Must I choose a side? Really? No, I believe that the answer to whether children's attention spans are getting shorter or not is not necessarily a function of technology. The argument is that technology is causing a fundamental shift in the brains of children, and because of that, they are more able to multitask than previous generations. However, I remember when I was a kid, having the inability to focus on any one thing for any length of time before eventually falling into "daydreamland," was more likely than not.
It's interesting that the author of the "yes" piece puts a judgmental spin on attention, hearkening back to the good 'ol days. Marcovitz draws a comparison to today in the example of the Lincoln /Douglas debates that lasted days and required a dinner break because opening arguments lasted for three hours. He says, "Imagine our students sitting for three hours at a time attending to anything." That's just insulting. I've seen kids (and myself) do something for much longer than three hours. Do you think that people were not leaving the debates, for the call of nature? People in the back having small discussions? I doubt it. That was the framework of the time, and the expectation of oratory.
I wonder about the premise. I believe that perhaps we are enabling kids to jump around technologically that they weren't able to in the old days. And if they can be learning more of that time, so much the better.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Cyberbullying? What next, cyber-dodgeball?
From what I’ve gathered, cyberbullying is in many ways analogous to traditional forms of bullying. In the old days, (pre-Internet) bullying took several forms. There was the physical bullying, which qualifies as physical abuse. It was often times paired with verbal or emotional abuse. Girls were generally not beat up, but instead intimidated by peers with the most incredibly harsh emotionally abusive comments that I can imagine. But then something happened after I left school. Cyberbullying happened.
Cyberbullying is the same as traditional forms of non-physical bullying, except that it takes place on the Internet. There is no distinction on the Internet between school and non-school. It exists in both places, and therefore provides no escape for the person who is on the receiving end. Cyber bullies more and more use the anonymity of the Internet to get away with behavior that could more easily be policed in a traditional school setting. The bully can use the tools of blogging, anonymous text messaging, anonymous e-mail
Schools are in the middle when it comes to cyberbullying. What happens off campus in the “real world” so long as it doesn’t influence the teaching environment, it’s basically off limits for teachers and administrators. But the thing is, I have trouble believing that there would not be a “real life” component to cyberbullying. That could be easily punishable. Also, as mandatory reporters, if you know of a student who is being threatened or being abused, you are obliged to report. No exceptions. But when it comes to stepping in when things happen off campus? It’s a slippery slope that should not be stepped onto unless there’s proof, and there’s a real threat of danger for the child.
As to how I would know whether a student is being cyberbullied? So much of it is dependent on a student’s frame of mind and demeanor. I remember seeing students who had been bullied and how they reacted near their tormentor. It’s not inconceivable that students would have a similar reaction when they get an anonymous e-mail or text on their smart cellular phone. Perhaps I would take that student aside after class and ask them if something was wrong. But it’s likely that the student would say something to the effect of “nothing.” I would try to stress that if they ever needed any advice or help, I would be there as a person that they could count on.
My plan for dealing with cyberbullying will be both reactive and proactive. While I’m not big on singling out students, I am not opposed to preemptive shaming of that behavior. I have no trouble calling it what it is, a cowardly act. If you have trouble with someone, say it to his or her face. Cyberbullying is also a means for people who feel powerless to feel powerful. This will not fly in the real world. The kind of stunts that cyberbullies pull would be considered harassment in the real world, and is punishable under the law. And if I find out about it, I may not have the ability to punish them, but I can make them feel shame for their actions. If I did catch a cyberbully, I would deal with them harshly. I think that “big brother,” their parents, or the threat of it going into their permanent record might be a deterrent. Especially if they are generating the harassing material on campus, and I could really nail them to the wall, make an example of them. But a problem with the threat of exposure is that it may serve to drive the anonymous deeper underground. Kids are sneaky. Who knows.
However, I would address it in front of the class and then I would let it simmer. It is a subject that could easily be rolled into a Social Studies or Art unit before it crops up as an experience that year for the students. (Unless it’s already happening the first week of school.) In short, I think that this is a subject that needs to pondered about and worked with in partnership with students.
Cyberbullying is the same as traditional forms of non-physical bullying, except that it takes place on the Internet. There is no distinction on the Internet between school and non-school. It exists in both places, and therefore provides no escape for the person who is on the receiving end. Cyber bullies more and more use the anonymity of the Internet to get away with behavior that could more easily be policed in a traditional school setting. The bully can use the tools of blogging, anonymous text messaging, anonymous e-mail
Schools are in the middle when it comes to cyberbullying. What happens off campus in the “real world” so long as it doesn’t influence the teaching environment, it’s basically off limits for teachers and administrators. But the thing is, I have trouble believing that there would not be a “real life” component to cyberbullying. That could be easily punishable. Also, as mandatory reporters, if you know of a student who is being threatened or being abused, you are obliged to report. No exceptions. But when it comes to stepping in when things happen off campus? It’s a slippery slope that should not be stepped onto unless there’s proof, and there’s a real threat of danger for the child.
As to how I would know whether a student is being cyberbullied? So much of it is dependent on a student’s frame of mind and demeanor. I remember seeing students who had been bullied and how they reacted near their tormentor. It’s not inconceivable that students would have a similar reaction when they get an anonymous e-mail or text on their smart cellular phone. Perhaps I would take that student aside after class and ask them if something was wrong. But it’s likely that the student would say something to the effect of “nothing.” I would try to stress that if they ever needed any advice or help, I would be there as a person that they could count on.
My plan for dealing with cyberbullying will be both reactive and proactive. While I’m not big on singling out students, I am not opposed to preemptive shaming of that behavior. I have no trouble calling it what it is, a cowardly act. If you have trouble with someone, say it to his or her face. Cyberbullying is also a means for people who feel powerless to feel powerful. This will not fly in the real world. The kind of stunts that cyberbullies pull would be considered harassment in the real world, and is punishable under the law. And if I find out about it, I may not have the ability to punish them, but I can make them feel shame for their actions. If I did catch a cyberbully, I would deal with them harshly. I think that “big brother,” their parents, or the threat of it going into their permanent record might be a deterrent. Especially if they are generating the harassing material on campus, and I could really nail them to the wall, make an example of them. But a problem with the threat of exposure is that it may serve to drive the anonymous deeper underground. Kids are sneaky. Who knows.
However, I would address it in front of the class and then I would let it simmer. It is a subject that could easily be rolled into a Social Studies or Art unit before it crops up as an experience that year for the students. (Unless it’s already happening the first week of school.) In short, I think that this is a subject that needs to pondered about and worked with in partnership with students.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Copyright
In the case of copyright, through my exploration I have learned a few things that I did not previously know. For example, I learned that fair use is nebulous area. When it comes to Parody, you can be fairly liberal with the amount that you use copyrighted material. A good example would be “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” which uses copyrighted material all the time, be it “The Today Show,” or “C-SPAN.” They can use anything for parody. I also learned that basically if you are using something for educational purposes, you have much more latitude.
I do NOT believe that copyright laws are fair as they are currently written. Why? When the Constitution was written, the goal of copyright was to protect the originator of the material for a reasonable time period. But now, thanks to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, also known pejoratively as the "Mickey Mouse Forever Act," another twenty years was tacked onto the already long term of 50 years’ protection to copyright after the death of the creator. Imagine someone writes a popular book in the year 1900, but lives to the year 1955. Add 70 years to that, and a work that may have been culturally significant then loses its impact. Only the most valuable of work will benefit from falling into the public domain. It’s completely unreasonable. 20-30 years is reasonable after the creation of the product.
To enforce copyright, I will first and foremost enforce a ban on plagiarism. I know that they do not necessarily overlap, but the concept is the same. When you take something wholesale without citing it, you are, in effect, stealing. If I create an atmosphere in the classroom where students are trained not to take information “willy-nilly” then they may be less likely to snatch it from the Internet. When it comes to the use of actual copyrighted material in the classroom, fair use allows it if it is considered for educational use. I will also stress that for my students.
But this whole thing touches on something deeper. Young people don’t understand the concept of copyright. Let me explain. They get the concept, but in a world of outdated policies dealing with intellectual property in the electronic realm, it is so easy to appropriate, remix, and learn from each other, it’s hard to justify copyright in the same way as it has been traditionally treated. Indeed, because of increase of knowledge is spiraling faster and faster, it’s necessary to actually destroy the current form of copyright. Students are way ahead of us in this respect. We should follow them.
I do NOT believe that copyright laws are fair as they are currently written. Why? When the Constitution was written, the goal of copyright was to protect the originator of the material for a reasonable time period. But now, thanks to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, also known pejoratively as the "Mickey Mouse Forever Act," another twenty years was tacked onto the already long term of 50 years’ protection to copyright after the death of the creator. Imagine someone writes a popular book in the year 1900, but lives to the year 1955. Add 70 years to that, and a work that may have been culturally significant then loses its impact. Only the most valuable of work will benefit from falling into the public domain. It’s completely unreasonable. 20-30 years is reasonable after the creation of the product.
To enforce copyright, I will first and foremost enforce a ban on plagiarism. I know that they do not necessarily overlap, but the concept is the same. When you take something wholesale without citing it, you are, in effect, stealing. If I create an atmosphere in the classroom where students are trained not to take information “willy-nilly” then they may be less likely to snatch it from the Internet. When it comes to the use of actual copyrighted material in the classroom, fair use allows it if it is considered for educational use. I will also stress that for my students.
But this whole thing touches on something deeper. Young people don’t understand the concept of copyright. Let me explain. They get the concept, but in a world of outdated policies dealing with intellectual property in the electronic realm, it is so easy to appropriate, remix, and learn from each other, it’s hard to justify copyright in the same way as it has been traditionally treated. Indeed, because of increase of knowledge is spiraling faster and faster, it’s necessary to actually destroy the current form of copyright. Students are way ahead of us in this respect. We should follow them.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Wikipedia, Boost It or Ban It?
Boost it.
Okay, reflection done, right? Wrong! It’s not hard for me to make a decision when it comes to Wikipedia, because that site has saved my bacon so many times that I can scarcely count anymore. I’ll give you an example. For my upcoming presentation in Learning Theory on Transformative Learning, I at first resisted using Wikipedia as a source for information. Why? Well, it’s a little bit like cheating, isn’t it? But after some less than helpful searching on the web, and some “esoteric” writing from in some dense books by the champion of Transformative Learning, it became clear to me that I needed a simpler “in” to start the understanding of this particular subject. Went to the Wiki, and found a simpler description of the subject, and some very good links to understandable, but scholarly, information. Thanks Wikipedia!!!
This could sound like it could be an isolated incident, but in fact, I find myself turning to Wikipedia more and more because I’m constantly impressed with the consistent high-quality nature of the information on the Wiki. More often than not, when a subject that I’m researching isn’t of a scholarly nature, it will be my only research tool. I want to get in, get out and be done, and due to the fairly low error rate of Wikipedia, I’m not too worried that what I’ll find is going to lead me down the primrose path. See, I just wanted to make sure that I used “down the primrose path” correctly, and went to Google. First site it came up with, Wikipedia. Naturally I clicked on it and it assured me that I was correct (unless it some kind of grand conspiracy) and that the phrase originated from Hamlet, Act 1, scene 3.
Do not, as some ungracious pastors do,
Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven,
Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine,
Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads
And recks not his own rede.
Sweet!
As a teacher, I would only accept Wikipedia as secondary research, and only if they include the references that Wikipedia draws from. As with any research I would require primary resources (see my discussion about John Seigenthaler below). The article says that Wikipedia is only an encyclopedia. When I was in school, my teachers refused to let me use the brown World Book encyclopedias in my parent’s family room for research. I was always upset by this idea. I figured that the people who made these encyclopedias had done extensive research, and the information inside should be accurate. I thought that my teachers were just trying to torment me having me look for primary sources. Clearly as a Masters student, I now understand that primary sources are vital for understanding a subject. Yes, I know that practically all information in our interconnected world is derivative, and you can keep going down the rabbit hole forever trying to find primary sources, it’s true. But I’m convinced that it’s quite easy to do. And I would require students to do also. Sorry kids. :(
But I want to talk about more than the questions asked. Yes, I’m a Wikipedia believer, but I’m also familiar with the controversy. Take one John Seigenthaler. In 2005, a biographical entry on Wikipedia said “John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven.” (Seigenthaler, 2005) This was not true, and after Seigenthaler was contacted about this inaccuracy, he sought to not only correct the information on Wikipedia and associated websites, but also track down his “biographer.” It was much more difficult than one would imagine, and after contacting Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, he was told that it was unlikely that he would ever be able to track that person down. Suffice it to say that Seigenthaler is not a big fan of the Wiki because of his personal involvement.
But this leads into some interesting territory when it comes to the whole concept of defamation of character and libel. On one hand, we live in an age where anyone with access to a computer and an Internet connection can libel (or slander if they post it in an audio or video file) anyone else. These methods used to be much harder to do in the pre-electronic era where you needed access to the printed or electronic press. There were fewer sources of information, so consequently the impact of incorrect information in them was higher. Now we’ve all heard that information (correct or incorrect) on the Internet lives forever. That’s not completely accurate because while this information may be kept in servers, on message boards and other histories, newer information is constantly replacing old, and when people research, they will almost certainly come across newer and, likely, more accurate information, Wikipedia, for example. So, should we hold people who defame on the Internet to the same standard as the print or old form electronic media? That depends. If it’s on a web site that should know better (NY Times, CNN, et. al.) then yes. But if it is an un-moderated web forum, certainly not. It’s when you get in between that you have to really think about the issue.
I would want my students to understand that the internet, like the world, is not a perfect place, and that you have to learn how to use judgment. What a concept.
Seigenthaler, J. (2005, November 29). USA Today.com - A false Wikipedia 'biography'. Retrieved July 19, 2009, from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm
Okay, reflection done, right? Wrong! It’s not hard for me to make a decision when it comes to Wikipedia, because that site has saved my bacon so many times that I can scarcely count anymore. I’ll give you an example. For my upcoming presentation in Learning Theory on Transformative Learning, I at first resisted using Wikipedia as a source for information. Why? Well, it’s a little bit like cheating, isn’t it? But after some less than helpful searching on the web, and some “esoteric” writing from in some dense books by the champion of Transformative Learning, it became clear to me that I needed a simpler “in” to start the understanding of this particular subject. Went to the Wiki, and found a simpler description of the subject, and some very good links to understandable, but scholarly, information. Thanks Wikipedia!!!
This could sound like it could be an isolated incident, but in fact, I find myself turning to Wikipedia more and more because I’m constantly impressed with the consistent high-quality nature of the information on the Wiki. More often than not, when a subject that I’m researching isn’t of a scholarly nature, it will be my only research tool. I want to get in, get out and be done, and due to the fairly low error rate of Wikipedia, I’m not too worried that what I’ll find is going to lead me down the primrose path. See, I just wanted to make sure that I used “down the primrose path” correctly, and went to Google. First site it came up with, Wikipedia. Naturally I clicked on it and it assured me that I was correct (unless it some kind of grand conspiracy) and that the phrase originated from Hamlet, Act 1, scene 3.
Do not, as some ungracious pastors do,
Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven,
Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine,
Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads
And recks not his own rede.
Sweet!
As a teacher, I would only accept Wikipedia as secondary research, and only if they include the references that Wikipedia draws from. As with any research I would require primary resources (see my discussion about John Seigenthaler below). The article says that Wikipedia is only an encyclopedia. When I was in school, my teachers refused to let me use the brown World Book encyclopedias in my parent’s family room for research. I was always upset by this idea. I figured that the people who made these encyclopedias had done extensive research, and the information inside should be accurate. I thought that my teachers were just trying to torment me having me look for primary sources. Clearly as a Masters student, I now understand that primary sources are vital for understanding a subject. Yes, I know that practically all information in our interconnected world is derivative, and you can keep going down the rabbit hole forever trying to find primary sources, it’s true. But I’m convinced that it’s quite easy to do. And I would require students to do also. Sorry kids. :(
But I want to talk about more than the questions asked. Yes, I’m a Wikipedia believer, but I’m also familiar with the controversy. Take one John Seigenthaler. In 2005, a biographical entry on Wikipedia said “John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven.” (Seigenthaler, 2005) This was not true, and after Seigenthaler was contacted about this inaccuracy, he sought to not only correct the information on Wikipedia and associated websites, but also track down his “biographer.” It was much more difficult than one would imagine, and after contacting Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, he was told that it was unlikely that he would ever be able to track that person down. Suffice it to say that Seigenthaler is not a big fan of the Wiki because of his personal involvement.
But this leads into some interesting territory when it comes to the whole concept of defamation of character and libel. On one hand, we live in an age where anyone with access to a computer and an Internet connection can libel (or slander if they post it in an audio or video file) anyone else. These methods used to be much harder to do in the pre-electronic era where you needed access to the printed or electronic press. There were fewer sources of information, so consequently the impact of incorrect information in them was higher. Now we’ve all heard that information (correct or incorrect) on the Internet lives forever. That’s not completely accurate because while this information may be kept in servers, on message boards and other histories, newer information is constantly replacing old, and when people research, they will almost certainly come across newer and, likely, more accurate information, Wikipedia, for example. So, should we hold people who defame on the Internet to the same standard as the print or old form electronic media? That depends. If it’s on a web site that should know better (NY Times, CNN, et. al.) then yes. But if it is an un-moderated web forum, certainly not. It’s when you get in between that you have to really think about the issue.
I would want my students to understand that the internet, like the world, is not a perfect place, and that you have to learn how to use judgment. What a concept.
Seigenthaler, J. (2005, November 29). USA Today.com - A false Wikipedia 'biography'. Retrieved July 19, 2009, from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Using blogs in the classroom
The article “Don’t Feed the Trolls: Using Blogs to Teach Civil Discourse” is an interesting read because it acknowledges that while technology is neither good nor bad, but only a tool that can be used for either, we, as educators are responsible for guiding the use of this tool in the right direction. Blogs have, in the past (and currently) been used for screeds, electioneering, personal attack and all sorts of other nefariousness. But the article gives some guidance and hope. “Blogs are particularly effective when teaching about civil discourse because unlike in face-to-face conversations, the interaction is captured online, allowing for review and reflection.” (Richardson, 2008) That’s true. Also, I have used blogs before, and one thing that I’ve made great use of is comment moderation. In this way, I, as the teacher/moderator am able to control content on the blog, but also allow a “mostly free” exchange of ideas. I am able to screen out anything that I deem inappropriate. I would imagine that kids would see that their comments weren’t included in the blog post, and would quickly understand (especially if they got a note back) why they weren’t.
Also the article talks about how teachers can be "modeling civil discourse." I could see how especially in a forum type of situation this would be a great idea. A civil, free exchange of ideas between two teachers (parallel), or just from the teacher (hierarchical) could both be beneficial. Besides parents, we will be the most stable example of adults in many, if not most, of these children's lives. We should act as such.
Moving to the concrete example of Mr. H’s blog. I find Mr. H’s example of a blog instructive in the way that he uses video. He doesn’t just put up work to do, but also goes one step further, and makes a video of himself using the blog and explaining the problem. It’s great for the kids who may not be good at reading and internalizing the instructions. Also, they can review as many times as they need to. The video of the teacher is never going to get tired, though the teacher sure seemed to look that way. This is great.
As my endorsement areas are Social Studies and Art, I think that this would be beneficial to me. I could link to history channel videos, make slideshows, post assignments, whatever! I think about how to describe how to throw a clay pot. That's difficult if you've never done it before. But you could always us an example. However, just like most things on the web, I could see how this could be a huge time suck, and would have to be managed judiciously. It’s only another tool, not the end all-be all of education.
Richardson, K. W. (2008, May). Don’t Feed the Trolls. Learning & Leading with Technology, 12-15.
Also the article talks about how teachers can be "modeling civil discourse." I could see how especially in a forum type of situation this would be a great idea. A civil, free exchange of ideas between two teachers (parallel), or just from the teacher (hierarchical) could both be beneficial. Besides parents, we will be the most stable example of adults in many, if not most, of these children's lives. We should act as such.
Moving to the concrete example of Mr. H’s blog. I find Mr. H’s example of a blog instructive in the way that he uses video. He doesn’t just put up work to do, but also goes one step further, and makes a video of himself using the blog and explaining the problem. It’s great for the kids who may not be good at reading and internalizing the instructions. Also, they can review as many times as they need to. The video of the teacher is never going to get tired, though the teacher sure seemed to look that way. This is great.
As my endorsement areas are Social Studies and Art, I think that this would be beneficial to me. I could link to history channel videos, make slideshows, post assignments, whatever! I think about how to describe how to throw a clay pot. That's difficult if you've never done it before. But you could always us an example. However, just like most things on the web, I could see how this could be a huge time suck, and would have to be managed judiciously. It’s only another tool, not the end all-be all of education.
Richardson, K. W. (2008, May). Don’t Feed the Trolls. Learning & Leading with Technology, 12-15.
Have you googled your teacher lately?
1. What did you find about yourself after you went through the Google and Pipl searches? Give me the actual links you found (unless you are really embarrassed by them).
For Google, I found myself as the second link. (http://skylab.org/~paranoid/biography/biography.html) the 14th (http://www.kingbeedesign.net/darinschmidt/about.html) and several others after. PIPL came up with me at the 1st two links (http://www.pipl.com/search/?FirstName=Darin&LastName=Schmidt&City=Portland&State=OR&Country=US&CategoryID=2&Interface=1)
Bluh. No, I'm not particularly embarrased by anything that comes up, but the ability to easily get ahold of my e-mail and address is a little scary. I also learned that my Google ranking has dropped from #1 to #2. Dangit.
2. Is there anything you want to change now or went ahead and already changed that may have been unbecoming of you as a teacher?
Not particularly. I'm pretty okay with what's up there right now. I might do some old blog removal and tighten up my Facebook security settings. But luckily it doesn't seem to come up Facebook on Google searches.
3. Do you think teachers should be held to community standards in terms of their personal lives? Should a teacher’s speech be held against them?
Which community? See, that's the problem with a lot of these examples in the article. I'll rant on that later. I think that so long as what a teacher is doing online is not considered outside of consensus morality then what they do or say shouldn't be held against them. They are humans with their own personal beliefs and rights that go along with the amazing responsibilities they take on as being teachers.
4. What was the most interesting fact/story you read in the article?
In the article, the teacher who was let go because there were some nude photos on the internet that were taken by her partner that got out. I find this crazy, especially with respect to the fact that they were art. Allow me to go on a screed about the Schizophrenically Puritanical nature of our society. It's okay for your kid to watch multiple R-rated movies, but if a teacher has a life where they do nothing illegal or immoral by nearly everyone's standards outside of school, they should be fired? PLEASE!
5. What are you going to do to protect yourself and your job?
Well, it looks like I'll be tightening the security so that only my most trusted friends and families will be able to have access to any social networking sites. The funny thing is that I live such a boring life that I can't imagine that I'll be saying anything that would be offensive or even close to anything that would get me in any trouble at all.
For Google, I found myself as the second link. (http://skylab.org/~paranoid/biography/biography.html) the 14th (http://www.kingbeedesign.net/darinschmidt/about.html) and several others after. PIPL came up with me at the 1st two links (http://www.pipl.com/search/?FirstName=Darin&LastName=Schmidt&City=Portland&State=OR&Country=US&CategoryID=2&Interface=1)
Bluh. No, I'm not particularly embarrased by anything that comes up, but the ability to easily get ahold of my e-mail and address is a little scary. I also learned that my Google ranking has dropped from #1 to #2. Dangit.
2. Is there anything you want to change now or went ahead and already changed that may have been unbecoming of you as a teacher?
Not particularly. I'm pretty okay with what's up there right now. I might do some old blog removal and tighten up my Facebook security settings. But luckily it doesn't seem to come up Facebook on Google searches.
3. Do you think teachers should be held to community standards in terms of their personal lives? Should a teacher’s speech be held against them?
Which community? See, that's the problem with a lot of these examples in the article. I'll rant on that later. I think that so long as what a teacher is doing online is not considered outside of consensus morality then what they do or say shouldn't be held against them. They are humans with their own personal beliefs and rights that go along with the amazing responsibilities they take on as being teachers.
4. What was the most interesting fact/story you read in the article?
In the article, the teacher who was let go because there were some nude photos on the internet that were taken by her partner that got out. I find this crazy, especially with respect to the fact that they were art. Allow me to go on a screed about the Schizophrenically Puritanical nature of our society. It's okay for your kid to watch multiple R-rated movies, but if a teacher has a life where they do nothing illegal or immoral by nearly everyone's standards outside of school, they should be fired? PLEASE!
5. What are you going to do to protect yourself and your job?
Well, it looks like I'll be tightening the security so that only my most trusted friends and families will be able to have access to any social networking sites. The funny thing is that I live such a boring life that I can't imagine that I'll be saying anything that would be offensive or even close to anything that would get me in any trouble at all.
Digital Natives vs. Digital Immigrants
When I was a kid, my father made the observation that my generation was “instant everything.” How little he would know about what the Millennial’s would be like. I am heartened by this series of articles. Though I’m “an old fogey” in the digital world (37) I am more similar to a Digital Native than a Digital Immigrant. I remember hearing of a third name called a Digital Pioneer, the group of people who grew up with the technology as it was being invented. Let me explain. I have been a user of video games since my father bought my brother and myself an Odyssey2 video gaming system. It had rudimentary programming capabilities, and we used them exclusively. I programmed on a Commodore 64 and an Apple 2e computer, used BBSes in the late 80s and Fidonet to communicate across country. When the WWW came about, I was an early adopter. Now, I multi-task constantly, with exposé going on my Mac, I’m able to switch between windows and programs with ease, listen to music in iTunes and search on Wikipedia. I believe that my mind is trained in much the same way that these kids who grew up with the technology as it’s “fully formed.” I can lose myself on Wikipedia if I allow myself to, and I have an inability to “turn off.” If I don’t have some kind of stimulation, be it electronic or verbal, I feel uncomfortable.
When I was a student, I didn’t find myself frustrated by “rage” as is described in the third article, but tech was on it’s way in, and I was frustrated by a lack of possibility. I knew that it could be done better, eventually. Our high school tech consisted of 16 mm film projectors, overhead projectors, and later, VHS tape machines and TVs on rolling carts. Over my college career, the styles of teaching were slower in keeping up with the advance of the technology. The modern Internet was created during my college career (1990-1997). We started using display technologies like digital projectors in college, but the Internet was not yet incorporated into classes. Now that I’m in school again after more than a decade, I find that my dreams from high school and frustration with information retrieval have finally been largely solved, as my information retrieval and way of working are vindicated. I wouldn’t say that technology impacted my education much because it was a little used tool.
I would like to call attention to several sentences in the first article. “Digital Immigrants don’t believe their students can learn successfully while watching TV or listening to music, because they (the Immigrants) can’t.” (Prensky) I believe that I, as a Digital Pioneer, am in the position to act as a bridge between Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants. I understand them both. Let me provide an example. As I am writing this, I am watching television, checking my e-mail every few minutes, and IM’ing my father. I believe that I actually CAN understand where these kids are coming from, and if my brain were examined under an FMRI, I would have a similar structure, despite being a pioneer.
Prensky Continues “…Of course not – they didn’t practice this skill constantly for all of their formative years. Digital Immigrants think learning can’t (or shouldn’t) be fun. Why should they – they didn’t spend their formative years learning with Sesame Street.” (Prensky, 2001) I did spend my formative years watching Sesame Street, and I think I remember being bored in school. Now, was that because I wasn’t stimulated? I can’t say.
I’ve read some criticism of Sesame Street, including this: “My second objection is that "Sesame Street" insidiously teaches short attention. The quick-changing format (ever so clever technically), moving from one idea to another every few minutes, actually boomerangs. The program's long-range goals are to stimulate a child's creativity, sociability, and desire to read. But the fast, quick-change pace, with its over-stimulation, actually cancels any hope for fostering in a child these long-range goals.” (Boerman, 1986) This is interesting. It’s just the criticism that Prensky has when he asks what we’ve lost. Do natives have time for reflection, time to process? It would appear that this isn’t a new concern with new media.
Prensky, M. (2001). On the Horizon. MCB University Press.
Boerman, V. (1986, October 20). Catapult Magazine Potholes on Sesame Street. Retrieved July 13, 2009, from Catapult Magazine: http://www.catapultmagazine.com/saturday-morning/article/potholes-on-sesame
When I was a student, I didn’t find myself frustrated by “rage” as is described in the third article, but tech was on it’s way in, and I was frustrated by a lack of possibility. I knew that it could be done better, eventually. Our high school tech consisted of 16 mm film projectors, overhead projectors, and later, VHS tape machines and TVs on rolling carts. Over my college career, the styles of teaching were slower in keeping up with the advance of the technology. The modern Internet was created during my college career (1990-1997). We started using display technologies like digital projectors in college, but the Internet was not yet incorporated into classes. Now that I’m in school again after more than a decade, I find that my dreams from high school and frustration with information retrieval have finally been largely solved, as my information retrieval and way of working are vindicated. I wouldn’t say that technology impacted my education much because it was a little used tool.
I would like to call attention to several sentences in the first article. “Digital Immigrants don’t believe their students can learn successfully while watching TV or listening to music, because they (the Immigrants) can’t.” (Prensky) I believe that I, as a Digital Pioneer, am in the position to act as a bridge between Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants. I understand them both. Let me provide an example. As I am writing this, I am watching television, checking my e-mail every few minutes, and IM’ing my father. I believe that I actually CAN understand where these kids are coming from, and if my brain were examined under an FMRI, I would have a similar structure, despite being a pioneer.
Prensky Continues “…Of course not – they didn’t practice this skill constantly for all of their formative years. Digital Immigrants think learning can’t (or shouldn’t) be fun. Why should they – they didn’t spend their formative years learning with Sesame Street.” (Prensky, 2001) I did spend my formative years watching Sesame Street, and I think I remember being bored in school. Now, was that because I wasn’t stimulated? I can’t say.
I’ve read some criticism of Sesame Street, including this: “My second objection is that "Sesame Street" insidiously teaches short attention. The quick-changing format (ever so clever technically), moving from one idea to another every few minutes, actually boomerangs. The program's long-range goals are to stimulate a child's creativity, sociability, and desire to read. But the fast, quick-change pace, with its over-stimulation, actually cancels any hope for fostering in a child these long-range goals.” (Boerman, 1986) This is interesting. It’s just the criticism that Prensky has when he asks what we’ve lost. Do natives have time for reflection, time to process? It would appear that this isn’t a new concern with new media.
Prensky, M. (2001). On the Horizon. MCB University Press.
Boerman, V. (1986, October 20). Catapult Magazine Potholes on Sesame Street. Retrieved July 13, 2009, from Catapult Magazine: http://www.catapultmagazine.com/saturday-morning/article/potholes-on-sesame
Introduction
Welcome to D-Money's House of Edu. My name is Darin Schmidt. I am hoping to teach Social Studies. Interestingly, my favorite animal is an orange Tabby. Meow!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)