Thoughts on job hunting...

I am very likely going to move.

Oregon, the state where I happen to live, is a beautiful, vibrant, and pleasant place. (It also rains for weeks at a time too, which I love) However, Oregon has a dearth of teaching positions, not only for new teachers, but even experienced ones. The inability of the state to figure out funding, coupled with a sharp decrease in retirements doesn't bode well for my staying in this state. In all likelihood, when I'm hired for a teaching position, it will be outside of Oregon.

Being a native, it might seem that I'd be depressed with the prospect. Rather, this is an exciting proposition. Even though I love my native land, I am quite interested in creating new experiences outside of the Pacific Northwest. I've traveled more this year than I have in probably the previous five years combined. I flew to Washington D.C. where I was able to get an idea of what that part of the country is like, as well as driving to central Kansas to visit my extended family. Being able to see other parts of the west and reacquaint myself with the people and different outlooks on life was fun.

Teaching is a vocation, not just a job. It is my belief that wherever I end up, I will put all of my effort into it, be it a rural, suburban or urban setting. At this point, I have no preference. When I find the right position, I can then concentrate on working for the best interests of the students, no matter where they live, my new home.

Every child deserves a good teacher, and it's my desire to be that teacher. Wherever that may be.

-Darin-

Tech and Social Justice

I feel that using tech in classroom is a good idea no matter what. If you have access to it in the classroom, at least there's a little bit of access. Anything that you can get is better than what they may or may not be getting at home. It's cumulative. If access doesn't exist outside of the classroom, then it's necessary for people to work to make it not an issue.

So many of the questions in these web reflections are posited as either/or questions. For example, "Will you be doing a disservice to all of your students if you do not use technology because of access issues for a few?" Well, of course I would, but I won't keep from using technology because a few students don't have access. What I would do is to do my best to provide those students access to technology. I have some ideas. For example, our instructor for character in the curriculum has procured several video cameras and audio recorders for his class by writing grants for that technology. I could see how that would work well in for a lot of tech, like netbooks, which are relatively inexpensive.

Another idea that I borrow from my wife (who is from Taiwan) is to enlist the wealthier members of the parent population. When she was going to school, her father was routinely tapped to donate funds for school functions, supplies and other "non-essential" materials. He didn't see it as a burden, but as part of the responsibility of being wealthy. It is also a measure of pride that he could take. I don't think that's being encouraged in the way that it could be here in much of the US, and it needs to be fostered and recognized.

Educating parents and the community about what is and isn't able to be in the classroom is also key in getting donations. I think that parents and others in the community believe that the money that is spent in schools is either wasted or indulgent. When we educate these people we can get what I call "targeted donations," donations that are based on filling a need that isn't filled by basic funding. It's a part of educating not only the students, but the community at large and having them take a stake in their students' success.

Cell Phones Should and Shouldn't be Banned in the Classroom

I really want to want cell phones in class. Let me explain. I'm a huge supporter of technology. Going to school at Concordia has been a complete revelation in the amount of tech that's available in school now. I also did some observation at Grant High School where I saw that many of the classes had video projectors, laptops and other tech. But when it comes to using cell phones as a mandatory curriculum aids, I draw the line. So I agree with both sides. To a point

See, the thing is, I when it comes to tech, much of the existing technology is compatible with each other. As evidenced in the technology class, there are tons of open-source programs that are exactly the same on a PC platform as on the mac. Open Office, The GIMP, Audacity, and many others suffer from no loss of features or a different interface when you make the transition from one platform to to the other.

However, on a cell phone, the amount of differences between one cell phone maker and another are legion. An app that works on an iPhone will not work on a Palm-based cell phone or a blackberry. These are incompatible systems. My personal cell phone does a lot of cool stuff, but what about the student who has a super-basic cell phone. Will they be getting the same opportunities for education as other students? I suspect not. Also there is the problem with fee for service demands on cell phones. Texting isn't free. Getting apps isn't necessarily free. Most services on the cell phone cost something. Shall we subsidize that?

In fact, I have to agree with the author of the "pro" article when he says, "If they have a Blackberry… OK, I’ll just stop there, because the discussion on why a parent bought their child a Blackberry is so ridiculous my head may explode." Why are children being given a device that is meant for a business professional for personal use?

Now don't get me wrong, I have little trouble with laptops in the classroom. They are a tool that can be used for anything and are now almost critical. I could see how cell phones could be used as a supplement, but not as a critical tool. A question that I took away from the article is, "How would a student that doesn't have a cell phone get along in the classroom?" The answer is to beg, borrow or steal. Let's hope that the school has equipment to borrow because I'm not too excited about the first and third option.

Is cht spk dstryng nglsh?

1. States which side you agree with and why
2. Uses quotes from the text
3. States what questions resulted from reading the text

The article "Is Chatspeak Destroying English" pits the curmudgeon against the rebel. I choose rebel. Curmudgeon says that "Students may very well become so familiar and comfortable with chatspeak that it will be difficult to switch gears and construct adequate, meaningful academic
papers and other assignments." I don't see this as a concern. When I speak with my classmates, I have an informal way of speaking. However when I'm chatting online, I use a distinct set of vocabulary and grammar that is different.

This has been true for years. When I was running a BBS, I chatted with people online. BRB was the first chatspeak that I learned. However, when I spoke with those same people, I was gratified that they spoke proper English. I also saw some of their longer form postings and they wrote in proper English as well. It's crazy to think that people can't switch back and forth.

A question that I found when I was reading was that of whether chatspeak is intentionally meant to confuse the older generation. It would seem that the jury is still out on that one. Even though it may not be intentional, it seems to be having the effect. The example that Greg Monfils gives at the beginning of his article (“hey, i cant find hw n the conf can u help.”) confuse even me. Maybe that's okay. As long as the kids know how to move between languages, it's cool.

Are attention spans getting shorter? Bluh!

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.

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.

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.