Both articles for this week, Teacher Pedagogical Beliefs: The Final Frontier in Our Quest for Techonology Integration? and The Growth of Enterprise Pedagogy: How ICT Policy is Infected by Neo-Liberalism seem to miss the mark by making major assumptions that may, in fact not prove to be true.
Ertmer's examination of teacher's beliefs as being a major stumbling block in adoption of technology as the premier pedagogical tool seems to me to have overtones of the same arrogance as Prensky in declaring that age somehow limits one's ability to leverage technology. That teachers, or anyone else for that matter, possess beliefs which will form the basis of their behavior. Whether in matters great or small, what we believe to be true, we will act upon, especially in order to try to effect changes that coincide with those beliefs. This can be no less true for teachers than for anyone else, only for a teacher, what they believe to be true, they will likely, consciously or unconsciously, attempt to sway their students toward accepting as valid for belief as well.
According to Ertmer, then, if a teacher has a bias against the use of technology, they will not feel inclined to promote its adoption as an aid to their pedagogy. I would argue that this may be a false premise, depending up the individual teacher involved. If what we look toward are anecdotal instances to support suppositions such as these, we can no doubt find them. Indeed, no matter how wonderful or heinous the teacher we might try to describe, in all likelihood we can find at least one or two real life examples to support our case. However, I would challenge Ertmer's vision of a teacher as primarily dealing with students via belief (although it cannot be denied that no matter who or what we are dealing with, we will, indeed, believe something about them) but rather, that most teachers engage their students on a basis of relationship. If we begin from a starting point of belief as a motivator, then everything becomes either an aid and support to our position or an obstacle to be overcome, including our students. If, however, we begin from a point of view of seeing our students as valued persons who are to be engaged, nutured and cared for, then what we will desire for them is the best that we can offer them in the medium of education. That desire, based in our relationship with students, can sometimes lead us out of our comfort zones and call us to stretch in order to serve the student better. It may even be possible that a student could call us in to a mode that requires us to refine or even re-define, our beliefs. If these relationships can be that powerful and what I truly desire is the best for my students because of our relationship as student and teacher, then it is my responsibility to seek out the most efficacious way to help them learn. New thoughts must be explored, new ways of learning attempted, new technologies appropriated, in the pursuit of finding out what it is that best meets the needs of those with whom I am in an educational relationship. Stated simply, if I desire what is truly best for my students, they may call me to grow, change and learn as much as I call them to do so. If this is the case, then how can I ask of them what I am not willing to deliver myself in terms of being open to growth? To see technology and a teacher's hermeneutic of suspicion of technology as being the prime factor places an unflattering motive on people who may, in fact, actually have a better way of teaching something than a more technologically advanced method may offer. If, however, we begin with student and teacher in a valued relationship with one another, then what is ultimately desired for the student is the best experience of learning (a subjective term, I know, but the desire of most teachers I know) that is available.
I have much less disagreement with Brown's article as it seems to take a more moderate stance toward the neutrality of the technology in and of itself and focus on the importance of the human element in education. Brown, however, seems to advocate a slowing down, or even a stopping, of the introduction of technology as a major pedagogical tool. With my previous statements in mind, that technology needs to serve the end of educating the whole person and not become the end in itself, it would seem to me irresponsible to reject technology to the extent that Brown seems to be advocating. The truth is that while technology can become mis-applied and mis-guided (see my Twitter posts for extreme and satirical examples,) to withhold from students the tools that both the business and larger world are assimilating and adopting seems to be preparing them to be passed by in a world that will not wait patiently for them to retroactively adopt an information age skill set. Again, we need to seek a balance between Prenksy's Digital Natives and Brown's adversity toward a rapid adoption of emerging technology. Another area where Brown does have a point, I believe, is that the too rapid adoption can feed in to the voracious desire of the IT industry to sell you the latest technology, whether you need it or not. Moore's Law, that computer speed and memory double every six months (a constant which has held true since it was proposed,) means that an industry has spawned which survives on selling consumers (and so, those who use technology as both tool and business necessity) new computers and equipment, whether they are needed or not, as often as possible. There is always a new, more advanced model available and school districts could very well go broke trying to insure that they have 'the latest technology' each year. A happy medium between performance, applicable usage and cost needs to be struck so that educators have the tools needed to make sure their students have access to the best tools that they need to further their education and yet not be trapped in 'keeping up with the Joneses.'
Ultimately, I believe that both of these need to attempt to examine and account for the human factor in their approaches to integrating technology into education.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
The Question May Not Actually Be A Question...
I found this reading to be particularly difficult to follow. Now, some of this may be due to the fact that that by viewing it via Blackboard, if I click on some of the links, it was nearly impossible to get back to the point where I left the 'main reading' without going all the way back through the menu trees and starting at the Week 7/8 reading section again.
This organizational detail not withstanding, I still found the author's 'webquest within a webquest' mode unhelpful. At the same time, I found myself agreeing with several of the points and questions that were raised. For example, focusing on formulating modes of questioning for students that motivate them to dig deeply, rather than broadly, into subject matter, is a key insight, and one which the Webquest format lends itself to quite readily. The format also requires the teacher to be very familiar with the material that he or she is trying to present, since, in my experience of constructing my own webquest for class, I had to do a great deal of research and sifting through websites, screening them for the types and quality of information that I wanted to present to my students. Unlike many areas of study, where the teacher may have a certain expertise and point of view in presenting the material, the sheer volume of available data can rapidly become overwhelming for the instructor, let alone the students who need to use the data as a resource for coursework. This breadth of information can be quite useful when trying to expose students to a variety of approaches to the material, but if students are just being introduced to the topic, especially if it is a complex one, it requires a great deal of 'info-pruning' to make sure that the material is pertinent and accessible to students.
Of particular note, I find the final step of the process, 'Field Testing' to be one of the most challenging for me personally. In the process of working on and developing my webquest, I found that I became so familiar with the material, and the way in which I had chosen to organize it, that I presumed that the way I had done so was both clear and concise and logically organized. I am not sure that this is always the case, in reality. For the most part, I still believe that the way in which I organized is still good and valid, but there are times where I think that my own personal 'group-think' may have either over-complicated some of the material or that some of the logical connections I had made, knowing the outcomes I was trying to achieve, made the organization of the material more complicated than it needed to be.
I also appreciate Bernie Dodge's explanations of intent as an inquiry-based mode of learning. As a devotee' of the Socratic Method, I am sympathetic to this aim and given the variety of resources for inquiry available via the web, it is a worthy use of the medium.
Ultimately though, I do not find that the webquest format is something radically new and different in and of itself, but rather, I find that it is just a different method of organizing a set of information. On any given subject, I can attempt to tailor the information I need to get across to students in variety of ways so that students of different learning styles can grasp the information. The webquest is another format for doing so, but it also offers the opportunity to present the information in several different ways within a single core structure such that different styled learners can mine one core resource for a presentation of the information that best suits their learning needs.
This organizational detail not withstanding, I still found the author's 'webquest within a webquest' mode unhelpful. At the same time, I found myself agreeing with several of the points and questions that were raised. For example, focusing on formulating modes of questioning for students that motivate them to dig deeply, rather than broadly, into subject matter, is a key insight, and one which the Webquest format lends itself to quite readily. The format also requires the teacher to be very familiar with the material that he or she is trying to present, since, in my experience of constructing my own webquest for class, I had to do a great deal of research and sifting through websites, screening them for the types and quality of information that I wanted to present to my students. Unlike many areas of study, where the teacher may have a certain expertise and point of view in presenting the material, the sheer volume of available data can rapidly become overwhelming for the instructor, let alone the students who need to use the data as a resource for coursework. This breadth of information can be quite useful when trying to expose students to a variety of approaches to the material, but if students are just being introduced to the topic, especially if it is a complex one, it requires a great deal of 'info-pruning' to make sure that the material is pertinent and accessible to students.
Of particular note, I find the final step of the process, 'Field Testing' to be one of the most challenging for me personally. In the process of working on and developing my webquest, I found that I became so familiar with the material, and the way in which I had chosen to organize it, that I presumed that the way I had done so was both clear and concise and logically organized. I am not sure that this is always the case, in reality. For the most part, I still believe that the way in which I organized is still good and valid, but there are times where I think that my own personal 'group-think' may have either over-complicated some of the material or that some of the logical connections I had made, knowing the outcomes I was trying to achieve, made the organization of the material more complicated than it needed to be.
I also appreciate Bernie Dodge's explanations of intent as an inquiry-based mode of learning. As a devotee' of the Socratic Method, I am sympathetic to this aim and given the variety of resources for inquiry available via the web, it is a worthy use of the medium.
Ultimately though, I do not find that the webquest format is something radically new and different in and of itself, but rather, I find that it is just a different method of organizing a set of information. On any given subject, I can attempt to tailor the information I need to get across to students in variety of ways so that students of different learning styles can grasp the information. The webquest is another format for doing so, but it also offers the opportunity to present the information in several different ways within a single core structure such that different styled learners can mine one core resource for a presentation of the information that best suits their learning needs.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Nature or Nuture; appropriate technology as tool or content?
Reflecting upon the articles "What Is Meaningful Learning?" "Preparing Students for eLearning" and "Digital Literacy: How it affects teaching practices and networked learning futures" it seems that the authors highlight a debate between form and content that learning may take.
Pearson, in "What Is Meaningful Learning?" highlights some of the characteristics of human learning, specifically focusing on five areas that facilitate the acquisition and appropriation of knowledge. Specifically, these characteristics are identified as: Active, that is, humans explore and interact with their environment and learn from that environment. Constructive, here meaning that people not only come to new understandings of their environments but can organize and articulate the concepts they have internalized through their learning. Intentional, meaning that human beings seek to achieve particular ends through their learning. Authentic, here this means that students can relate the information they have gained in a form that is relevant to their context. Cooperative which in this case means that learners do not operate in an environmental vacuum, but rather that they learn best when working in concert with other learners; comparing and adding to the pool of best practices which multiple people have discovered. These characteristics are vitally inter-related in this model.
Pearson then examines the ways in which technologies aid in the process of education. I'm in agreement with this approach that technologies, whether advanced or primitive, only serve to enhance the experience of education; in and of themselves they are value-neutral. Like many tools, they represent an opportunity to be used productively and usefully and to great effect. Used ineffectively, or only to satiate the whims of those who use them, they can detract from the experience or even create the conditions for resistance to the educational process (i.e., some students may become so fascinated with the bulk of information available on the web that they cease being interested in mining for depth of knowledge and settle for broad sweeping generalizations, potentially filled with inaccuracy.)
The other two articles examine the role environmental factors in constructing appropriate and accessible learning environments. The article from networkedlearning examines factors that are specifically focused on creating a technologically appropriate environment in the Australian context. Here, an element that is never explicitly discussed, but is, I believe, inherent in this conversation, is the matter of economic viability of technologically driven learning. In examining issues like Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), we begin to see, at least from a pragmatic standpoint, the danger of having a learning environment that is radically dependent on cutting edge technology for maximum benefit. The implication here is that if a school/district/class can't afford even rudimentary equipment, it risks leaving its students exposed to a downward spiral with their ability to navigate in an ever more technologically advanced world. Put simply, such a spiral might appear like this: School can only afford minimal technological resources, students have to get by with technological resources that do not adequately prepare them for life in the 21st century, students do poorly in SC and HSC exams, funding gets cut to schools that don't do well, rinse and repeat. While the discussion of FOSS is a good starting point for such discussions, and well intentioned in its aims, very few business or educational environments have migrated to FOSS standards and so if students aren't equipped to deal with commercially standard software (i.e., Window$, etc.) then they may not be viable in continuing education or in the workplace. A more detailed discussion of opening technology to the poor, in whatever form they take and wherever they are found represents a rich potential for examination and discussion than can be explored here. Initiates like OLPC are starting points for creating educational environments that are as accessible to the rich Western nations as to the poor of the world. And technologically can, and in many instances has, leveled the playing field between the haves and have-nots of the world as globalization continues to deepen the connection between the worlds peoples.
The eLearning article I found to be more pragmatic in its approach, and in many ways represented just a re-hash of many of the themes from the Prenksy article. One useful aspect of the article, however, was its focus on the characteristics of a student who is prepared to undertake technological learning. Ultimately, I found this article to be once again too focused on questions of technological form versus content for my tastes.
Pearson, in "What Is Meaningful Learning?" highlights some of the characteristics of human learning, specifically focusing on five areas that facilitate the acquisition and appropriation of knowledge. Specifically, these characteristics are identified as: Active, that is, humans explore and interact with their environment and learn from that environment. Constructive, here meaning that people not only come to new understandings of their environments but can organize and articulate the concepts they have internalized through their learning. Intentional, meaning that human beings seek to achieve particular ends through their learning. Authentic, here this means that students can relate the information they have gained in a form that is relevant to their context. Cooperative which in this case means that learners do not operate in an environmental vacuum, but rather that they learn best when working in concert with other learners; comparing and adding to the pool of best practices which multiple people have discovered. These characteristics are vitally inter-related in this model.
Pearson then examines the ways in which technologies aid in the process of education. I'm in agreement with this approach that technologies, whether advanced or primitive, only serve to enhance the experience of education; in and of themselves they are value-neutral. Like many tools, they represent an opportunity to be used productively and usefully and to great effect. Used ineffectively, or only to satiate the whims of those who use them, they can detract from the experience or even create the conditions for resistance to the educational process (i.e., some students may become so fascinated with the bulk of information available on the web that they cease being interested in mining for depth of knowledge and settle for broad sweeping generalizations, potentially filled with inaccuracy.)
The other two articles examine the role environmental factors in constructing appropriate and accessible learning environments. The article from networkedlearning examines factors that are specifically focused on creating a technologically appropriate environment in the Australian context. Here, an element that is never explicitly discussed, but is, I believe, inherent in this conversation, is the matter of economic viability of technologically driven learning. In examining issues like Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), we begin to see, at least from a pragmatic standpoint, the danger of having a learning environment that is radically dependent on cutting edge technology for maximum benefit. The implication here is that if a school/district/class can't afford even rudimentary equipment, it risks leaving its students exposed to a downward spiral with their ability to navigate in an ever more technologically advanced world. Put simply, such a spiral might appear like this: School can only afford minimal technological resources, students have to get by with technological resources that do not adequately prepare them for life in the 21st century, students do poorly in SC and HSC exams, funding gets cut to schools that don't do well, rinse and repeat. While the discussion of FOSS is a good starting point for such discussions, and well intentioned in its aims, very few business or educational environments have migrated to FOSS standards and so if students aren't equipped to deal with commercially standard software (i.e., Window$, etc.) then they may not be viable in continuing education or in the workplace. A more detailed discussion of opening technology to the poor, in whatever form they take and wherever they are found represents a rich potential for examination and discussion than can be explored here. Initiates like OLPC are starting points for creating educational environments that are as accessible to the rich Western nations as to the poor of the world. And technologically can, and in many instances has, leveled the playing field between the haves and have-nots of the world as globalization continues to deepen the connection between the worlds peoples.
The eLearning article I found to be more pragmatic in its approach, and in many ways represented just a re-hash of many of the themes from the Prenksy article. One useful aspect of the article, however, was its focus on the characteristics of a student who is prepared to undertake technological learning. Ultimately, I found this article to be once again too focused on questions of technological form versus content for my tastes.
A Response To Brewer & Daane
After reading the Brewer and Daane texts, I find myself somewhat torn. On one hand, I know from personal experience that learning from my mistakes and failings has yielded insights and valuable knowledge (often as much about myself as about technique, that is, how to do something.) However, the formation of the knowledge gained from these experiences has rarely, if ever, occurred within an educational vacuum. That is, that often, my knowledge gained has often been as a result of the informed opinion of a mentor, friend or teacher, rather than a sort of ex nihilo creation of knowledge.
Brewer and Daane's observation of the math teachers who consider themselves to be Constructivists, while yielding some insights about how this school can be applied to mathematics, is still a very small sample and anecdotal at best in my opinion. The kernel of truth at the heart of Constructivist theory is that the 'error' in a 'trial and error' model can create conditions where more knowledge may be gained than through a series of effortless successes. In my own experience, the more spectacular my failing has been, the more knowledge I have gained. Yet, if it were not for the guidance of a mentor with great experience to guide and help me see the value in the experience, it would have amounted to nothing more than another painful failure.
A case in point: During my first year of teaching, many years ago, I was assigned as the teacher and editor of the student newspaper. The paper had been in abysmal shape prior to my arrival; issues were released rarely, if ever, the issues released were filled with inaccurate stories of dubious journalistic value, even from a learning perspective.
Upon taking the helm I spent 3 weeks with the students at the beginning of the year going over proper journalistic writing style, marketing, editing, photographic style, etc., etc. I appointed students in positions of leadership and off we went for the rest of the year. It was a spectacular year, we won 3 major awards for the paper that year. All the credit for these strides belonged to the students I had appointed as editors, in my opinion. I merely had final authority over what we produced.
The next year, however, was a nearly unmitigated disaster. Having lost much of my key staff, I re-trained and re-appointed students in editorial roles. The really fatal blow, however, was that, due to our success the previous year, the class was over-subscribed and, where I had set a ceiling of 18 students, I had 25. Just too many people for the amount of work we could produce. As a class and as a group, we struggled desperately, rarely turning out issues. The crisis came to a head when I had to relieve several of my editors over misconduct regarding distributing an issue of the paper that I had said was unacceptable for publication. The students involved were the few remaining bright lights from my 'championship year.'
I still remember sitting in the Headmaster's office following the dismissal of these students from the paper, for many of them, this had been their raison-d'etre, and I felt terrible about how everything had played out. The Head, who to this day is a good friend and mentor, sat down across from me after the students had left and said to me: "Jack, you have to know when to ask for help. You need to know when you are getting in over your head and you just can't go it alone." Coming at another moment, from another person, I would never have been able to hear these words as the kindness and hope for my learning that they were meant as. It was by accompanying me in a moment that looked like failure that was a watershed of self-insight, growth and learning. If that wisdom-figure had not been there to shepherd me through it, that moment may well have turned in to one of scarring defeat and belittlement, rather than one that made me a better teacher.
This is an extreme example and one far-removed from the maths classroom. And yet, is it not possible, on a smaller scale, to feel these sorts of defeats even on something more mundane such as a maths problem? Left to the Constructivist device of forging and hanging my own meaning on my experience with the paper, I believe I would have turned it in to an experience of self-flagellation and excoriation that may well have driven me from teaching altogether. So ultimately while we appropriate and possess knowledge for ourselves and seek to understand the meaning of our experience on our own, it is often in the act of being accompanied in that knowledge by someone, ideally someone who cares about us as a person and desires to see us grow, that true and lasting learning can occur.
This is ultimately my critique of Constructivist theory, that we need to be allowed the freedom to make our own mistakes but we need be in an environment of educational relationship where we are safe to make those mistakes accompanied by people who care for us and will not allow those mistakes to be catastrophic to us as persons.
Brewer and Daane's observation of the math teachers who consider themselves to be Constructivists, while yielding some insights about how this school can be applied to mathematics, is still a very small sample and anecdotal at best in my opinion. The kernel of truth at the heart of Constructivist theory is that the 'error' in a 'trial and error' model can create conditions where more knowledge may be gained than through a series of effortless successes. In my own experience, the more spectacular my failing has been, the more knowledge I have gained. Yet, if it were not for the guidance of a mentor with great experience to guide and help me see the value in the experience, it would have amounted to nothing more than another painful failure.
A case in point: During my first year of teaching, many years ago, I was assigned as the teacher and editor of the student newspaper. The paper had been in abysmal shape prior to my arrival; issues were released rarely, if ever, the issues released were filled with inaccurate stories of dubious journalistic value, even from a learning perspective.
Upon taking the helm I spent 3 weeks with the students at the beginning of the year going over proper journalistic writing style, marketing, editing, photographic style, etc., etc. I appointed students in positions of leadership and off we went for the rest of the year. It was a spectacular year, we won 3 major awards for the paper that year. All the credit for these strides belonged to the students I had appointed as editors, in my opinion. I merely had final authority over what we produced.
The next year, however, was a nearly unmitigated disaster. Having lost much of my key staff, I re-trained and re-appointed students in editorial roles. The really fatal blow, however, was that, due to our success the previous year, the class was over-subscribed and, where I had set a ceiling of 18 students, I had 25. Just too many people for the amount of work we could produce. As a class and as a group, we struggled desperately, rarely turning out issues. The crisis came to a head when I had to relieve several of my editors over misconduct regarding distributing an issue of the paper that I had said was unacceptable for publication. The students involved were the few remaining bright lights from my 'championship year.'
I still remember sitting in the Headmaster's office following the dismissal of these students from the paper, for many of them, this had been their raison-d'etre, and I felt terrible about how everything had played out. The Head, who to this day is a good friend and mentor, sat down across from me after the students had left and said to me: "Jack, you have to know when to ask for help. You need to know when you are getting in over your head and you just can't go it alone." Coming at another moment, from another person, I would never have been able to hear these words as the kindness and hope for my learning that they were meant as. It was by accompanying me in a moment that looked like failure that was a watershed of self-insight, growth and learning. If that wisdom-figure had not been there to shepherd me through it, that moment may well have turned in to one of scarring defeat and belittlement, rather than one that made me a better teacher.
This is an extreme example and one far-removed from the maths classroom. And yet, is it not possible, on a smaller scale, to feel these sorts of defeats even on something more mundane such as a maths problem? Left to the Constructivist device of forging and hanging my own meaning on my experience with the paper, I believe I would have turned it in to an experience of self-flagellation and excoriation that may well have driven me from teaching altogether. So ultimately while we appropriate and possess knowledge for ourselves and seek to understand the meaning of our experience on our own, it is often in the act of being accompanied in that knowledge by someone, ideally someone who cares about us as a person and desires to see us grow, that true and lasting learning can occur.
This is ultimately my critique of Constructivist theory, that we need to be allowed the freedom to make our own mistakes but we need be in an environment of educational relationship where we are safe to make those mistakes accompanied by people who care for us and will not allow those mistakes to be catastrophic to us as persons.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
I <3 The Decemberists
 The Decemberists are one of my favorite bands. I love their ethereal and haunting sounds. Eclectic, yes. That would be one word to describe them... |
| From The Rabbit Hole |
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Om Malik's Twitter Observations
Om Malik, of Giga-Om fame, has a good article on his blog about Twitter being bought by Google (which doesn't seem to be what's actually happening.)
Om makes some excellent, and moderately reflective, observations about the nature and scope of Twitter.
The article is found here.
Om makes some excellent, and moderately reflective, observations about the nature and scope of Twitter.
The article is found here.
Comments on Prensky & Bennett, Redux
Originally, I meant to post this as an part of my mind map on the Prensky and Bennett articles, but I was running behind and didn't do so. Now, when I am attempting to re-edit that post, Blogspot is either eating my picture (not too desireable), or making the entire post a weblink to somewhere else (don't ask me where.) Also not a particularly attractive option. So I've just created this as a separate post (more posts are always better, right?) so that's why this is a separate post.
To begin, I think that Prensky has some interesting ideas, however they doesn't necessarily mean that they are either true or even accurate. He tends to paint with too broad a brush stroke for my personal tastes, his examples either being anecdotal or sweeping generalizations that would be difficult to support with hard data. (Both of these critiques are points made by Bennett, Maton and Kervin in their critique.)
Prensky seems to me to have two primary theses: 1) That somehow students have changed fundamentally in how they learn and 2) That traditional modes of education are flawed in reaching today's learners and that they need to be re-evaluated and re-worked to reach today's student.
With the reservations I outlined above, I thought that the points Prensky made well and that bear further investigation are:
-That people are either digital immigrants, who, no matter how familiar with the technology available and how well they employ it, will always have an 'accent' that identifies them as being from the 'Old World' (although this world is never really defined.)
Here, I disagree with the thesis. I am a remarkably tech-saavy person, fascinated by the latest tech trends and able to converse about modes of communication at levels that leave all but a few students in the dust. This makes me neither an immigrant nor a native (perhaps I am a digital pioneer? One of the first colonizers, who wired together his own Apple II+ computer back when that machine represented the height of personal computing power.) And I have many students who understand how to use certain technologies, but only as far as they find it useful. The technology is neutral, and the ability to use it or not has little to do with age, as it does with other factors, I believe.
-That these immigrants are always lagging behind their students in effectively employing digital modes of education.
As I noted above, I find that as a technology enthusiast, I am usually ahead of my students in grasping and understanding technology but not always necessarily in figuring out how to use it in an the educational milieu. At other times, I simply choose to ignore the technology when I fail to find it applicable or enjoyable or have qualms about the uses that the technology may be put to. I completely skipped myspace.com in favor of the emerging Facebook a couple of years ago because Myspace had gained an image as a place to swap all kinds of media and as a 'pickup spot' in a virtual world amongst many students I knew. I am a privacy advocate, and the web represents an enormous water hazard on the golf course of keeping private information private (no that Facebook, with it's draconian EULAs and apps that spread your personal data like a plague is much better, but, hey, I limit the amount of data I put in in the first place.)
-Prensky posits that students can no longer focus on conventional media the way they once did, having been reared on the rapid-fire data and stimulation available to them.
Here, I believe, the question is not can they focus, but do they choose to? Simply because they prefer certain modes does not mean that the less-preferred modes are somehow inferior, but rather that learners have become accustomed to doing things in a way they perceive as easier or more effective. These two do not make learning in these ways 'better' than the traditional methods. Research needs to be conducted to verify whether this is true or not.
I also take issue with Prenksy's theory that education, in and of itself has fundamentally changed in a digital age. Did education change when Johann Gutenberg invented movable type and ushered in massive changes in the availability and understanding of media that is arguably a greater technological advance than computing and the Internet? That is, did it change how human beings learn, or did it change (albeit massively,) the modes available for learning. This is my major critique of Prensky's work. To use the analogy of archery, teachers still possess the means of educating that they always have; a bow and arrow. What has changed is the number of arrows that a teacher now finds at his or her disposal. These arrows can be more or less effective, depending on their 'target' and how true they fly. The danger is not that a teacher cannot understand how the bow works or cannot operate the bow effectively. The greatest peril is that the teacher who used to have a set of say, 20-30 educational arrows to choose from now has a nearly limitless number of arrows to select from and can easily spend more time in trying to select the correct arrow rather than just grabbing the one that has always served well. It is not that the mode has changed, only the number of options available in employing that mode.
-Shifting to Bennett, Maton and Kervin, I find their critique of Prensky reasonable, questioning the metrics of his claims, and suggesting that there are other factors which may be more telling than the ones Prensky predicates his assertions on.
The most convincing of these questions is that there are other environmental factors, such as gender, economic and social disparities, that limit access to the technology that can account for much of the difference that Prenksy wants to lay at the feet of the technology in and of itself. Again, using my own experiences as an indicator, I am a white male from a privileged First World environment who has access and interest in appropriating and leveraging technology for both my educational and personal advantage. I suspect that, as I pointed out earlier, these factors have more to do with my level of competence and desire to appropriate this technology and use it than the fact that I am nearly 2 generations removed from many of Prenksy's 'natives.'
My final points would be that:
-Learning will always be learning, it is the tools that are available to facilitate learning that change, not the thing in and of itself. Technology has, like Moore's Law (that computing speed and available memory double every six months), made change in all areas of human interaction, including education, MUCH more rapid. What remains to be seen is whether human beings can assimilate the information quickly enough to make use of the data acquired or not.
-Is the educational power of word and image changed predicated upon its mode of presentation? Does reading Moby Dick via a Kindle e-book reader change the fundamental experience of being exposed to a classic work of western literature? Here I would argue that it is the undertaking of the wrestling with the text, in whatever form it is presented in, that will change and shape a human being, and not the mode in which the text is encountered.
-Finally, is it correct to paraphrase Marshall MacLuhan and assert that the medium of education is, in fact, the message of education? This seems to me to be the direction that Prensky wants to go. Ultimately, I disagree with Prensky, and yet there is something to be considered in his position. Teaching and learning will occur, whether it is with the aid of scratching symbols into the dirt with a stick, or in a virtual reality equipped booth filled with the latest high-tech marvels that can simulate with great accuracy a 'real-world' event or situation. Perhaps to me, the most important point that both authors miss is that learning is a human experience and regardless of the tools available, its purpose is to help an individual or group become more fully human, whether in intellect, body or affect, and that there are many different tools available to aid all of these pursuits, but they must be done in conversation with the pupil and the teacher in order to be as effective as possible.
To begin, I think that Prensky has some interesting ideas, however they doesn't necessarily mean that they are either true or even accurate. He tends to paint with too broad a brush stroke for my personal tastes, his examples either being anecdotal or sweeping generalizations that would be difficult to support with hard data. (Both of these critiques are points made by Bennett, Maton and Kervin in their critique.)
Prensky seems to me to have two primary theses: 1) That somehow students have changed fundamentally in how they learn and 2) That traditional modes of education are flawed in reaching today's learners and that they need to be re-evaluated and re-worked to reach today's student.
With the reservations I outlined above, I thought that the points Prensky made well and that bear further investigation are:
-That people are either digital immigrants, who, no matter how familiar with the technology available and how well they employ it, will always have an 'accent' that identifies them as being from the 'Old World' (although this world is never really defined.)
Here, I disagree with the thesis. I am a remarkably tech-saavy person, fascinated by the latest tech trends and able to converse about modes of communication at levels that leave all but a few students in the dust. This makes me neither an immigrant nor a native (perhaps I am a digital pioneer? One of the first colonizers, who wired together his own Apple II+ computer back when that machine represented the height of personal computing power.) And I have many students who understand how to use certain technologies, but only as far as they find it useful. The technology is neutral, and the ability to use it or not has little to do with age, as it does with other factors, I believe.
-That these immigrants are always lagging behind their students in effectively employing digital modes of education.
As I noted above, I find that as a technology enthusiast, I am usually ahead of my students in grasping and understanding technology but not always necessarily in figuring out how to use it in an the educational milieu. At other times, I simply choose to ignore the technology when I fail to find it applicable or enjoyable or have qualms about the uses that the technology may be put to. I completely skipped myspace.com in favor of the emerging Facebook a couple of years ago because Myspace had gained an image as a place to swap all kinds of media and as a 'pickup spot' in a virtual world amongst many students I knew. I am a privacy advocate, and the web represents an enormous water hazard on the golf course of keeping private information private (no that Facebook, with it's draconian EULAs and apps that spread your personal data like a plague is much better, but, hey, I limit the amount of data I put in in the first place.)
-Prensky posits that students can no longer focus on conventional media the way they once did, having been reared on the rapid-fire data and stimulation available to them.
Here, I believe, the question is not can they focus, but do they choose to? Simply because they prefer certain modes does not mean that the less-preferred modes are somehow inferior, but rather that learners have become accustomed to doing things in a way they perceive as easier or more effective. These two do not make learning in these ways 'better' than the traditional methods. Research needs to be conducted to verify whether this is true or not.
I also take issue with Prenksy's theory that education, in and of itself has fundamentally changed in a digital age. Did education change when Johann Gutenberg invented movable type and ushered in massive changes in the availability and understanding of media that is arguably a greater technological advance than computing and the Internet? That is, did it change how human beings learn, or did it change (albeit massively,) the modes available for learning. This is my major critique of Prensky's work. To use the analogy of archery, teachers still possess the means of educating that they always have; a bow and arrow. What has changed is the number of arrows that a teacher now finds at his or her disposal. These arrows can be more or less effective, depending on their 'target' and how true they fly. The danger is not that a teacher cannot understand how the bow works or cannot operate the bow effectively. The greatest peril is that the teacher who used to have a set of say, 20-30 educational arrows to choose from now has a nearly limitless number of arrows to select from and can easily spend more time in trying to select the correct arrow rather than just grabbing the one that has always served well. It is not that the mode has changed, only the number of options available in employing that mode.
-Shifting to Bennett, Maton and Kervin, I find their critique of Prensky reasonable, questioning the metrics of his claims, and suggesting that there are other factors which may be more telling than the ones Prensky predicates his assertions on.
The most convincing of these questions is that there are other environmental factors, such as gender, economic and social disparities, that limit access to the technology that can account for much of the difference that Prenksy wants to lay at the feet of the technology in and of itself. Again, using my own experiences as an indicator, I am a white male from a privileged First World environment who has access and interest in appropriating and leveraging technology for both my educational and personal advantage. I suspect that, as I pointed out earlier, these factors have more to do with my level of competence and desire to appropriate this technology and use it than the fact that I am nearly 2 generations removed from many of Prenksy's 'natives.'
My final points would be that:
-Learning will always be learning, it is the tools that are available to facilitate learning that change, not the thing in and of itself. Technology has, like Moore's Law (that computing speed and available memory double every six months), made change in all areas of human interaction, including education, MUCH more rapid. What remains to be seen is whether human beings can assimilate the information quickly enough to make use of the data acquired or not.
-Is the educational power of word and image changed predicated upon its mode of presentation? Does reading Moby Dick via a Kindle e-book reader change the fundamental experience of being exposed to a classic work of western literature? Here I would argue that it is the undertaking of the wrestling with the text, in whatever form it is presented in, that will change and shape a human being, and not the mode in which the text is encountered.
-Finally, is it correct to paraphrase Marshall MacLuhan and assert that the medium of education is, in fact, the message of education? This seems to me to be the direction that Prensky wants to go. Ultimately, I disagree with Prensky, and yet there is something to be considered in his position. Teaching and learning will occur, whether it is with the aid of scratching symbols into the dirt with a stick, or in a virtual reality equipped booth filled with the latest high-tech marvels that can simulate with great accuracy a 'real-world' event or situation. Perhaps to me, the most important point that both authors miss is that learning is a human experience and regardless of the tools available, its purpose is to help an individual or group become more fully human, whether in intellect, body or affect, and that there are many different tools available to aid all of these pursuits, but they must be done in conversation with the pupil and the teacher in order to be as effective as possible.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)