The E-debate on whether technology has or has not changed the quality of education, was conducted by the prestigious publication "The Economist" in October 2007. As a student of H800, it was a bit confusing at first because it felt like it was a 'reading' that we were supposed to do in order to learn about education and technology. And I'm sure that the H800 course designers felt that some of the issues were relevant. In fact though, our main focus was to look more to whether the e-debate was in fact a valid way of presenting a debate and whether the format succeeded (or not).
I hold considerable sympathy with my fellow H800 tutorial class mate Richard Parker, who essentially thinks that the whole exercise is artificially contrived. Check out his views here.
First let me say that I actually support the proposition that technology has NOT contributed to enhancing education for 'most' people. First qualifier: 'technology' here is modern ICT stuff and not 'print'. Second qualifier the emphasis is on whether technology has improved education for 'most' people and not whether technology can improve educational goals.
For those that opposed this notion, I thought that they were arguing along the latter lines (technology 'can' improve education) rather than addressing the proposition directly. In this sense the moderator has not addressed the critical notion of the proposal. I personally found the tone of the moderator's comments to be patronising in trying to summarise the debate. Maybe more appropriate in front of a live audience where I could see that some of the remarks may be made to elicit a lighter hearted response to potential antagonism. Not sure that it's the moderators job to say to which side he's leaning (and what is the qualifications of the moderator to act as a deliberating judge at this 'trial'?). I wonder if he's actually sat and typed his moderating responses to be something that he might 'say' in a live debate but hasn't realised that this doesn't translate well in written format where there are no additional cues to perhaps modify his [patronising] tone.