What are your your concerns about our student's use of new media? Can you see using any of these forms in your teaching?
25 comments:
Anonymous
said...
For those against Wikipedia - I think Wikipedia is a great source. I as a student know not to cite wikipedia itself, but wikipedia is getting better and better. They require sources and at the bottom of each article are sources. The same way i was taught to look at the bibliography in the back of a book to look for more sources, i can now do that on Wikipedia. Kids should be taught to do this, to find more resources and not cite just Wikipedia.
I think it is quite natural for us to be skeptical and even scared by new media that kids use but that we (adults) don't use. I find that adults are far less concerned about student TV use than their use of social networking sites, gaming, cell phones, etc. despite the fact that most youth spend far more time on TV than new media and there is lots of research tying TV use to increase in aggression.
I think there are things to be concerned about (cyber bullying, violence and misogony in gaming) but if we reject the positive opportunities and implication of new media we not only loose credibility with young people but we miss the opportunity to use new tools.
I would not bring a violent video game into the classroom without carefully assessing its impact on my students but that should be equally true about provocative literature.
Just quickly....I wish it were easier to find out the actual year that a video on You Tube was produced. Also, there are no sources for the data. That said, I do buy into what is being said on Shift Happens.
new media is a great tool and a powerful foe in the context to the development to children. We as teens will find ways to get to the blocked sites at school and create new and better ways to get around teachers and rule makers to get t where we feel we want to be.this is how we as teens have adapted to this new vastly changing world.
Some of us were talking at lunch yesterday about new media and particularly wikipedia. Reflecting on that conversation, I think we have to understand that new media can be used in such a huge variety of ways with some ways being effective and some less effective and then everything in between. We have to continually evaluate and re-group. I know of several educational technology gurus who propose using cell phones in classes as well as iPods, but a teacher would have to be VERY on-the-ball and be providing students with a VERY exciting learning experience for these tools not to become a distraction.
As an educator and media literacy trainer, I think we have our work cut out for us - we have no idea yet how or whether to teach about new media or using new media in our classrooms - there's no developmental plan for what a kindergartener should know, what a fifth grader should be able to do, etc. Given the glacially slow way in which our public school systems seem to change, it seems like by the time the schools change their curriculum, it will be too late - the new media will be different...
With respect to Shift Happens, I find the statistics astonishing, and as a "digital immigrant" I feel immediately overwhelmed. But I wonder if these kinds of statistics seem frightening to my students? or do they seem tremendously exciting?
Sandy you bring up an excellent point about wanting to know when the film was made, and where the statistics come from. Recognizing the trends in technological advancement currently it is not difficult to believe that these are plausible. One wonders what the impact of this kind of technological advance will be on the human race...both positively and negatively.
My concern is not that my students use new media; it is that many of them are not using it beyond its immediate social benefits. I'd like to see more of them using new media to make a positive impact on the world around them via social activism, personal growth and career preparation.
I'm looking forward to working with my students on using some of these new forms to help prepare them to be proactive producers in the world they will live in and not just consumers of information, ideas, etc.
I am not necessarily against Wikipedia or You Tube but I do have my reservations about both of them. Reservations because I know that young students sometimes fail to compare information from different sources either out of laziness or limitations to other sources, thus, they rely on one source of media for information.....be it entirely factual or not. As educators, it is our responsibility to expose students to new media AND to continue to educate our students on the importance of comparing sources....to avoid being limited to one-sided information. Great tools if used correctly.
One of the concerns about students (and adults) using new media is that we will lose that face to face interaction with others. There seem to be two schools of thought among the faculty at my school: one is all for having the students using technology in the curriculum and another that is opposed to it because the students are exposed to SO much of it already. We have had discussions about teaching printing and cursive vs. teaching keyboarding in 2nd and 3rd grade. While I hold to the fact that legible printing and cursive are marks of literacy, I'm also excited by the possibilities for student learning presented by technology. There are perhaps dangers associated with the use of new media but I feel it is my job as an educator to help these young people learn to navigate through it with an aware and critical mind.
In response to shift happens, what was up with the ominous music when it was describing all the advances? I mean, we have always been on this track to invent new and better things, and robots seem now to actually be a possibility. It stinks that the first year students learning new media in tech schools are going to have outdated skills 3 years in, but at least they are more advanced than other people, plus they will probably keep up with the advances in technology.
I am not against students using new media, but I think the lack of control of some things such as websites which can be quickly changed can be dangerous because...well here's an example...say I made up a term, such as the term "cracker" for a white person was not just a description of them being like a saltine, but that it came from the fact that they used to crack whips at slaves. Now imagine someone else reads that, and says well that makes sense to me. And then they post something saying that. And there are lots of sources now agreeing. There was no truth in the original statement, but it is verifiable on the web. My concern is that what can be found is not justified or true.
while the facts presented by "shift happens" are startling, I do not believe that a computer will ever EXCEED the intelligence of a human being. I do not believe that creativity or moral reasoning can be programmed. On another note, people are already growing frustrated with the trend of replacing people with machines (i.e. automated menus when calling 800 numbers). Will we allow this trend to continue?
I found the piece "shift happens" pretty vapid. It keeps talking about computational ability, as if that has a lot to do with leading a quality life. Computation is a very small percentage of what human, minds, hearts, and bodies do.
In a way the title, a parody on "shit happens" is further evidence for the above argument. "What does this mean?" the final question sounds quite ominous after the barrage of words. Yet, in the end, "shift happens" says very little that's different from "shit happens." Yup, change is constant, and we produce shit constantly. Where's the new information?
So I get confirmed in my view that technology is a tool, neither positive nor negative, but with all sorts of interesting possibilities. Technology, however, cannot end poverty, hunger, or war, and those are our major challenges in the coming era.
Will we take seriously the challenge of using media in order to support the struggle to end poverty, hunger, destruction of the environment, and war? For me, that's the question that matters.
I love what you said, Shayla! Let's hope that the young folks can change the world in a positive way. Using some of the new web 2.0 tools should make that shift happen even easier! :)
The "Did You Know Video?" can easily be perceived as a fear tactic for educators (propaganda) because so many people tie their identity to what they do for a living.If I am not the primary source of information or guiding the discussion, then obviously people are not capable of having it.
My fear is that we will not trust our students or public in general to process information and let it become their own truth, that we would grant them the power to construct it, and talk about it in our classrooms, that we would not feel like we would have to control it, the discussion or impose our views because we will shut them off, and they will find other outlets to have these discussions because they are available elsewhere. That we would bridge the disconnect....
When I see the reports on how quickly technology is evolving, and how much information will be easily accessible to us, I wonder if this is a good thing or not. I believe information is empowerment, but only if it translates into knowledge. Knowledge signifies understanding. Information is just information. What's the use of having all this information if we are not being taught to discern, and understand how this all this information can make us better human beings. The question for me is how all of this can make us better people.
As new media forms in my lifetime I'm worried that people of my age groups will forget. Forget the perpose and values of history. The importance and impacts of it. Also how it has effected what is today. We wont be able to understand that fact that progress is important and thats the only way to make progress is to be able to see from example. I like that we are being exposed to newer things but i would appreciate it better knowing that it wasn't always there.
I agree with Matt about Wikipedia and I find the prohibitions on its use mostly troubling. I am not convinced that the "vetting" process for the knowledge we accept as official is all that great. I do think it works somewhat better than complete democracy of ideas, but it consistency leaves out valuable information which contests the kinds of stability the dominant culture rests on. All knowledge must be considered with a certain amount of skepticism.
25 comments:
For those against Wikipedia - I think Wikipedia is a great source. I as a student know not to cite wikipedia itself, but wikipedia is getting better and better. They require sources and at the bottom of each article are sources. The same way i was taught to look at the bibliography in the back of a book to look for more sources, i can now do that on Wikipedia. Kids should be taught to do this, to find more resources and not cite just Wikipedia.
I think it is quite natural for us to be skeptical and even scared by new media that kids use but that we (adults) don't use. I find that adults are far less concerned about student TV use than their use of social networking sites, gaming, cell phones, etc. despite the fact that most youth spend far more time on TV than new media and there is lots of research tying TV use to increase in aggression.
I think there are things to be concerned about (cyber bullying, violence and misogony in gaming) but if we reject the positive opportunities and implication of new media we not only loose credibility with young people but we miss the opportunity to use new tools.
I would not bring a violent video game into the classroom without carefully assessing its impact on my students but that should be equally true about provocative literature.
Just quickly....I wish it were easier to find out the actual year that a video on You Tube was produced. Also, there are no sources for the data. That said, I do buy into what is being said on Shift Happens.
Thanks Sandy. Yea, who produced this, for what purpose and is it credible?
new media is a great tool and a powerful foe in the context to the development to children. We as teens will find ways to get to the blocked sites at school and create new and better ways to get around teachers and rule makers to get t where we feel we want to be.this is how we as teens have adapted to this new vastly changing world.
Some of us were talking at lunch yesterday about new media and particularly wikipedia. Reflecting on that conversation, I think we have to understand that new media can be used in such a huge variety of ways with some ways being effective and some less effective and then everything in between. We have to continually evaluate and re-group. I know of several educational technology gurus who propose using cell phones in classes as well as iPods, but a teacher would have to be VERY on-the-ball and be providing students with a VERY exciting learning experience for these tools not to become a distraction.
As an educator and media literacy trainer, I think we have our work cut out for us - we have no idea yet how or whether to teach about new media or using new media in our classrooms - there's no developmental plan for what a kindergartener should know, what a fifth grader should be able to do, etc. Given the glacially slow way in which our public school systems seem to change, it seems like by the time the schools change their curriculum, it will be too late - the new media will be different...
With respect to Shift Happens, I find the statistics astonishing, and as a "digital immigrant" I feel immediately overwhelmed. But I wonder if these kinds of statistics seem frightening to my students? or do they seem tremendously exciting?
Sandy you bring up an excellent point about wanting to know when the film was made, and where the statistics come from. Recognizing the trends in technological advancement currently it is not difficult to believe that these are plausible. One wonders what the impact of this kind of technological advance will be on the human race...both positively and negatively.
My concern is not that my students use new media; it is that many of them are not using it beyond its immediate social benefits. I'd like to see more of them using new media to make a positive impact on the world around them via social activism, personal growth and career preparation.
I'm looking forward to working with my students on using some of these new forms to help prepare them to be proactive producers in the world they will live in and not just consumers of information, ideas, etc.
I am not necessarily against Wikipedia or You Tube but I do have my reservations about both of them. Reservations because I know that young students sometimes fail to compare information from different sources either out of laziness or limitations to other sources, thus, they rely on one source of media for information.....be it entirely factual or not. As educators, it is our responsibility to expose students to new media AND to continue to educate our students on the importance of comparing sources....to avoid being limited to one-sided information.
Great tools if used correctly.
One of the concerns about students (and adults) using new media is that we will lose that face to face interaction with others. There seem to be two schools of thought among the faculty at my school: one is all for having the students using technology in the curriculum and another that is opposed to it because the students are exposed to SO much of it already. We have had discussions about teaching printing and cursive vs. teaching keyboarding in 2nd and 3rd grade. While I hold to the fact that legible printing and cursive are marks of literacy, I'm also excited by the possibilities for student learning presented by technology. There are perhaps dangers associated with the use of new media but I feel it is my job as an educator to help these young people learn to navigate through it with an aware and critical mind.
In response to shift happens, what was up with the ominous music when it was describing all the advances? I mean, we have always been on this track to invent new and better things, and robots seem now to actually be a possibility. It stinks that the first year students learning new media in tech schools are going to have outdated skills 3 years in, but at least they are more advanced than other people, plus they will probably keep up with the advances in technology.
I am not against students using new media, but I think the lack of control of some things such as websites which can be quickly changed can be dangerous because...well here's an example...say I made up a term, such as the term "cracker" for a white person was not just a description of them being like a saltine, but that it came from the fact that they used to crack whips at slaves. Now imagine someone else reads that, and says well that makes sense to me. And then they post something saying that. And there are lots of sources now agreeing. There was no truth in the original statement, but it is verifiable on the web. My concern is that what can be found is not justified or true.
we love when teachers want to work with us so we can help each other further and better each other thank u shayla
while the facts presented by "shift happens" are startling, I do not believe that a computer will ever EXCEED the intelligence of a human being. I do not believe that creativity or moral reasoning can be programmed.
On another note, people are already growing frustrated with the trend of replacing people with machines (i.e. automated menus when calling 800 numbers). Will we allow this trend to continue?
Anonymous Barbara said...
I found the piece "shift happens" pretty vapid. It keeps talking about computational ability, as if that has a lot to do with leading a quality life. Computation is a very small percentage of what human, minds, hearts, and bodies do.
In a way the title, a parody on "shit happens" is further evidence for the above argument. "What does this mean?" the final question sounds quite ominous after the barrage of words. Yet, in the end, "shift happens" says very little that's different from "shit happens." Yup, change is constant, and we produce shit constantly. Where's the new information?
So I get confirmed in my view that technology is a tool, neither positive nor negative, but with all sorts of interesting possibilities. Technology, however, cannot end poverty, hunger, or war, and those are our major challenges in the coming era.
Will we take seriously the challenge of using media in order to support the struggle to end poverty, hunger, destruction of the environment, and war? For me, that's the question that matters.
July 17, 2008 10:00 AM
I love what you said, Shayla! Let's hope that the young folks can change the world in a positive way. Using some of the new web 2.0 tools should make that shift happen even easier! :)
The "Did You Know Video?" can easily be perceived as a fear tactic for educators (propaganda) because so many people tie their identity to what they do for a living.If I am not the primary source of information or guiding the discussion, then obviously people are not capable of having it.
My fear is that we will not trust our students or public in general to process information and let it become their own truth, that we would grant them the power to construct it, and talk about it in our classrooms, that we would not feel like we would have to control it, the discussion or impose our views because we will shut them off, and they will find other outlets to have these discussions because they are available elsewhere. That we would bridge the disconnect....
wikipedia is an awesome sight in which we use it everyday in order to get info we dont have on people and events.
does art imitate life or does life imitate art...or varying combinations of the two?
my challenge is to help students use new media to their educational advantage...skill building etc.
When I see the reports on how quickly technology is evolving, and how much information will be easily accessible to us, I wonder if this is a good thing or not. I believe information is empowerment, but only if it translates into knowledge. Knowledge signifies understanding. Information is just information. What's the use of having all this information if we are not being taught to discern, and understand how this all this information can make us better human beings. The question for me is how all of this can make us better people.
As new media forms in my lifetime I'm worried that people of my age groups will forget. Forget the perpose and values of history. The importance and impacts of it. Also how it has effected what is today. We wont be able to understand that fact that progress is important and thats the only way to make progress is to be able to see from example. I like that we are being exposed to newer things but i would appreciate it better knowing that it wasn't always there.
I agree with Matt about Wikipedia and I find the prohibitions on its use mostly troubling. I am not convinced that the "vetting" process for the knowledge we accept as official is all that great. I do think it works somewhat better than complete democracy of ideas, but it consistency leaves out valuable information which contests the kinds of stability the dominant culture rests on. All knowledge must be considered with a certain amount of skepticism.
funny
too funny!
Post a Comment