Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Monday, October 10, 2011
Parade's Article Generation Wired
Generation Wired / Parade.com
This happens to be a good general read on the issue of children and technology. As stated, this age group averages the use of technology on average about nine hours a day. And yes, there is no denying that this nonstop connectivity is having an affect on social and intellectual development as well as perhaps even rewiring this generation's brains. But as the article points out, the principal responsibility lies first with the parents, their commitment to talk about using technology and being aware of their child's use of it not only at home but outside, too.
But if you think about it, us Generation X'ers have undergone our own technology revolution. We went from 8-tracks, to cassettes, to CDs, to MP3s. How many of us remember actually changing the channel by moving a dial on the television set when we were five or six (would you know how to manually change the channel on a LED touch screen set today if the remote went out)? Video killed the radio star back in 1980, yet civilization has not ceased to exist (I listen to Democracy Now, not watch it, even though it's available in that format, too). And if you still have a landline, well, you really are dating yourself. Let go, let wireless (and save some money, too).
Nowadays, teaching and technology is a symbiotic relationship, as educators we should be fostering this relationship in an effective and positive manner.
This happens to be a good general read on the issue of children and technology. As stated, this age group averages the use of technology on average about nine hours a day. And yes, there is no denying that this nonstop connectivity is having an affect on social and intellectual development as well as perhaps even rewiring this generation's brains. But as the article points out, the principal responsibility lies first with the parents, their commitment to talk about using technology and being aware of their child's use of it not only at home but outside, too.
But if you think about it, us Generation X'ers have undergone our own technology revolution. We went from 8-tracks, to cassettes, to CDs, to MP3s. How many of us remember actually changing the channel by moving a dial on the television set when we were five or six (would you know how to manually change the channel on a LED touch screen set today if the remote went out)? Video killed the radio star back in 1980, yet civilization has not ceased to exist (I listen to Democracy Now, not watch it, even though it's available in that format, too). And if you still have a landline, well, you really are dating yourself. Let go, let wireless (and save some money, too).
Nowadays, teaching and technology is a symbiotic relationship, as educators we should be fostering this relationship in an effective and positive manner.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Saturday, March 5, 2011
They learn the way I did, and that's the way it is!
Marc Prensky's Article
Our cohort this week had a lively discussion based on this reading. More specifically, it wasn't the differences and challenges between teacher (Digital Immigrant for the most part) and Digital Native (i.e. student) but rather between those of us who are self-actualized Digital Immigrants and our démodé (it was the most eloquent term I could come up with) colleagues. After reading the article, I had to submit a reflection and using my blog as well as our cohort's discussion board to communicate it. It read:
The article by Prensky struck a chord with me. On the pedagogical level, throughout this entire program it has been determined through research studies that technology has a positive impact on strengthening literacy and most effective when it is supported by the leadership of the school, is implemented as part of the school wide vision and is integrated in all content areas of the curriculum. But through our discussions we have come to realize that at this stage of re-tooling education - and I point out that most of the articles we read are from the first half of the first decade of the 21st century - for many of us this is a pie-in-the-sky aspiration. For many of us who are self-actualized Digital Immigrants, by way of as Prensky (2001) points out "have become fascinated by and adopted many or most aspects of the new technology" (p.1), our struggles lie not so much in the classroom between teacher and student, but rather between the majority of Digital Immigrant (not self-actualized I would venture, but rather identified by others) instructors whose digital "accent" they deny, whose outdated language remains status quo, who disregard the Natives' skills of processing information, who are firm in their belief that learners now are the same as when they were students therefore no change in methodology is warranted, and as stated in the article "spend most of their time grousing". I would extend this behavior by these people as being directed more towards their forward-thinking colleagues rather than their pupils. As we enter the second decade of this century, how can those of us identified as pioneers, trailblazers and agitators of the set system come forward from the shadows of our classrooms and see our technologically-integrated endeavors as valid, achievement-producing instruction? On the personal level, I am not in a system-wide approach and have had to fend off my research-based instructional use and implementation of technology in the classroom to the point where my "free spirit" ways are attacked vehemently and it is I who have to mollify those offended by my practices? How can it be explained that the technology boat has come and gone to this population of educators who as Prensky states, "have to learn to communicate in the language and style of their students" (p.4)? Could the answer be that as older teachers are replaced with Digital Native teachers, it won't be an issue of whether or not technology will replace teachers, but rather teachers who teach with technology - Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives alike - will?
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
Our cohort this week had a lively discussion based on this reading. More specifically, it wasn't the differences and challenges between teacher (Digital Immigrant for the most part) and Digital Native (i.e. student) but rather between those of us who are self-actualized Digital Immigrants and our démodé (it was the most eloquent term I could come up with) colleagues. After reading the article, I had to submit a reflection and using my blog as well as our cohort's discussion board to communicate it. It read:
The article by Prensky struck a chord with me. On the pedagogical level, throughout this entire program it has been determined through research studies that technology has a positive impact on strengthening literacy and most effective when it is supported by the leadership of the school, is implemented as part of the school wide vision and is integrated in all content areas of the curriculum. But through our discussions we have come to realize that at this stage of re-tooling education - and I point out that most of the articles we read are from the first half of the first decade of the 21st century - for many of us this is a pie-in-the-sky aspiration. For many of us who are self-actualized Digital Immigrants, by way of as Prensky (2001) points out "have become fascinated by and adopted many or most aspects of the new technology" (p.1), our struggles lie not so much in the classroom between teacher and student, but rather between the majority of Digital Immigrant (not self-actualized I would venture, but rather identified by others) instructors whose digital "accent" they deny, whose outdated language remains status quo, who disregard the Natives' skills of processing information, who are firm in their belief that learners now are the same as when they were students therefore no change in methodology is warranted, and as stated in the article "spend most of their time grousing". I would extend this behavior by these people as being directed more towards their forward-thinking colleagues rather than their pupils. As we enter the second decade of this century, how can those of us identified as pioneers, trailblazers and agitators of the set system come forward from the shadows of our classrooms and see our technologically-integrated endeavors as valid, achievement-producing instruction? On the personal level, I am not in a system-wide approach and have had to fend off my research-based instructional use and implementation of technology in the classroom to the point where my "free spirit" ways are attacked vehemently and it is I who have to mollify those offended by my practices? How can it be explained that the technology boat has come and gone to this population of educators who as Prensky states, "have to learn to communicate in the language and style of their students" (p.4)? Could the answer be that as older teachers are replaced with Digital Native teachers, it won't be an issue of whether or not technology will replace teachers, but rather teachers who teach with technology - Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives alike - will?
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Making a Difference - Darren Kuropatwa
The inspiration to dare to be 'messy', to hand over the reins of teaching and design of lessons to the students does not come easy for every educator. But I find a kindred spirit in Mr. Kuropatwa, and inspiration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)