I am reminded of the “magical elixir”, sold from the back of
a covered wagon in a travelling caravan.
One bottle could relieve headaches, cure arthritis, repair scaring, and
would put a mean shine on your boots. Have
we, as educators, embraced the overhead and the power-point as the teaching
elixir? Has the development of these tools, along with the perception that
teaching with technology is better than teaching without technology, been so hypnotic that we embrace them with
the God-like awe proposed by Knowlton?
Perhaps a better analogy would be to associate the overhead
and power-point with a contemporary drug like Celebrex. (It is used to treat the symptoms of osteoarthritis,
ankylosing spondylitis, and rheumatoid arthritis in adults.) The overhead
and power-point, like celebrex, were developed, in response to a need, real or
perceived, to enhance the role of technology, and thus education in the
classroom. As Knowlton and Tufte point
out, each carries a number of side effects.
Do these authors propose that these side-effects; the voice from a
detached body, minimal information per slide, logo type branding, render these
technologies ineffectual. As with
celebrex, are the positive aspects sufficient to overcome the side-effects?
Until recently, the side-effects of most drugs were widely
unknown, and deeply under-publicized. Such
challenge by Knowlton and Tufte will continue to be necessary, for clearly ET
will continue to evolve and be embraced.
Celebrex: http://bodyandhealth.canada.com/drug_info_details.asp?channel_id=0&relation_id=0&brand_name_id=1110&page_no=1#Indication