Evaluation of In High-Tech Heretic: Why Computers Don't Belong in the Classroom by Clifford - Essay Example

Argumentative Evaluation As d by Stoll (247), many people believe that technology makes learning fun. Children are able to experience painless and effortless learning through the use of technology that makes it fun. The author claims that several public schools agree that technology makes learning fun. He gives an example of a school in Texas where 4th graders use computers to search for facts and ideas in the classroom while having fun. However, Stoll (248) does not agree that technology makes learning fun. He argues that learning needs a lot of effort from both the students and the teachers, which includes discipline, responsibility and commitment. This paper will critically evaluate how the author built his argument, his tone, mood, purpose for his argument and describe his audience. Stoll (248) argues that giving glitzy gadgets to a child who cannot read or write in class is of no good. He claims that is more painful to direct little children to computer screens than making them read a few pages of a book. However, the author fails to understand that introducing a child to technology at an early age prepares him/her for the modern world that is driven by technology day by day. It is easier to introduce technology to children because they learn faster than adults; thus, teaching them how to use computers even if they can hardly read or write gives them a chance to learn other things such as games, which is more fun than forcing them to read a page in a book. The author Stoll (248) also argues that teaching machines drive students away from reading and writing and even prevent them from attaining scholarships. This is because computers take the ability of students to understand questions before writing answers; thus, they substitute the ability of students to reflect and think critically, which involves originality, concentration and intention. Nevertheless, the author is hasty in concluding that computers substitute the ability of students to think critically. Computers do not provide straight forward answers to all questions. This means that students who use computers are required to read and understand the content provided in the computer so that they can choose the best in order to make their own conclusions. Thus, a lot of understanding and critical thinking is required. Moreover, the students are likely to have more fun while searching for information in computers than spending painful hours in the library reading many books. Hence, technology makes learning fun and effortless. As stated by Stoll (248), technology encourages intellectual passivity. He argues that students are likely to focus more on having fun than learning. As a result, they develop inability to exercise patience, persistence, and attentiveness. However, the author fails to explain how students develop distaste for these inabilities by using technology to learn. On the contrary, students are able to exercise patient, attentiveness and persistence when using technology. This is because for them to understand what they are doing they need to be patient and pay attention to the instructions given by their teachers. Moreover, Stoll (248) argues that taking learning as fun cheapens the process of learning and the product. This means that by integrating fun into learning, teachers no longer focus on teaching but entertaining students, which results in poor quality of education. The students also focus more on having fun than learning and scholarships lose their meaning. However, this is not true. This is because if teachers would focus only on teaching, the students would likely to get bored with time. The truth is that everybody gets bored with routine and especially being in a classroom all day without any form of entertainment. If students get bored in class, they may not understand anything that the teacher says. For this reason, incorporating fun in the learning systems makes the learning process even more fun and the students develop more interest in learning; hence, the improving the quality of education. Stoll (249) argues that computers prevent students from developing technical skills that are highly essential in the modern society. He gives an example of an internet program that helps people design Barbie doll clothes. He criticizes the program by claiming that it only teaches students how to coordinate colors and not how to make real designs using materials and needles. Furthermore, he claims that such programs do not help students to develop skills such as sewing clothes and differentiating materials. However, the author does not understand that the modern world does not require manual work since everything these days is computerized. If students were to be taught how to saw using needles, what would happen if they finish were to complete their studies only to find that sawing machines were no longer used manually, but were programmed to work automatically. Thus, technology is no longer an option but a necessity that should be taught in all schools. The writing style used by the author is descriptive. Stoll (249) describes how he visited a he visited kindergarten class and visitors were highly impressed by the display of computer graphic printouts that were hanged on the wall. He continues to describe how a little boy constructed a firehouse and showed it to the parents and teachers who did not appreciate his efforts. Stoll uses a pessimistic tone in his argument. He does not believe that technology can make learning fun without affecting the quality of education that students receive. Stoll (248), states that incorporating fun in to the learning system cheapens the process of learning as well as the end product. The author has also used a sarcastic tone in his argument. For instance, when he asks sarcastically whether technology can help children build their own space missions, one can feel that he is being sarcastic to show that it is impossible for technology to do that. Additionally, the author also uses an ironic tone in his argument. It is ironic how the author wonders whether school children have had too few media messages that they must be given more fun through the internet in school. Moreover, the argument sets a satirical mood. The author uses satire with the intention of correcting the belief that technology makes learning more fun, effortless and painless. He claims that technology just promises a shortcut to better grades and painless learning and nothing more. Additionally, argues that the educational technology is simply filled with cliches. People believe that by teaching students more on technology guarantees them better paying jobs than those who do are not exposed to technology. Thus, through his argument, the author uses a satirical mood to express his opinion on the issue of introducing technology in schools. The purpose of the argument is to inform people that technology does not always bring fun in the classroom. It does not mean that because children have been exposed to technology while still young will get a quality education compared to those who are not exposed to technology. Another purpose of this argument is to inform teachers that the field of technology is simply filed with empty cliches. For children to get a quality education, they need to be encouraged by their teachers as well as be empowered by other students and not through the computer (Stoll 252). The audiences of this argument are teachers, parents, students and other instructors. The author advises teachers and parents the effects of using technology to teach children. He advises them that, integrating fun in the learning of students has its up and downside. The author claims that, in this age of television, many students will not do their homework without a computer as it motivates them. For this reason, many parents accept to buy computers for their children assuming that they will motivate them. However, Stoll (251) argues that motivation comes from deep within ourselves because we are responsible for choosing what helps us move on; thus, computers can make us sit down without any vision to move forward. The author has used logic appeal to persuade his audience that technology does not necessarily bring fun in learning. This appeal uses inductive and inductive reasoning in order to make a back up your claims using an effective, persuasive reason. To substantiate his claims, the author, has used several types of support. However, there are few errors in logic, in the author’s argument. For instance, Stoll (248) claims that kids love computers, but he does not provide any evidence to support this claim. Therefore, readers can take as an assumption. Moreover, Stoll (248) argues that using computers encourages intellectual passivity, yet he does not provide any evidence to support this claim. The author also does not provide evidence to support his claims that some teachers put up with frustration during their teaching career and get only motivated by the feedback they get from their students. The author did not utilize visual aids of any kind in this article i.e. tables, graphs or photographs. The presence of visual aids in articles acts as eye-catchers. They catch the attention of the audience making them interested in reading the article. Thus, their absence in this article makes it to be tedious and boring for readers to read too many words alone. Conclusion According to Stoll (247), technology only promises a shortcut to painless learning and higher grades, and nothing more. He argues that technology only makes learning more painful to little children than books; hence, introducing computers to children who hardly know how read or write is of no good. The authors also claim that computers take the ability of students to understand questions before writing answers; thus, they substitute the ability of students to reflect and think critically. As a result, the students lack originality, concentration and intention. Moreover, Stoll (249) states that when students rely on computers too much, they cannot develop technical skills that are highly essential in the modern society. Additionally, Stoll (248) argues that taking learning as fun cheapens the process of learning and the product. This means that by incorporating fun into learning, teachers no longer focus on teaching but entertaining students, which results in poor quality of education. The students also focus more on having fun than learning and scholarships lose their meaning. Stoll (248) concludes that learning needs a lot of effort from both the students and the teachers, which includes discipline, responsibility and commitment and not relying on technology alone. Work Cited Stoll Clifford. ‘Makes learning fun’, In High-tech heretic: why computers don't belong in the classroom and other reflections by a computer contrarian, New York: Doubleday. 1999. Print. Read More