Initial Reflection on the Public and Private Spheres of Gen M

What caught my attention when reading the chapter by Klapperstuck and Kearns was Gen M’s general expectation to be "involved, engaged, and in control of the creation and consumption of content” (p. 117). They don’t want to be told what is valuable or to be handed a final product that allows for no input. They want to be involved and hold a stake in what they consume. It is so exciting to me that they want to be innovative and creative in everything they do or are involved in. It also makes me think about how today’s high school students fare in traditional classrooms where the teacher tells and students are expected to intake and replicate. It makes me think about how I want students in my classroom to hold stake in what they’re expected to learn, while also recognizing that I have some responsibility to uphold standards. Is having input in content decisions and being creators of curriculum and products how Gen M learns best or how they prefer to interact with material? Is finding that middle ground good enough?

The needs and desires and lifestyle of Gen M seem to be a paradigm shift in just about everything. Because the online and physical worlds are indistinguishable to them, what was considered private to the generations before is more “publicly private” for Generation Millennium. Their access and potential influence is global. This takes me back to my fears, which may be a byproduct of my thinking belonging to an older generation, of a lack of knowledge about the implications of making private information public… and permanent. How do I teach my students responsible technology use when they may not even be able to conceptualize the risks or consequences involved in a globalized world? It also makes me think that I might be paranoid. Maybe Gen M is just ahead of the curve. Maybe they are the curve. Maybe they even created it. Good or bad, they are shaping what constitutes privacy and connectedness. And, right or wrong, I think I have some responsibility of my own to at least inform them of what they might be getting into.

Right?

Re: Question 27 of 365: What happens if we are wrong?

What if we're wrong? What if everything we believe in and work for and do day-in and day-out is wrong?

Then we're wrong.

There isn't much that we can do about it once that conclusion has been reached. Perhaps what's more important is: what did we do to get there?

I believe (perhaps in opposition to Ben, author of the original post) that there is something missing in online learning. I believe there is something lost between a physical classroom and a virtual one. Maybe it's not even the interaction; you can network in either sphere. Maybe it's not even the presence of an instructor; online classes usually have at least some sort of mediator for the content. Perhaps, then, it's my prejudice for flesh and blood. Maybe my traditional background has made me narrow-minded and biased. I just can't discount the feeling deep in my gut that teachers do more than mediate content. They are mentors and role models. They teach more than chemistry and provide more than their job description requires. They help us discover our potential and teach us how to believe in ourselves what they saw all along.

But, maybe I'm wrong. I have no proof. I've read no research and have no personal experience with online learning. All I've got is an ill-informed preconception and some fluffy words. So, if someday I'm proven wrong, knowing that how I got there was a result of ignorance and self-deluded beliefs, (and, assuming I don't change my ways) I'll accept that fate with a bit of self-indulgent sulking. But, if someday Ben is proven wrong, because he has had to justify and defend his beliefs all along, maybe he'll be a little less wrong. Maybe because his beliefs are more than an initial gut reaction--maybe because he's willing to put in the work to give that belief every chance at being right--maybe his "wrong" more closely resembles a "right."


Maybe what we really need to ask ourselves is: what am I really willing to be wrong for?


(Check out Ben Wilkoff's blog at learningischange.com)

Post-Class Reflection on Gee and Podcasting

Friday's class made me think more about the fact that Gee is more interested in applying the learning principles of good video games, rather than necessarily incorporating games into classroom curriculum. I think this is an important distinction that may be overlooked when reading his work. It's intriguing to me that he uses gaming as a model for how learning in school should occur; it sort of seems backwards. It seems like instead of drawing out principles, they should be infused in. What I mean to say is that, as with curriculum standards, we should have the learning principles we want incorporated into our classrooms already defined with an action plan for implementation to accompany them before we realize halfway through the "game" (or class) that we might actually be learning something. Because Gee is drawing these principles out--maybe even attributing them to the games--and using gaming as a catch-all model, it's hard for me to believe that his theory covers every good learning principle that students should encounter. There must be something that these games can't account for.

Now, a few words on podcasting: I honestly didn't think I would have as much fun as I did. Even though I still find it strange to listen to my own voice, the activity made me think more about how the tone and strength of my voice can affect the effectiveness of creating a "commercial" or podcast, and how my voice can affect my presence in the classroom. I knew this was going to be a struggle for me, but I hope to use this opportunity as practice for developing my presence!

Initial Reflection on James Paul Gee

Something that struck me in reading Good Video Games and Good Learning was Gee’s closing remark (and I’m paraphrasing): How can we make learning more like a video game that requires gamers to employ certain learning principles “when and if they are playing these games reflectively and strategically?” (p. 11, emphasis mine).

I guess I’m still processing what this would look like and how a teacher would be able to facilitate learning in this manner. In the video, when Gee was describing his experience with the manual for Deus Ex—not understanding a word of the technical language presented—and how after playing the game for a few hours and then returning to the manual he was somehow able to understand the lingo, it reminded me of foreign language immersion. From what I understand, language is best learned when the language-learner is fully immersed in a culture or group comprised of native speakers. Thus, this concept of not understanding words without experientially attaching meaning to them made sense to me. Maybe the problem with learning solely out of a textbook, or just memorizing facts, is that meaning is difficult—maybe impossible—to create without attaching it to experience. I know that’s not terribly profound, but I don’t think learning-by-doing and problem-solving is very prevalent or valued in school settings, yet our society clearly values inventors and innovators—those who, by nature, are hands-on.

The idea of making learning fun and engaging—even game-like—sounds great, but what does that look like? What if we can’t make every concept exciting for every student? How do we ensure that our students are engaging in a strategic and reflective manner? And how do we make this work in a system that holds opposing values? (Or, how do we change that system?)


(Sorry about all the hyphens, especially to the English majors. Please don’t ostracize me. Thanks.)

Post-Class Reflection on PLNs, Assessment, and Twitter

I think what I took away from Friday's class was the fact that there are a lot of technological tools available if you know where to look. Though I'm not familiar with Diigo, Evernote, backupify.com, or even Twitter yet, I can see that there is a lot of potential in sites like these. And the great part is: they're free!

It will take a lot of time investment on my part to explore and discover their capabilities, but I think it will be exciting when I figure out exactly what to do with them. I'm not afraid of learning, but I am afraid of using; specifically, I hope that I will focus on the "need" (as Kristin said), and not how many different things this site or that site can do. I would like to teach my students how to use technology (especially sites like Facebook and Twitter) responsibly--that whatever they upload or type has consequences--and I think that beyond just telling them, I need to demonstrate that responsibility through how I incorporate it into the curriculum.

Initial Reflection on PLNs, Assessment, and Twitter

Whoa.

I think these readings made my brain spin around a couple times and land on its back.

But in a good way.

Media Project 21 sounds simply amazing. Reading about this practice of integrating so many different forms of technology and creating a collaborative learning atmosphere that engages students in learning (and assesses them authentically!), while causing them to critically think about the way in which learning has traditionally occurred for them (whether they preferred this new experience or not) expanded my conception of technology in the classroom. What challenged my preconceptions the most was the idea that English classes may privilege certain types of texts, while marginalizing others, such as Tweets, simply because they do not occur in the traditional format of a textbook or paperback. This made me realize that just as the learning model of transmission of information was so engrained in some of the students that it was hard for them to accept this new model of learning, my conceptions of what literature (and the role of technology) is—or should be—can limit the learning of my students and my own effectiveness as a teacher.

Wow.

Post-Class Reflection on Dewey

There are always so many ideas from class and the readings that I could write about, but I would like to focus this response on Jeff's question: What is/should be the social function of school?

This reminds me of an earlier conversation that Chris brought up (in another class, I think) about inculturation and also makes me think about Antonia's question of whose home should be/is being modeled in the classroom (in response to Dewey). This more focused question on the social role (and influence) of the teacher is probably the one I have wrestled most with in approaching a philosophy of teaching of my own. Who am I to say what is good and acceptable? At the same time, though, I have a deeply rooted and firm belief and hope that all of my students will pursue higher education. What if they don't want to? I think that if they truly had goals that lay elsewhere, I would be able to accept their choice (as if I should be able to attribute value to my opinion on the matter). However, if they chose against dreaming of college because I did not do justice to contribute to the self-concept of their potential, then I would be heartbroken. But, where is the line that separates my being a good teacher and imparting and indoctrinating students with my values?

This takes my thoughts to the "Shy Guy" video. While David Smart's intentions were good, was the creation of such films ultimately a service or disservice to students and the school? Could our use of technology in the classroom and the remarks we make about socially-acceptable choices have the same impact? Maybe we truly won't know the consequences of our choices and practices until 20 years later. I don't know if I'm ready to accept that.