In this video, Karl Fisch and Scott McLeod emphasize the importance of technology. It clearly impacts our lives, even if we do not realize it. One fact said that if the amount of users on Myspace were to create a country, it would be the 5th largest in the world! Another fact said that it took only 4 years for the internet to have a market audience of 50 million whereas it took radio 38 years.
I think we should realize how quickly the world's human population is growing. The earth will soon hold 7 billion people. It is amazing, but also a reason for concern. If the human population continues to multiply at this rate, will the earth be able to sustain us? I guess that is part of the purpose of this video
Mr. Winkle Wakes by Mathew Needleman
Mr. Winkle Wakes compares how much life has changed in 100 years by taking the comical approach of putting an old man in the future. He walks around a large city seeing and hearing things he had never encountered before. The only thing that had not changed was the classroom and Mr. Winkle liked that. Whether or not one thinks this a good thing is for each video watcher to decide.
In my opinion, it is a good thing that the classroom has not changed very much. Professor Strange would probably disagree with me, but I will always believe the traditional classroom should consist of a teacher lecturing to his or her students. Yes, it might become dull or boring, but in the real world there are still meetings between company bosses and employees, church services, weddings, funerals, and special events with speakers! These events will not rely on technology so we must learn how to cope and be attentive when there is a lecturer (instead of pausing a video midway and taking a break to go get a snack or take a nap). I do agree that educators should be more innovative and creative in their lectures, but computers are not required for this. If we grow up in electronic classrooms that rely on technology to keep our students focused, what kind of future leaders will we be releasing into the world? On another note, technology does not make a good teacher; instead, a teacher's knowledge makes a good teacher. I had a professor just last year who never used the computer or technology, other than books, to create an amazing class experience. There was never a time when I became bored with his lecture. That is how a classroom should be. I am afraid if we rely too much on technology, it will eventually be unnecessary to have teachers that are highly educated in a specific field. The internet will become our teacher and there will be no control over what these "students" learn from their teacher.
Do not get me wrong, I am highly supportive of the advancement of technology and am a regular internet user, but I am wary of how much the internet, computers, and video game consoles are taking over our lives. One cannot deny the fact that the number of people who have heart disease and diabetes is growing rapidly.
The Importance of Creativity with Sir Ken Robinson
Sir Ken Robinson stresses that education is important to everyone. He claims it goes deep with everyone like religion or heritage. He effectively takes a humorous spin on his persuasive speech in order to grasp the audience's attention. Robinson claims creativity is as important as literacy in education. What makes children so creative is that they are not afraid to be wrong. As adults, we are very concerned about being seen as "wrong" so it affects our responses. We lose our creativity because we get educated out of creativity.
I especially agree with his statement that highly educated, brilliant students were taught that what they were good at was not worth anything. Their talents were not what was best for a job. This particular point reminds me of how much emphasis is placed on standardized test scores as the basis for getting into college. I did relatively well on my ACT , but not as well as I would have liked only because the score limited me from getting a decent 4-year scholarship. To me, this score was very artificial. It did not determine what kind of grades I would make or how hard I would work to make good grades. In fact, I have done way better than my ACT score "predicted." Yet, I know someone who made over a 30 on their ACT, got a full ride to the University of Alabama, and now does not even put out the effort they are capable of. Further, I would have loved to pursue an art career and solely an art career but I decided otherwise because of how difficult and unreliable an art career was. Instead, I am using my education degree as a "back-up" when my art career is not producing enough money to sustain me.
Another concern of Robinson's was academic inflation. This consists of more and more students becoming more highly educated so that it is much more difficult to find jobs with merely a 4-year degree. This is a difficult problem to solve, but I think Robinson's answer would be to educate students based on what they are good at. Do not limit their creativity. He explained that intelligence is diverse, dynamic, and distinct. I think if we focus on these three portions of intelligence, we might become better educators who release a variety of unique people into the world.
Can U.S. Students Compete? with Cecelia Gault and Sir Ken Robinson
In this video, Ken Robinson answers the questions of Cecelia Gault. She asks about the three myths of creativity and I believe Ken Robinson is very right in all three. He also says that people automatically think that creativity can only be in artistic type subjects like advertising, graphic art, and performing arts but this is not true. There can be creativity in science and math or any subject. I think I could make sure the Cecelia Gault's in my classroom had a good education by finding out what they were good at in particular. Then I would try to focus on helping them become creative in this particular field by making them think outside the box.
Robinson says that computers should be at the center of education now. While I have made it clear that I do not think they should be the focus or purpose in the classroom, I will certainly encourage my students to use computers in the labs or at home to research and learn about subjects discussed in my class.
Harness Your Students' Digital Smarts with Vicki Davis
Vicki Davis explained how she believed that a paper and pencil classroom could help certain students succeed but not all of them. She believes through her computer-based education, that every student is encouraged to succeed.
What bothers me about this video is that I never really understood what subject this teacher was actually teaching. Global communication? If this is this case, let students do this at home on their own time. I am glad Davis is becoming innovative and trying to show students new ways of learning, this is what teachers should do, but I do not think this is the way. People my age and younger already know how to use computers, so why should we teach children something they already know about? The point of education is to learn new things in math and science, learn about our past and where we came from, learn how to write and read properly. Yes this is the traditional way of doing things, but educators can be better today by learning where each of their students are excelling and using this knowledge to encourage the student to pursue this talent. This way we will not allow our students to lose creativity.
You're post was very well written, Elizabeth! I don't think the point of these assignments is that you agree with everything completely, but that you think deeper about what kind of classroom environment you would like to establish. Which, it seems, you have done! It is good that you are not only summarizing the material but that you are finding ways to relate it to the kind of educator you would like to be.
ReplyDeleteSo, keep up the good work. :)
Thank you! I feel my post was lengthy, but I could not find places that I would be alright with cutting text out. I am glad you like it though. Thanks for commenting on mine!
ReplyDeleteIt's a huge leap from teachers integrating multimedia and giving students an opportunity to connect their learning to the outside world to having computers take over our lives and make teachers irrelevant. I'm not sure it's a logical jump. I appreciate your desire to have your teachers lecture all day but evidently it's not working for students who've dropped out of school or for lower income students whose only access to technology is in the classroom.
ReplyDeleteMathew (Needleman?),
ReplyDeleteI understand where you are coming from. Yes, there is a problem with people dropping out of school and lower income students who only have access to technology in the classroom. When I claimed that technology might replace the teacher, my point was to emphasize that the need for well-educated teachers will become less and less important because technology will do all the work for them. The students who drop out of school have personal issues which cannot be blamed on the education system. The education system should do everything in its power to counsel and help these students, but in the end dropping out is the student's own decision to make. Besides, consider the percentage of drop out from high school compared to those who graduate from high school. The majority of people stick through it.
I understand that the lower income students do not fit into this category. There is a problem in this regard. However, this is a matter of schools getting more funding to provide the technology in computer labs, etc. and not an issue with teachers integrating technology into the actual classroom.
Technology MAY help us. I think will help us is a bit strong. It depends on how individuals and groups use technology.
ReplyDeleteSo you have an interesting conversation going with Mr. Needleman. It really is a small world!
You are right about my thoughts on lectures. But that is not a disagreement about the use or non use of technology. It has to do with what we want students to know, be able to do and have experienced. Lectures convey information. When the lecturer is good the information is successfully conveyed. But information can also be accessed, often more efficiently, through Internet searches. If you know how to do them AND how to vet the data you find. Many people can't do that well. We need to teach them how because we can't carry our lecturers around with us. But an even more question is whether the objective of education is to learn facts or to be able to access facts when needed and then to USE the successfully in solving problems. Or at least making an effort to solve problems.
We will continue to debate this issue. Carly is absolutely correct when she says we want you to THINK and that is obviously what you are doing!
I think you miss the point of Vicki Davis' video. If you have better tools at your disposal you can perform better. She is not teaching technology. She is using technology to teach what schools think should be taught in what she believes to be a more effective and efficient manner. And global communications. Relegate that to home. In a world that is becoming more interconnected every day. I think a good argument can be made that global communications should be a CENTRAL effort of schools - in school!
Keep on thinking. That is exactly what we want to happen in EDM310!
Dear Professor Strange,
ReplyDeleteI can see your point about how searching the internet for topics can be much quicker and easier than listening to a lecturer, but does that not remove what makes a student inspired? Hearing a great lecturer orate right in front of a classroom gives much more emphasis than say just watching a video of someone online or reading an article online. The students can feel that the physical lecturer is speaking to them personally. You are right, we cannot carry our lecturers around with us, that is why we need to produce greater, better quality (and more) lecturers through college education.
To answer your question about the objective of education, I think it can be about both learning facts and being able to access facts when needed and then use them to successfully solve problems. Consider that I will most likely become a history teacher (I do not know what kind of history yet, but let's assume it is American History). Shouldn't I expect my students to be able to recall the date our country gained its independence? That is not something I want them to have to search the web to find out. When I tell them that it is July 4, 1776, I expect them to store that information in their minds. Now, if I were to tell them to answer the implications as to why and how the U.S. gained its independence, yes, I do expect them to access facts through the internet to attempt to solve this problem.
You are right about Vicki Davis' video! However, if the subject of her class WAS solely "Global Communication," I do not think that is a good class to have. Instead, the school should integrate global communication into the social studies classes, art classes, math classes, english classes, and science classes instead of having a completely separate class for "Global Communication."
I am glad you do not totally hate me for (what you may call stubborn) beliefs. I have always been one to hold firm to what I believe in and I am trying to show that through these blog posts. I won't let the criticism stop me!
Elizabeth this was a great post. I agree with Carly in that i believe we are not supposed to completely agree with the way things are, but how we can use our perspective to change them to benefit our classroom. I think that it is a great thing to add technology and media to the classroom as long as it is used properly. Students now have phones that are almost like mini computers in their pockets that become a huge distraction during class time, which could become a problem if it isn't already. As long as we as educators continue to grow and learn, integrating technology into the classroom could prove to be extremely helpful.
ReplyDelete