarios, and the retrospective evidence is no evidence at all.
The
only way to identify progress and it's impacts after the fact;
something we do not have the luxury of doing. For every technological
advancement that has been made there has been opposition, and those
who held on to the old paradigm. There were even those opposed to the
popularization of the printing press. They believed that the ease of
access to knowledge would be detrimental. This was mirrored at the
end of Postman's piece. I would like to emphasize my belief, there is
no such thing as an 'information glut'. I personally find it
appalling that any educator would ever imply the conveying
information is cause or consequence of any problem. Instead I choose
to believe it is the solution to all problems.
Joseph's
(2002) piece suffers many of the same logistical problems as
Postman's. Those aside, the author's greatest transgression seems to
be that he does not adequately warn the reader of the price of
progress. Each technological advancement comes with a price. Take the
advent of the motor vehicle as an example. How many people have died
because of this advancement? How many are now dependent on it? What
type of damage is it doing to the environment around us? The same can
be said for technology in the classroom. How many students will we
loose to these advancements? How many will be come dependent on them?
What type of damage will they do to the learning environment?
I
believe the trick will be to find ed tech's airbag and seat-belt
before we have lost too many students to the ever hastening speed of
the learning process. As a consequence of the cumulative nature of
knowledge, every year our students need to learn more than the last.
If technology isn't the answer to the problem, How do we keep up? I
do not know what is.
