The Necessities for 21st Century Classrooms

Throughout the research and learning more in depth of whether or not computers can replace teachers, I don't think my opinion has changed. It is more so my understanding of both sides of the argument that has evolved since I stated my initial thoughts.

The extent to which computers can replace teachers, I think that a satisfactory answer has come down to be that teachers are irreplaceable. Rather, technology is best to be used and is necessary as a tool in the 21st century classroom. As said by Jeff and Katie Dunn in their article, " Technology is not the lesson, it is there to enhance the lesson." It is the best of both worlds that will provide the best form of education for students. " The modern teacher must be willing to take chances and be able to figure out not just how technology works but how it works for each student, and where its use is most appropriate."

                                                                                                                   (picture source)

The bar for education has evolved and risen high in this 21st century and will continue to do so. To adapt to that, change to the teaching and learning in the classroom is necessary to prepare students for the also ever changing outside world beyond their education career. According to Thomas Arnett, he mentions in his article that " Traditional classrooms were designed to prepare students for jobs in the industrial economy of the past.  To meet this end, the system was set up to process seemingly homogeneous batches of similarly aged students through one-sized fits all instruction." Times have long since changed, " The model of monolithic classroom instruction from the late 1800's just wasn't designed to allow teachers to meet 21st century expectations."


                                                                                                                                     (picture source)

Debate

What is the view from the other side of the argument? While researching a debate poll concerning computers replacing teachers, arguments that supported the idea were repetitive in bringing up the points that: schools can save their money by using technology to improve/provide other things for the students instead of paying teachers, you can find all the answers to your questions through a computer unlike a teacher, computers are more efficient and time saving, and that we are becoming more and more dependent on technology so it's only natural to use computers instead of teachers. Although there is some truth to these points, is it significant enough to enforce the change?


                                                                                                                                         (picture source)

In arguments against replacing teachers, reiterate the importance of human interaction as the best form of learning and that as efficient the use of technology may seem to be, it does more harm than good to the students. Compared to the arguments in support of computers replacing teachers in advancing education in the debate poll, according to an article in Times of India, an Indian English-language daily newspaper, " A 2000 report from a US organization comprising of educationists and health professionals-Alliance for Childhood-stated that instead of raising the standard of learning, computers are actually negating the healthy development of young students". To provide a middle ground, or balance, it especially depends on the parents to be important enforcers, for " the learning process begins at home."