In the film "Growing up Online" a teacher mentioned that they feel like they have to be entertainers to keep the kids attention. He felt that teachers had to be more technologically savvy and use media in order to keep a kids attention. I am preparing to become a teacher and I agree with parts of these statements and take exception to others.
First the parts I agree with. I agree that as teachers media needs to be incorporated into the classroom. With this new technology, there are easier ways to access information, and that should be utilized as a teaching tool. Also, kids learn in different ways, some are visual learners and others are auditory learners. All learning styles should be taken into account and all media should be used to help kids learn the information that needs to be learned.
Also, kids are more comfortable using media for expression. They do it every day. Therefore, I think that students should be given the option to complete an assignment in a way that shows the teacher they have learned and processed the material, whether it is a power point or a short movie. I recently became aware of a group of high school students two years ago who had to do a project on Macbeth. They decided for their project, rather than act it out in class filmed a movie entitled "Macbeth Wars." The students completed the project in a way that made sense to them.
In my mind though, that is not to say that some non-media techniques should not be used as well. Reading out loud and having students practice that is a great way to help comprehension and improve reading skills. Having to do a research paper actually mixes old and new media and will improve their writing. Students having to actually read a book, with pages and binding, that is difficult for them has a whole host of skills in it, that new media may not be able to help them with. Sometimes the old fashioned way is the way to go.
What I do take exception to in that is teachers need to be entertainers. Now maybe that was a bad choice of words, but teachers are there to teach, not entertain. While teachers need to meet students where they are at and find ways to engage the students, they are not there to entertain them. Students need to be able to function in a world that is demanding and ever changing. I think that they need to learn information in a myriad of ways, not just the ways that are easiest for them so they have experience in all forms and can be more well rounded when they get outside the classroom.
Teachers need to adapt with the times and use media that the students are comfortable with, and at the same time students need to be exposed to tried and true ways to learn as well as new ones. Kind of an old meeting new sort of thing. At the same time. when it comes to projects (especially ones that are worth half a grade) students need to be able to do them in whatever way makes sense to them, and yet shows the teacher the material has been learned, whether it is a power point, an old fashioned paper, or a movie about a Shakespeare play set to Star Wars.
New media is a necessary and can be a good thing, but should not be used exclusively. In my mind, blending the old with the new is the way to go. I love the fact that students can read a poem and then in many cases, get online and actually hear the author read the poem. A blending of old and new to enhance the learning experience.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Growing up Online part 1
As someone who did not grow up in the digital age (I realize that I am dating myself), I am amazed at some of the things that get posted online. I did not have a computer to do my homework on, heck, I thought I was high tech when I got a use IBM Selectric electric typewriter my junior year of high school. I did not actually have a computer until the mid-late '90s and did not get my first laptop until 2000. I guess in dissemination, I am a late adopter, waiting until all the bugs get worked out before I buy most things techie.
That's not to say that I don't love or could live without technology now that I have it. I admit that the first thing I do when I wake up most mornings is turn on my computer and check email. I then check Facebook to see what's been happening since last time I was on it.
But I don't understand the need to publish your life and live your life in front of a screen. In Growing up Online, the film illustrated how important and vital the virtual world has become to that generation. I understand the connecting with friends and being able to say and do things online that kids would never think of doing or saying face to face, but am baffled about what they post. Sometimes it seems that kids believe they are posting in a vacuum, that only those they want to see the post will see it.
There are consequences to posting your life on line and kids just don't seem to understand that once it's posted, it's there forever for anyone to see. Prime example, my cousin's daughter had her friends over one day and the parents weren't home yet. The girls took pictures of themselves in various parts of the house, including standing on the counter and on a ledge 30 feet above the bottom floor. She then posted those pictures on Facebook, and was upset when her mom busted her for the pictures. She knows her mom has access to her Facebook, all her aunts and other family have accounts, and her mom has her own account. When I asked her about it, she said she didn't think mom would find out. Again, given the info my cousin's daughter knew, I am baffled by her thinking.
I guess I am getting older when I agree with the mom from the film. The computer should be placed in an area where an adult can see it and not in a kid's room. And I am conflicted over whether or not a parent should have unlimited access to what his/her kids are doing online. Where does a parent draw the line between a child's privacy and safety? I have to wonder because privacy does not seem to be an issue for some kids online because they put it all out there, they just don't want their parents to know.
Since I don't have kids, I don't know the answer (nor do people that have parents I'm sure). How do you make a teenager (who thinks he/she is immortal) anyway see the potential for danger and yet not be afraid to go out in the world and experience life?????
That's not to say that I don't love or could live without technology now that I have it. I admit that the first thing I do when I wake up most mornings is turn on my computer and check email. I then check Facebook to see what's been happening since last time I was on it.
But I don't understand the need to publish your life and live your life in front of a screen. In Growing up Online, the film illustrated how important and vital the virtual world has become to that generation. I understand the connecting with friends and being able to say and do things online that kids would never think of doing or saying face to face, but am baffled about what they post. Sometimes it seems that kids believe they are posting in a vacuum, that only those they want to see the post will see it.
There are consequences to posting your life on line and kids just don't seem to understand that once it's posted, it's there forever for anyone to see. Prime example, my cousin's daughter had her friends over one day and the parents weren't home yet. The girls took pictures of themselves in various parts of the house, including standing on the counter and on a ledge 30 feet above the bottom floor. She then posted those pictures on Facebook, and was upset when her mom busted her for the pictures. She knows her mom has access to her Facebook, all her aunts and other family have accounts, and her mom has her own account. When I asked her about it, she said she didn't think mom would find out. Again, given the info my cousin's daughter knew, I am baffled by her thinking.
I guess I am getting older when I agree with the mom from the film. The computer should be placed in an area where an adult can see it and not in a kid's room. And I am conflicted over whether or not a parent should have unlimited access to what his/her kids are doing online. Where does a parent draw the line between a child's privacy and safety? I have to wonder because privacy does not seem to be an issue for some kids online because they put it all out there, they just don't want their parents to know.
Since I don't have kids, I don't know the answer (nor do people that have parents I'm sure). How do you make a teenager (who thinks he/she is immortal) anyway see the potential for danger and yet not be afraid to go out in the world and experience life?????
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Digital Divide
The article on the Digital Divide got me thinking. I know all the reasons that politicians and others believe that giving the information poor access to technology will narrow the divide. I just can't wrap my head around the fervor with which they attempt to carry out their misguided plans and what they really hope to accomplish, other than making themselves look and feel better.
I mean if Johnny can't read how is a computer supposed to help? Information on a website is thrown at its users at an exponentially faster rate than text from a book ever could be, so how is this helpful? As a future teacher, I am compelled to ask this question. Susie, who may test lower than her grade in reading has no trouble reading posts on Facebook or Myspace or accessing YouTube videos and operating her cell phone, but her reading skills of more complicated text show she and Johnny lack the skills to comprehend and read critically. Skills they need to function in the world around them. Skills they cannot get from a computer screen that feeds the user information rather than making them work for it.
Politicians and others are putting a band-aid on a problem that requires stitches at the very least, and most likely major surgery to cure. The article points out that when low-income students were given calculators, it did not help their math standardized test scores. I would beg to guess that if they did a study on the schools that have been given computers to give to low income students, the results will be the same. The scores will still be low, because a computer cannot teach reading comprehension and critical reading skills that are required for scoring well on those tests. And yet, many schools still do it.
I enjoyed the article because it looked at the problem objectively for what it is, a larger social issue that cannot be solved in the click of a button. I am not saying that all students should not have equal access to technology, but I agree with the authors of the article that a computer is not going to magically level the playing field for all students. Instead, maybe the politicians should concentrate on making sure that there are programs to help struggling students gain the skills they need to be functioning knowledgeable citizens who can find the information they need to be sure they can succeed in life.
I mean if Johnny can't read how is a computer supposed to help? Information on a website is thrown at its users at an exponentially faster rate than text from a book ever could be, so how is this helpful? As a future teacher, I am compelled to ask this question. Susie, who may test lower than her grade in reading has no trouble reading posts on Facebook or Myspace or accessing YouTube videos and operating her cell phone, but her reading skills of more complicated text show she and Johnny lack the skills to comprehend and read critically. Skills they need to function in the world around them. Skills they cannot get from a computer screen that feeds the user information rather than making them work for it.
Politicians and others are putting a band-aid on a problem that requires stitches at the very least, and most likely major surgery to cure. The article points out that when low-income students were given calculators, it did not help their math standardized test scores. I would beg to guess that if they did a study on the schools that have been given computers to give to low income students, the results will be the same. The scores will still be low, because a computer cannot teach reading comprehension and critical reading skills that are required for scoring well on those tests. And yet, many schools still do it.
I enjoyed the article because it looked at the problem objectively for what it is, a larger social issue that cannot be solved in the click of a button. I am not saying that all students should not have equal access to technology, but I agree with the authors of the article that a computer is not going to magically level the playing field for all students. Instead, maybe the politicians should concentrate on making sure that there are programs to help struggling students gain the skills they need to be functioning knowledgeable citizens who can find the information they need to be sure they can succeed in life.
Facebook - Uses and Gratification
In class, we discussed the article "Explaining why Young Adults Use MySpace and Facebook through Uses and Gratification Theory." As we discussed, the article stated that there were five main reasons why young adults use SNS: efficient communication, convenient communication, curiosity about others, popularity and relationship formation and reinforcement. While I agree that SNS users use these sites for all the reasons list above, I would argue that diversion should be on that list as well.
Let me qualify this. When I say diversion, I do not mean like TV is a diversion, but rather "facebooking" when we should be doing something else, like homework for instance. While I am not sure it fits into the uses and gratification theory, I think that diversion is a use that many of us are guilty of when using Facebook or other SNSs.
It may be a means to an end diversion. Users are on Facebook to do all of the things listed above, but they are sometimes avoiding doing something else (possibly unpleasant - like that research paper we've been assigned) and cruising Facebook instead. I admit that I do it all the time. When I am in the middle of a paper or am staring at a blank screen because I can't seem to start the next assignment, I will click over to Facebook to see what is happening there. I use it in the same way I use TV, wasting time and procrastinating further on what I have to do because I simply don't want to do it.
And I know I am not the only one. In searching my friends posts, there are more than a couple whose status shows that they should be doing something else rather than cruising Facebook, but doing this is far more pleasant. It happens at work as well as once they get home. This may be a different use for those older than the test group in the study, but I think it is something that should be looked at. But then again, my nieces are in the age group of the study and they are guilty of the diversion and delay of Facebook just as much as I am.
Like I said, it may not be the primary reason people use Facebook and other SNS's, but it is definitely a use that many of us are guilty of at least once in a while....
Let me qualify this. When I say diversion, I do not mean like TV is a diversion, but rather "facebooking" when we should be doing something else, like homework for instance. While I am not sure it fits into the uses and gratification theory, I think that diversion is a use that many of us are guilty of when using Facebook or other SNSs.
It may be a means to an end diversion. Users are on Facebook to do all of the things listed above, but they are sometimes avoiding doing something else (possibly unpleasant - like that research paper we've been assigned) and cruising Facebook instead. I admit that I do it all the time. When I am in the middle of a paper or am staring at a blank screen because I can't seem to start the next assignment, I will click over to Facebook to see what is happening there. I use it in the same way I use TV, wasting time and procrastinating further on what I have to do because I simply don't want to do it.
And I know I am not the only one. In searching my friends posts, there are more than a couple whose status shows that they should be doing something else rather than cruising Facebook, but doing this is far more pleasant. It happens at work as well as once they get home. This may be a different use for those older than the test group in the study, but I think it is something that should be looked at. But then again, my nieces are in the age group of the study and they are guilty of the diversion and delay of Facebook just as much as I am.
Like I said, it may not be the primary reason people use Facebook and other SNS's, but it is definitely a use that many of us are guilty of at least once in a while....
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Media Synergy and Tie Ins
As much as I am ashamed to admit it, I am one of the millions who spent my hard earned money on New Moon this weekend. As this is not the place for movie reviews, I'll skip my rant for now.
While waiting for the movie to begin, as usual there were previews. The interesting thing about these previews is they were all for movies produced or made by Summit only. I'm sure that all movies companies do this, but because the bigger companies own several production houses, it's a little harder to tell if only one company's movies are being advertised. Here it was obvious.
I knew from past experience that all movies have tie-ins to stores and food places, but this just seemed more obvious. For instance, Burger King has Team Jacob and Team Edward commercials that suggest the conflict between the two sides can be solved over a Whopper meal. I can't seem to escape the commercials they are everywhere, even during the Viking's game today. Although I do find the range of people they show having the debate funny, the construction workers with their alligence written on their vests are my favorite. They even played the Burger King commercial during had commercials in the movie theater during the previews.
There was also an unintentional (maybe not) that several movie and reality stars were photographed with the water bottles with either Edward or Jacob on them, that are the same as the ones shown in the TV ad. Now, if I were a tween, I would be wondering where I could get my Edward or Jacob water bottle. Movie stars are just "like us" when they purchase products too. I bet the company who makes those were jumping for joy when Kim Kardashian's picture showed up in People with the water bottle and then Ashley Tisdale showed up with opposite one. It did make me wonder if it was somehow planned.
While on the subject of People magazine, they had a whole section on their webpage for the countdown to the movie with quizzes and pictures of the stars at all the premiers (I glanced purely for research).
To see what else was offered for sale that was New Moon related, I checked the Toys-R-Us website. There was an astonishing list of products from the movie aside from the t-shirts: jewelry, dolls (action figures), sheets, and if you spent $75.00 at some stores you can get a gift card toward your next purchase.
So, what was learned from my New Moon experience? That I am far more aware of movie marketing and product tie-ins than I used to be. I am not sure I wanted to be aware of it, but it does make me more aware. Oh goody.
While waiting for the movie to begin, as usual there were previews. The interesting thing about these previews is they were all for movies produced or made by Summit only. I'm sure that all movies companies do this, but because the bigger companies own several production houses, it's a little harder to tell if only one company's movies are being advertised. Here it was obvious.
I knew from past experience that all movies have tie-ins to stores and food places, but this just seemed more obvious. For instance, Burger King has Team Jacob and Team Edward commercials that suggest the conflict between the two sides can be solved over a Whopper meal. I can't seem to escape the commercials they are everywhere, even during the Viking's game today. Although I do find the range of people they show having the debate funny, the construction workers with their alligence written on their vests are my favorite. They even played the Burger King commercial during had commercials in the movie theater during the previews.
There was also an unintentional (maybe not) that several movie and reality stars were photographed with the water bottles with either Edward or Jacob on them, that are the same as the ones shown in the TV ad. Now, if I were a tween, I would be wondering where I could get my Edward or Jacob water bottle. Movie stars are just "like us" when they purchase products too. I bet the company who makes those were jumping for joy when Kim Kardashian's picture showed up in People with the water bottle and then Ashley Tisdale showed up with opposite one. It did make me wonder if it was somehow planned.
While on the subject of People magazine, they had a whole section on their webpage for the countdown to the movie with quizzes and pictures of the stars at all the premiers (I glanced purely for research).
To see what else was offered for sale that was New Moon related, I checked the Toys-R-Us website. There was an astonishing list of products from the movie aside from the t-shirts: jewelry, dolls (action figures), sheets, and if you spent $75.00 at some stores you can get a gift card toward your next purchase.
So, what was learned from my New Moon experience? That I am far more aware of movie marketing and product tie-ins than I used to be. I am not sure I wanted to be aware of it, but it does make me more aware. Oh goody.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)