Draft

How ironic that as my brain is doing flip flops debating whether or not technology in schools is a good idea, I am sitting in my college composition class, sitting in front of a computer, just like I do every class. You wouldn't think that a composition class would need to take place in a computer lab, or involve a blog, but it does. This is common nowadays. Technology is used for everything. So, thus comes the argument over whether or not this is appropriate. Will students be harmed by technology? Or is this a powerful learning tool?
While parties on both sides of the fence will turn themselves blue arguing either way, I think what they both may not be seeing is that nobody is arguing for complete inclusion or removal of technology. The main problem Stoll cites as a problem is that computers will seem "provide a answer" to all the world's problems, but not provide much of an answer at all. Schaffer, on the other hand, argues that the epistemic learning processes that computers provide are close to an actual physical experience, and will help students.
In the long run, though, the common goal is to teach students in a way that gets them to actually think differently and more complexly. Ideally, a combination of those "epistemic video games" and of personal teacher-student work would be the best, and I think that's what everyone should be arguing for.