Richardson is absolutely correct about one big difference between learning today and learning 15 or 20 years ago: students have gone from having scarce access to information to having an overabundance of information (pp. 9-11). He's also correct that teachers who merely help students memorize facts they could easily look up online are doing them a disservice. Where I think he errs is in thinking that teaching kids to memorize facts was somehow a necessary component of teaching in "the old days." In fact, teaching kids to memorize facts was bad teaching 20 years ago, and it's still bad teaching today.
Regardless of whether students have access to one textbook or one million sources of online information about a topic, they still have to be able to read the information, make meaning of it, think about it critically, develop their own ideas about it, and communicate those ideas effectively. Richardson recognizes this, when notes that, "Access doesn't automatically come with an ability to use the Web well. We aren't suddenly self-directed, organized, and literate enough to make sense of all the people and information online--or savvy enough to connect and build relationships with others in safe, ethical, and effective ways" (p.18). So why does Richardson say we should START education reform by "mak[ing] sure all students and teachers have Web access through their own personal devices" (p. 30)? This approach puts the cart before the horse. The answer to the question "Why School?" is that students need to develop basic literacy and critical thinking skills BEFORE they can use the Web effectively, and teachers can help students develop those skills.
It is misguided to place too much emphasis on technology as a cure-all to the problems of our educational system. Richardson notes that "Paper is a 20th century staple that has severely limited potential, compared to digital spaces." In fact, paper still has extremely broad potential--if the person holding the pen is equipped to use it to good advantage. Access to digital spaces doesn't magically make anyone a better thinker.
Regardless of whether students have access to one textbook or one million sources of online information about a topic, they still have to be able to read the information, make meaning of it, think about it critically, develop their own ideas about it, and communicate those ideas effectively. Richardson recognizes this, when notes that, "Access doesn't automatically come with an ability to use the Web well. We aren't suddenly self-directed, organized, and literate enough to make sense of all the people and information online--or savvy enough to connect and build relationships with others in safe, ethical, and effective ways" (p.18). So why does Richardson say we should START education reform by "mak[ing] sure all students and teachers have Web access through their own personal devices" (p. 30)? This approach puts the cart before the horse. The answer to the question "Why School?" is that students need to develop basic literacy and critical thinking skills BEFORE they can use the Web effectively, and teachers can help students develop those skills.
It is misguided to place too much emphasis on technology as a cure-all to the problems of our educational system. Richardson notes that "Paper is a 20th century staple that has severely limited potential, compared to digital spaces." In fact, paper still has extremely broad potential--if the person holding the pen is equipped to use it to good advantage. Access to digital spaces doesn't magically make anyone a better thinker.