When I began reading Shirky’s Cognitive Surplus, I was not very impressed. To me, it seemed he was trying to say that everyone had all this free time, and all they did was watch television with that free time. I was not so sure I would be able to connect at all to the book. Well, I did find some intriguing parts that sparked some thought about technology in the education world.
Lately, almost all topics to discuss in the world of education are about technology. These discussions are generally always about the technological devices that schools do or do not have. I found these discussions coming to mind when Shirky discussed the “milkshake mistake” (p. 14). The focus is so dependent on the devices rather than on how to use the devices with our students. The discussion should really be about what we want to do with the devices in order to better the teaching and learning in our classrooms. We always want the new and fun “toys,” but we, as educators, need to have a purpose behind these “toys.” We learned that in Nye’s Technology Matters.
The media is all about consuming, producing, and sharing (Shirky, p. 22). People, especially students, are very interested in making and sharing things with their friends. The Internet allows for them to do that. After reading this, I really started to wonder if our current education system allows those same options for our students. If students really want to share what they have learned, are we able to give that to them? Project-based learning is one way we allow students to learn, create, and share. Knowing that students are craving this makes me think that education needs to continue shifting to fit the students. I think, in many ways, it is going in the right direction. I also know that not every student fits that mold, so education needs to continue to offer a variety of options to the variety of students we have.
All people, students in particular, seem to be extremely attached to their mobile devices. People have the constant need to be connected to everyone at all times. Shirky says, “Our social media tools aren’t an alternative to real life, they are part of it” (p. 37). I find this very true. Being able to stay connected to our friends and family through our cell phones is no longer an option, it is a necessity for most. Their phones are a part of them and the first thing they grab before they leave their homes. Knowing this, I think it would be to our advantage if education could find more useful ways to use cell phones in the classroom.
With the ease of publishing comes more errors and less quality work out in the public domain. For example, I have seen more errors in published books and on menus than I have in the past. I do not think that everyone being able to make that final product easier is always a good thing. Because so many errors can be seen in something published or available to all, students are not seeing the difference between types of writing. They do not see that there are times they should not be using text language; sometimes, they do not even realize there is another way to write words. For how much longer will the formal word or way of writing be valued? Will we still need to teach it?
The new technological tools that become available are valuable and great for the classroom, but knowing how to use the tools is where the real value is. Shirky argues this as well (p. 140). When we have tools to use in the classroom, such as iPads, netbooks, and iPods, they are only valuable if people know how to use them. These devices can be great fun, but the world of education needs them to also be useful. If teachers and students work together to show off their “tricks” with the tools, great success can be had.
Technology continues to grow because people create and share their knowledge. As long as people continue that process, technology will continue to improve and be created.
References:
Nye, D. E. (2007). Technology matters: Questions to live with. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Shirky, C. (2010). Cognitive surplus: Creativity and generosity in a connected age. NY: The
Penguin Press.
Your observation about kids not knowing the difference between texting language and formal language seems right on to me -- and raises an interesting question: To what extent should we be be guardians of standards and to what extent should standards evolve in response to usage on the ground? Before literacy was really widespread, standard spelling didn't really exist, and people got away with all sorts of wierd spellings. Then things got formalized and systematized, and "right" ways were defined. Those "right" ways are treated with varying levels of respect around the world. Brazil decided to simplify its writing a few years ago, dispensing with hundreds of years of tradition, and most of Latin America changed it's alphabet for the purposes of alphabetical listings a few years ago -- with the defiant exception of Nicaragua. The Spanish Royal Academy and the French equivalent are really conservative about making any changes at all to their language -- they see themselves as bastions of Correctness, keeping the linguistic barbarians at bay. In contrast, the Oxford English Dictionary seeks out and embraces new usage, wherever it comes from and however outrageous. (I think they secretly love the inventiveness of American English -- they chronicle it assiduously.) The US is probably the place where native-spoken English evolves the fastest, and where "deviant" spellings become acceptable first. As a teacher, I feel compelled to correct "text" English, but I wouldn't mind being relieved of this burden at some point, if abbreviations and simplifications became broadly acceptable. And I wonder what will happen as places like China become linguistic forces in languages like English. I believe there are more people learning English in China than there are native speakers of it in the world -- this has got to have an effect!
ReplyDeleteRobin, when you talk about their being more mistakes when more people can publish easily reminded me of a few comments I've heard in class. Someone had mentioned that by having their students blog they were seeing poor grammar and spelling and that was detering them from using this type of technology. It makes me wonder whether we really need to sacarifce the quaility when we use technology or if there is a way to encourage students to correct themselves. This way of thinking goes againist what I have noticed with my students. Students seem to have more grammatical and spelling mistakes when they write papers versus when they create presentation. It would appear that because students are not writting complete sentences that that would be the reason, but I see a lot of wrong word choice and spelling mistakes in papers and very few of those in presentations.
ReplyDeleteI agree that knowing how to use the technology that you have in the classroom is so important. I find it really discouraging when I get a new device without any training or instruction to go with it. I would also like some of this instruction of new technology to be built into our curriculum. It is really difficult as a core teacher to spend a couple of days or more teaching the students how to use the technology when my I really need to focus on other benchmarks. Since technology is going to continue to change it would be wonderful if the students had an ongoing class that taught them how to apply the technology to the core subjects.
ReplyDelete