Education and Technology
Whenever we talk about education everyone has something to say. All of us have been through school (with pleasant or traumatic experiences) and we can share what was well or terribly done inside the classroom.
In this occasion, I’d like to discuss how technology is taught in classroom. For that I have selected two little pieces of readings and two videos. I will briefly refer to the sources and give you some questions that will guide our conversation next Monday. (It’s not mandatory to answer the questions.)
Sweeny’s article describes how new literacies can be integrated into writing instruction.
- What do you think about the standards and skills proposed to be developed in this article?
- Language is always changing. In this sense, it is normal that writing is also changing. What do you think about the changes in writing and the resistance that exists towards it?
- What do you think about the new resources proposed to been integrated in the classroom? Can you think about other resources or ideas that would be useful in a pedagogical environment?
“The story” by Warlick is a short science fiction piece that represents school in 2015.
- How do you imagine classes in 5, 10, or 20 years?
- Do you remember your classes at school? Do you think that those classes would be still applicable with these Digital Natives Kids?
In the talk “How to learn? From mistakes” by Diana Laufenberg, the author shares three key points that she has learned in her experience as a teacher.
- What do you think about learning in an age where information is everywhere?
- “Experience the learning, empowering student voice and embracing the failure”. Why are these ideas key points for the future in education?
Regarding the last video: “Bring on the Learning Revolution” by Ken Robinson, I’d like us to think about the following questions:
- Does everyone learn in the same way?
- How can we democratize education through technology?
I think you’ve chosen some really interesting articles and videos this week, Magdalena. I particularly enjoyed the two videos, as they gave me quite a lot to think about, in the way where you felt you’ve known it all along: “Well *of course* we model our education systems after fast food chains! That’s why PE isn’t mandatory!”
I found Laufenberg’s observations to be enlightening. I’m always impressed when someone can put into words what everyone else knows to be true. In an education class I took last semester, I was surrounded by teachers who were taking the types of initiative that Laufenberg outlines. These teachers see an opportunity to make the lesson a moment of experiential learning, fuelled by the ideas and passions of the students. I believe this is the way education is headed, albeit slowly; it has to be. I like Laufenberg’s example of different generations’ access to technology; technology allows people to learn so much on their own outside of the education system that to try and teach by the methods used 50 or 60 years ago is counterproductive.
The idea of failure is interesting too, because I think western society is so afraid of it. Kids are taught that they have to achieve achieve achieve from the moment that they are born, as if they are in competition with other children as soon as the cord is cut. This society doesn’t allow room for not knowing how to do something, or getting something wrong. Failure is unavoidable and necessary, though, and I think that using it as a teaching tool as opposed to a cause for reprimanding or a loss of affection/respect/mojo could do a world of good.
I like that Sweeney’s article promotes the use of internet resources to “enhance the writing process for the teacher and the students.” It’s also interesting that she notes that students view technology as a necessity for learning. While I still use the archaic hard copy of the MLA Handbook and edit my papers with a red pen, students could probably do without it as long as they have RefWorks and can make annotations in Word. I like that writing, for youth, is becoming a collaborative process, and I think that a good group of minds together can produce some stellar work.
I’m interested to see what this week’s discussion will bring
(I think I say this every week. I think I mean it every week, too.)
jillian
25 Mar 11 at 3:13 pm
Technology in the Classroom:
I think that the standards and skills being proposed in the Sweeny article can be quite helpful in the current technological climate in the world. Students are using technology a lot outside of the classroom, so why not utilize this knowledge of technology within the classroom as well. Collaborative projects that use wikis or blogs can be especially helpful when seeing how many students interact with a text or idea, and they are able to see each others responses as well. Of course this can also lead to children being less forthcoming because their peers will view the material, but such is the experience of life in school anyway, it seems.
Language and Change:
Resistance to changes in language are fairly modern in the grand scheme of things, in English anyway. Until shortly before the Elizabethan period, English was not regulated and did not have any sort of consistency in terms of spelling or grammar. In even earlier times, around Chaucer, words could be spelled many different ways, as long as people could figure out what the word was. Today’s panic over changing language with chatspeak and other such “abominations” is, in my opinion anyway, just another form of resistance to change.
“The story” by Warlick:
As I briefly mentioned above, I do see the possibilities of more interactive technology being used in classrooms in the next little while. It’s already happening, so who’s to say it won’t become a quickly moving phenomenon within a few years. Just the fact that I had a blackboards in every classroom in elementary school, to having a television in each classroom in my high school, and later a projector and laptop dock in almost every lecture hall in my undergrad program is a sign to me that technology will be a constantly evolving classroom tool.
The Videos:
I truly enjoyed Diana Laufenburg’s video on experiential learning and learning from mistakes. I’ve been a huge proponent of this type of learning for a long time, and it’s great to see other advocates out there putting it into practice. Without the possibility of failure or mistake-making, children simply soak up information that they will eventually squeeze out on a test and then forget about later. But I also agree with Robinson in that evolving classrooms require people to change curricula and teaching styles and to challenge current ideas of teaching and educating. And there is also the challenge of equalizing education so everyone receives the same type. But as Sweeny says in her article, changes to the education system will involve trial and error.
The End.
Rob
25 Mar 11 at 3:22 pm
It seems redundant to keep mentioning the high quality of these blog posts and presentations, but thank you Magdalena for providing us with another week of really interesting material. Having been blessed with the opportunity to enjoy most of my primary and secondary education in the international school system, and not-so-blessed by my two years American public high schools, this level of education is something that I care about quite deeply and I’m glad to see that the materials you’ve presented don’t shy away from criticizing the system at its roots. Although Sir Ken Robinson spends a significant amount of his lecture working his stand up comedy routine, I think that the points he ultimately raises are extremely valid and I’m glad that he posits them in such a forceful manner. That kids are being groomed for college from kindergarten is a travesty, especially given that for many of them it will only lead to frustration and debt. I completely agree that people should be encouraged to pursue education and careers in fields that they are both good at and find rewarding, whatever “track” that might lead them on.
If only we all could have teachers like Diana Laufenberg, who seems to have an excellent grasp of how students can be encouraged to explore and learn on their own terms. I appreciated her criticism of the standardized-test-based model of education, and especially like the way that she highlights how students learn through failure. She seems to grasp well the way that technology can be applied to the classroom, and I think she is quite correct in pointing out that students (at least those with internet access) no longer need to physically come to school to have access to information, but they come to learn how to approach and make use of the information at their fingertips.
In this context the Sweeny article was also interesting, although I felt like it was targeted at teachers without much of a background in tech, and I was annoyed to see her referring to “Digital Natives,” a concept that I feel has been repeatedly debunked. It raised some interesting ideas for the integration of new media in the classroom, but despite my own technophilia, I’m not entirely convinced that technology itself is a “magic bullet” for improving the education system. For instance, she talks about using twitter and bogging platforms for class assignments, but in the context of Laufenberg’s “learning through failure” example, I’m not sure it would be appropriate to put these types of learning instruments online in such a public manner. I feel like this could inhibit the aspirations or creativity of kids who might be self conscious to even try something at the edge of their ability level in front of the class, let alone have it out there for the whole world to see. That said, I think that new media technology does indeed provide excellent tools that a teacher with the right attitude can apply in new and exciting ways (ie. Laufenberg having the kids do their own voiced-over video documentaries) and that in conjunction with a more serious overhaul of the ways in which we structure the standard education “track” and evaluate students, it could be greatly beneficial for students who will likely be using these technologies and communication tools in whatever vocation they choose to pursue in the future.
I think the issue of the “digital divide” is also worth exploring in this context; how might students that don’t have access to these types of online communication tools be at a disadvantage, and what might be done to remedy this is a topic that is also worth exploring, but perhaps I’ll save that for our class discussion.
schuyler
25 Mar 11 at 4:00 pm
I also really wish UBC blogs would allow you to go back and edit your posts..
schuyler
25 Mar 11 at 4:02 pm
It’s funny you mention that Schuyler, ’cause I was just thinking that myself…
Rob
25 Mar 11 at 4:35 pm
To begin, I would like to say that I would LOVE it if Eric could do a persuasive rap for us next class. Or perhaps he could do it collaboratively, since the ways of learning in the future seem to be collaborative. This is something that seems to be underlying to each of the articles here- the world is becoming more collaborative, and thus, education is becoming so. But I wonder if this is the case. I don’t recall doing too many group projects in school; sure the occasional one, but most learning was done independently. The focus on these new practices, and from what I’ve heard from teachers is on collaborative practices. Eric has talked some about this in class, but I wonder what brings on this need for collaboration. Is it due to what is generally a very solitary world online? Are we compensating for all the time people are spending solo, checking out websites and blogging? Or is it actually because “da youts” (as I have decided on this Friday night to call the younger generation) are already in constant connection with each other and so this is what they know? I’d be interested in knowing why there is this focus on teamwork in education, when, as Eric told us, children performed better working solo.
I agree with Schuyler as well about the concern of using public spaces as learning instruments; for a group- da youts- that is so concerned about constructing their identity, I think that a project in such a public space puts enormous pressure on children to not fail; something that goes against Laufenberg’s article. And I agree so wholeheartedly with Laufenberg’s arguments. I find it appalling that children in the Ontario school system can’t technically fail. I’m unsure if this is the practice across Canada these days, but what messages are we sending to children that they can’t fail? Like Robinson, I think that there are leaps and bounds needed to revolutionize the education system, and we need to create spaces for technology to play a real part in our system, but taking failure out of the picture is a terrible idea. It’s on its way though; teaching critical thinking is starting earlier and earlier, and I love to hear about new creative approaches to learning that are happening currently.
As a final note, I really liked Sweeney’s article also. Some of the things she mentioned I noted for my own writing purposes. I felt that her approach was very engaging, and it was nice to read something with such practical implications for the classroom. It’s an article I have already passed on to teacher friends; an easy to read, practical, and applicable on the spot article.
skmatson
25 Mar 11 at 7:59 pm
Stacey, can you write out the phonetic pronunciation of ‘da youts,’ just to ensure that I am hearing it correctly.
You see, us Newfoundlanders would say “da y-OW-ts,” but perhaps Calgarians – and mainlanders everywhere – would pronounce it differently.
jillian
25 Mar 11 at 8:08 pm
Sorry Jillian. I probably should have used “da yoots”. I feel certain though, that it will be spelled with a “u” when it is added to the Oxford dictionary next year.
skmatson
25 Mar 11 at 8:11 pm
I guess this is what I get for leaving my response until the last day, but it looks like everyone has covered most of what I wanted to say. Laufenberg’s video resonated the most with me, as it addresses one of the main points of my paper almost directly. The points about “experiential learning” and “student voice” were helpful as I consider the benefits that “Remix Culture” can bring to education.
I thought that Robinson’s video was highly entertaining, but perhaps a bit fluffy. It was very rousing, but I was hoping for some more concrete suggestions at the end. I’m firmly in favour of moving education away from a industrial model and more towards an agricultural model, as he said. I think apprenticeship and mentorship should be much more common in education than they are. One sticking point that I can see is that that would seem to require much more one-on-one time with students, which seems to be growing less and less common with growing class sizes. Perhaps technology can help in that area somehow?
Sweeney’s article was a good foundation in the broader definition of “communication literacy”, and I was happy to see her point out that communication is the key, rather than narrowing things down to writing, specifically. An interesting example of that was that one of the most interesting comments to Robinson’s video was simply a link to a clip from Pink Floyd’s The Wall. I’ve found using such tools as Google Docs and Dropbox immensely useful in the last two terms, and teaching that kind of collaborative literacy would seem to me to be very beneficial.
Warlick’s story was pretty neat, if a bit wide-eyed. As a tech-head, there wasn’t much in there that seemed terribly ground-breaking. I’m not sure why he thought it was necessary for us to know the size in inches of every display that was looked at, but I guess it was a good introduction to educators to help them prepare for just how integrated technology will become over the next few years.
Anyway, great topic and great comments! I’ll see you all tomorrow for some good discussion.
kifty
27 Mar 11 at 3:38 pm