Not too long ago, I avoided jumping aboard the techno train as much as possible. I saw the recent boom in technology advancements as debilitating to the generations work ethics. Simplifying, expediting, and quantifying the process will make you lazy or decrease quality with multitasking... at least that's what I thought. Always unable to save up for the latest gadget model before the newer one came out, I quickly gave up and fell far behind in technologies advancements. Any attempt I had in experimenting with any new tool was slow and frustrating hence my debilitating view on technology. I went against the advancements and in return thought the advancements went against me; "you get out of something what you put into it." The past few months I've slowly become aware of a different perspective.
Three classes I've taken at MSU have demonstrated to me how technology can address issues with learning for students with special needs. For example the JAWS software enabling blind people to use a computer and the modified texts available to those with difficulty reading. Haven't used any of these technologies I never thought of these circumstances. Even in my personal life I was beginning to notice how my friends and family were benefiting from the use of new resources. Getting past the frustrations of overwhelmingly rapid development I now see the endless possibilities of how technology can be utilized. With a new perception I jumped to the complete opposite end of the viewpoint spectrum, especially in the circumstance of learning.
Assistive technology is typically with regards to special education but I agree with Ira Socol's perception of Universal Design for Learning Technology in that it regards all learners and not just those with disabilities. Why allocate tools to a certain "qualifying" group when the tools can facilitate learning for all sorts of people. A good argument for the use of assistive technology is presented by Karen Janowski in Question Everything. Using a handful of common learning techniques she provides scenarios in which the technique actually hinders progress for a student. I completely support the idea of questioning whether your methods are successful with everyone and although she was referring to people with disabilities, her arguments are applicable to anyone.
Utilizing the various technology resources in the class room is not accepted by everyone. Rejecting the idea is understandable considering I myself initially shared that viewpoint. What determined both my initial and current beliefs was my experience and consequently perception of the situation. Why is this important? Because "you get out of something what you put into it"... Forcing 'my way is better' arguments onto people is always retaliated with 'my way is better' arguments. I suggest changing belief is done by recognizing the opposing experience then demonstrating a different experience giving a new perspective. From my understanding of Rod Bell mentioned in Technology and Equity by Ira Socol I believe he displays this way of persuasion. "[T]he question is not whether information technologies (IT) disrupt the lecture model—of course they do, especially if IT is a means of further extending education to the population."
