3:57 AM
ari sari
I'm facilitating an online class regarding "21st Century Teaching and Learning - The Need For Change" One of the reading assignments was to read this article by Marc Prensky, and comment: http://www.learningaccount.net/Course_Files/T21C001_045.htm
Below is the comment from one of the teachers. I've received his permission to post this here. As you can see, it's a very thoughful response to the article. I'm wondering how YOU would respond to him. Your THOUGHTFUL comments are welcomed and appreciated. If you'd prefer to send your response to me outside of the blog, you can find me at jgates513 on gmail.
---
Actually, this article seemed to contain everything wrong with educational "research" and "thought". As usual, some people working on their doctorates in education (who probably have about 1 years' teaching experience, if that) take a simple concept we all could agree on like, "we should use multimedia tools in our teaching to connect with students when necessary" and have turned it into a lot of rubbish about how students think differently and can only learn in disjointed, multitasking sorts of ways, which is patent nonsense.What all does this article get wrong? let me enumerate:
1. "The most prevalent change in how we use the Internet in the 21st Century is not as much in the ability to publish information as it is the ability to share and connect with others from around the globe." - Perhaps true as to how people use the internet in their day to day lives, but not true for teaching. The problem with constructing a "student-centered" curriculum where the students spend their time "learning" by connecting with their peers all over the world through blogs and whatnot is that this only works if the student knows the material already. Unless Plato was right and we are born knowing everything and simply need to remember it, then this is clearly not true. The whole point of a teacher is that the teacher knows more about the topic than you do, and you need them to impart their knowledge to you before you can really do anything with it. Certainly, using online tools like blogs to potentially allow students to demonstrate their knowledge of a topic AFTER they have learned it initially is a fine idea. The expanding/refining stage is where authentic assignments should be used, whether they are electronic in nature or not. But before that point, when all is said and done and all the bells and whistles are examined, nothing beats a well-constructed, focused lecture (with an essential question, mind you) and nothing ever will, I dare say.
2. "According to Diana and James Oblinger (2005), today's students learn differently than previous generations and as a result they feel disconnected from schools that were designed for another time." Balderdash! As if students loved school in the past! That would of course explain why my father, who went on to eventually graduate from college summa cum laude, dropped out of high school in 1959 and joined the army - he felt disconnected from the lack of technology being used in school . . . oh wait, never mind! Seriously, I could find you writings from ancient Romans bemoaning how little they understand about their kids - so just because kids seem disconnected in school doesn't necessarily have to do with technology. More likely its the usual reasons - they see us, like their parents, as authority figures trying to "keep them down".
3. "Students are coming into our classrooms ready to learn in digital ways that are familiar to them and instead they are just sitting there with pencil and paper in hand not engaged and not learning." - Not necessarily true at all. The mistaken premise here is that if a student isn't on a cell phone or a lap top, they're not learning, and if they are playing with a techie doo-dad, they are. I've had some of my best results getting students to think critically by having them write an essay or by doing a role play, neither or which involves technology at all. I have been involved in classes that were very technology rich, but little learning was going on, because everyone was playing Tomb Raider or IMing each other. What matters is not necessarily how much technology you are using. Instead, what matters is if you are moving past pure memorization to higher level thinking. If you can use technology to do that, so be it, but if not, it doesn't make it any less authentic.
I should note that according to the activity that goes with this course, I am a pure "digital native". I am not a Luddite. I can certainly see the importance of relating to students and the way they think outside of school. I often look up their lingo on the Urban Dictionary. I can sing much of Kanye West's "Stronger", and I can even dance the "Soulja Boy" dance, much to the amusement of my students. However, I don't think that having my students make up a rap video about the French Revolution would be a good idea. It might be a very technology rich activity, but most students would rightly regard it as silly busy work, and little actual learning would take place.
This article confuses the "technologically rich" muddle most of us find ourselves it with higher level thinking, and the two are NOT the same.
Below is the comment from one of the teachers. I've received his permission to post this here. As you can see, it's a very thoughful response to the article. I'm wondering how YOU would respond to him. Your THOUGHTFUL comments are welcomed and appreciated. If you'd prefer to send your response to me outside of the blog, you can find me at jgates513 on gmail.
---
Actually, this article seemed to contain everything wrong with educational "research" and "thought". As usual, some people working on their doctorates in education (who probably have about 1 years' teaching experience, if that) take a simple concept we all could agree on like, "we should use multimedia tools in our teaching to connect with students when necessary" and have turned it into a lot of rubbish about how students think differently and can only learn in disjointed, multitasking sorts of ways, which is patent nonsense.What all does this article get wrong? let me enumerate:
1. "The most prevalent change in how we use the Internet in the 21st Century is not as much in the ability to publish information as it is the ability to share and connect with others from around the globe." - Perhaps true as to how people use the internet in their day to day lives, but not true for teaching. The problem with constructing a "student-centered" curriculum where the students spend their time "learning" by connecting with their peers all over the world through blogs and whatnot is that this only works if the student knows the material already. Unless Plato was right and we are born knowing everything and simply need to remember it, then this is clearly not true. The whole point of a teacher is that the teacher knows more about the topic than you do, and you need them to impart their knowledge to you before you can really do anything with it. Certainly, using online tools like blogs to potentially allow students to demonstrate their knowledge of a topic AFTER they have learned it initially is a fine idea. The expanding/refining stage is where authentic assignments should be used, whether they are electronic in nature or not. But before that point, when all is said and done and all the bells and whistles are examined, nothing beats a well-constructed, focused lecture (with an essential question, mind you) and nothing ever will, I dare say.
2. "According to Diana and James Oblinger (2005), today's students learn differently than previous generations and as a result they feel disconnected from schools that were designed for another time." Balderdash! As if students loved school in the past! That would of course explain why my father, who went on to eventually graduate from college summa cum laude, dropped out of high school in 1959 and joined the army - he felt disconnected from the lack of technology being used in school . . . oh wait, never mind! Seriously, I could find you writings from ancient Romans bemoaning how little they understand about their kids - so just because kids seem disconnected in school doesn't necessarily have to do with technology. More likely its the usual reasons - they see us, like their parents, as authority figures trying to "keep them down".
3. "Students are coming into our classrooms ready to learn in digital ways that are familiar to them and instead they are just sitting there with pencil and paper in hand not engaged and not learning." - Not necessarily true at all. The mistaken premise here is that if a student isn't on a cell phone or a lap top, they're not learning, and if they are playing with a techie doo-dad, they are. I've had some of my best results getting students to think critically by having them write an essay or by doing a role play, neither or which involves technology at all. I have been involved in classes that were very technology rich, but little learning was going on, because everyone was playing Tomb Raider or IMing each other. What matters is not necessarily how much technology you are using. Instead, what matters is if you are moving past pure memorization to higher level thinking. If you can use technology to do that, so be it, but if not, it doesn't make it any less authentic.
I should note that according to the activity that goes with this course, I am a pure "digital native". I am not a Luddite. I can certainly see the importance of relating to students and the way they think outside of school. I often look up their lingo on the Urban Dictionary. I can sing much of Kanye West's "Stronger", and I can even dance the "Soulja Boy" dance, much to the amusement of my students. However, I don't think that having my students make up a rap video about the French Revolution would be a good idea. It might be a very technology rich activity, but most students would rightly regard it as silly busy work, and little actual learning would take place.
This article confuses the "technologically rich" muddle most of us find ourselves it with higher level thinking, and the two are NOT the same.
Posted in: 
