I'm really glad Dorothy took her time and brought these issues out
again. While I agree with much that she says, I think that she brings
attention to what I feel are misperceptions about the meaning and
significance of some of the newer, in many cases only now emerging,
technologies and what they could, should, and might mean for the
classroom.
As Dorothy says, the issue of learning absolutely must be foremost in
what we do. The issue, it seems to me, is how we get there. What
strategies, techniques, can we bring to bear on this task. And upon
WHOM? Who are these learners? HOW can we construct these lessons for
maximum impact?
Dorothy scoffs at what she calls "digital players," but when I'm
introducing students to a new device or program, I generally show them
the basics -- "This is how you do such and such, this menu over here
controls that ..." Then I tell them, "Now why don't you just play with
it for a little bit and see what you can do." A lot of them look
confused or uneasy for a moment because they're not used to being
allowed to explore without a specific time frame and a set of definite
answers in mind. But the result is generally that within a half-hour the
students can show me features I was not previously aware of. Children
learn quite naturally in the absence of obstacles.
It bears asking why students are willing to put so much effort into
learning to navigate virtual worlds and program devices and why so often
they resist engaging with, or if you'd prefer, working hard in, the
world of school as it's constructed. One reason is that they find games
fun. Is fun bad? I have had a number of grown-up jobs, not excluding my
present one, where I almost always have some measure of fun. Mark
Wagner's cover story in the current Connected Newsletter cites Seymour
Papert's intriguing idea of "hard fun," activities that are hard work,
and intentional, but which students eagerly complete because they enjoy
doing them. We should keep in mind, too, that many things that are very
difficult and seem boring to us now were fun at one time. For example, I
find that young children can enjoy memorizing things. When we gave our
7-year-old a multiplication chart last summer, his reaction was, "Oh,
cool!" If you give a chart to a 10th-grader and suggest that she
memorize it, the reaction is likely to be somewhat different. So the
right activity at the right developmental stage and the right time are
important, too. That's where we come in. That's differentiation.
To answer one of Dorothy's questions: It's true that students in my
(middle) school aren't searching for the causes of the Darfur crisis,
but I can say with confidence I never did so either at that age and it
hasn't crimped my own political or social engagement as an adult. I
entered middle school in 1979 and have a vague recollection of the
Iranian hostage crisis, but am certain I never researched it. If
children cut their teeth and develop solid search and retrieval skills
looking up "cheat codes" (a misnomer) for Halo 2, the skill is learned
the same as it would be looking up Gandhi's salt march. That's not to
say that the child should stop there, just that there is nothing
inherently unworthy about the subject. The great strength of information
literacy is that it's subject area independent.
I certainly don't believe that we need to bring every new thing that
children are "into" into the classroom. But I do believe fervently that
we need to break down the sense of separation children experience
between schooling and the rest of their lives. If school becomes merely
a dreary place where they're forced to endure often insignificant and
mercilessly enforced rules and is measurably less meaningful, less
engaging, less connected than the rest of their lives, we're in real
trouble. Or are we already? We have to begin erasing the separation
between learning and living.
Finally, I seriously question the assertion that mediated communication
is unreal. It is different to participate in a forum online or to
instant message someone than it is to speak in person, in the same room.
But is it essentially less fulfilling? That's an important question. I
would argue that the answer depends on the people and on the context. I
have had some very intense, very real exchanges online with people I've
never met in person or even spoken to on the phone. I've also taken f2f
classes, for 9 months at a stretch, that were tedious and
unenlightening, where I learned nothing. It's ironic that Dorothy uses
an example from a TV commercial to make her point about human contact.
TV can be a very isolating medium. But gaming is not. Neither is
blogging nor creating a wiki or a podcast. All of these are highly
interactive, dynamic, engaging spaces that provide useful platforms for
collaboration and for high-quality, directed activities in a broad range
of content areas.
There is no one way to assure successful learning. If there were, we
wouldn't be having this discussion. For some students, in some schools,
a completely "unwired" environment might be exactly right (I'd be
skeptical, but open to the possibility, particularly for younger
children -- Clifford Stoll has written persuasively about this). But it
seems to me that to slam the door on what is clearly a deep change in
the way children communicate, interact, create, and learn, is to walk
away from some very powerful opportunities to reach children.
---Bob.
/************************************************/
/* Bob Hassett, Head Librarian */
/* Luther Jackson Middle School */
/* 3020 Gallows Road */
/* Falls Church, Virginia 22042 */
/* (703) 204-8133 */
/* Bob.Hassett@fcps.edu */
/************************************************/
See you in the Library!
-----Original Message-----
From: School Library Media & Network Communications
[mailto:LM_NET@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Dorothy Scanlan
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 11:10 AM
To: LM_NET@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: GEN: Pay Attention??? (second attempt)
This was a brief thread a couple of weeks ago; the response is delayed
because I needed some time to think about what I wanted to say and also
because the library has been VERY busy (a good thing!).
I watched this video with great interest hoping that there would be
some truly innovative suggestions for using technology in the classroom.
To say that I was greatly troubled by its message is an understatement.
Was this video funded by Apple or Microsoft? The quote about
"richness", after all, was from Bill Gates. I think these so called
"digital learners" (who decided that?) are better classified as "digital
players". So our coming college graduates will have spent 10,000 hours
playing video games, another 10,000 on their cell phones, and 20,000
hours watching t.v.? That's not even including the time spent on
computers. To that I say: so what? Is this a good thing? That's
40,000 hours (really more) of their young lives that they are spending
NOT interacting with other people face-to-face or taking a walk in the
woods, or playing an impromptu game of basketball with their friends. I
think that's TRAGIC. And we want to ADD to those hours by bringing the
technology they play with into the classroom? And that's the thing we
need to realize: because kids have been given the freedom without the
responsibility, computers, Ipods, cell phones are playthings first,
tools second. When we come to the end of our lives, will any of us look
back and say, "Gee, I wish I'd watched more t.v. or talked more on the
phone."
When I design a lesson, the question in the forefront of my mind is:
what is the student learning? The suggestion provided in the video of
using text messages to find what someone had for breakfast, what the
weather was like, and what was the last thing he/she purchased is a
perfect example. Excuse me, but this is learning?? Even barring the
question of who's paying for all this text messaging, can anyone really
call this knowledge? Statistics are still meaningless when the
information is meaningless. And, whatever technology we add to our
classes, something else has to go.
"There are 2.7 billion searches per month. To whom were these
questions addressed B.G.?" This claim implies that the students are
searching for meaningful knowledge on their own. But let's face it:
students aren't looking up the reasons for the latest crisis in Darfur ,
they're looking up cheat codes for video games!
"If you can't reach your students by speaking directly to them, teach
via podcast." Without getting into the insulting inference of that
statement, sure, teachers could make podcasts of their lectures...but if
that happens, where will be the incentive for students to come to class?
Furthermore, this only engages audial learners.
When did this change in our culture occur, that whatever kids are
"into" we need to bring into our classroom? As an educator, my
philosophy is that I should expose them to new ideas - ideas they are
not getting outside of academia.
And when did things change that now the burden is 100% on us to
"reach" and "engage" students? What about the students' role in this?
Isn't learning to connect with adults their responsibility? It's called
growing up!
"Engage them don't enrage them." Has our culture become so
child-centric that we are afraid of boring them - afraid of showing that
it's cool to be an adult and that sometimes life isn't exciting (and
that's what makes the exciting times so much sweeter!) If education is
going to become a dog and pony show, where we feel like we have to be
stand-up comics to attract their attention, if shallow, pop-culture
trivia is the way of our future, then I'm not sure I want to be a part
of that.
So, no, I will not bring Ipods or cell phones or most of the other
suggestions into my teaching arena! Technology has a place, but that
place is limited. Despite the fact that technology has improved certain
aspects of our lives, I feel like, in a way, it has taken the soul out
of Life. There's a new commercial from Dow about the addition of the
"human element". Well, that's what is missing from most of these
technologies. They have allowed us to live in an unreal world, without
actually having to look another person in the face. And we are not our
true selves in that world.
Dorothy Scanlan
Librarian
St. Paul's School for Boys
Brooklandville, MD
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note: All LM_NET postings are protected by copyright law.
You can prevent most e-mail filters from deleting LM_NET postings
by adding LM_NET@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU to your e-mail address book.
To change your LM_NET status, e-mail to: listserv@listserv.syr.edu In
the message write EITHER: 1) SIGNOFF LM_NET 2) SET LM_NET NOMAIL
3) SET LM_NET MAIL 4) SET LM_NET DIGEST * Allow for confirmation.
* LM_NET Help & Information: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/
* LM_NET Archive: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/archive/
* EL-Announce with LM_NET Select: http://elann.biglist.com/sub/
* LM_NET Supporters: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/ven.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note: All LM_NET postings are protected by copyright law.
You can prevent most e-mail filters from deleting LM_NET postings
by adding LM_NET@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU to your e-mail address book.
To change your LM_NET status, e-mail to: listserv@listserv.syr.edu
In the message write EITHER: 1) SIGNOFF LM_NET 2) SET LM_NET NOMAIL
3) SET LM_NET MAIL 4) SET LM_NET DIGEST * Allow for confirmation.
* LM_NET Help & Information: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/
* LM_NET Archive: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/archive/
* EL-Announce with LM_NET Select: http://elann.biglist.com/sub/
* LM_NET Supporters: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/ven.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
LM_NET
Mailing List Home