Regardless of how convinced I am of technology's importance, I will not introduce it into my classroom for solely its intrinsic/practical/real world value. Technology will enter my classroom, indeed because its mastery has real world importance, but more importantly because it enlivens and energizes a history lesson. If technology proves ineffective in my efforts to teach the processes and ideas of history to specific classes, then its out of the picture. That being said, I have no doubt that technology can be used in fun and innovative ways to make history more exciting and valuable.
I think when technology is employed in my classroom, there will be two things that stay consistent. One, it will mostly be put in the hands of my students; as in, the fancy new tools will be used to empower the students, not the teacher. The second circumstance is: technology will fuel creativity. This means I will use technology to empower my students for creative means. They will use technology to create, to produce. I definitely think there is a place for podcasts and film making in my history classroom. Digital movie-making can allow for several different types of learning; and maybe it can inspire the next George Lucas or Ken Burns. Podcasts also allows for multiple types of learning, creative expression, and collaboration with schoolmates.
But still...everything in moderation right?
How can we balance technological literacy with the mastery of other forms of communication?
Can we assume that students are mastering much of the language of film/art/image outside the classroom? Don't they spend hours on the internet/twitter/watching tv and movies/playing video games/etc.
What types of communication and learning might be unfortunately left behind if we focus too much on technology and new forms of communication?
Is this a dangerously slippery slope?
Thank you, Brooks! I agree with your points, and I enjoyed the Lucas interview as well. I love the quote about the digital divide. Lucas says, "when people talk to me about the digital divide, I think of it not being so much about who has access to what technology as who knows how to create and express themselves in this new language of the screen." I think he is really on to something. A number of us are surrounded by technology that can help us communicate, understand, and learn better, but most of do not know how to use it effectively or even at all. And how are we supposed to find the time to learn if we never learned it in school?
ReplyDeleteI hope to have technology in the hands of my students as well. Not only do I think film-making and podcasts are a perfect fit for bringing social studies to life, but I also think that just as we must teach our students how to read and write, we must teach them how to be proficient with technology. Being able to use podcasts, iMovie, or some other video-making technology will make students more valuable employees because they will be able to communicate in the language of our time: technology.
-Catherine
Nice post, Brooks. You seem to express what I and probably most of our class feels - that technology has the potential for great educational value, but it should not be used for its own good.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I do wonder if Lucas would totally agree with this sentiment. I'm interpreting his viewpoints to mean that technological and video "literacy" are useful to learn in their own right, regardless of how they promote the learning of class content (e.g. history, science, etc.). In other words, I understand him to be saying that modern communication skills such as video-making are as important to develop in schools as reading and writing. I can't say I totally agree (yet), but Lucas makes a strong argument - in the last decade, online, instant communication and media have exploded and literally changed the way we entertain and inform ourselves. It does make sense in that light to say that we're doing a disservice to students by not helping them to develop these communication skills.
On the one hand, an overworked teacher may simply ask, "When am I supposed to fit this new demand into my already over-crowded curriculum?" I know that, in addition to tackling the task of teaching students biology, my CT is facing the uphill battle of helping to develop their reading and writing skills. Isn't it a secondary teacher's duty to teach students his or her subject before moving on to supplementary material? And don't students need to develop some mastery of basic literacy skills before they move onto more advanced forms of communication?
On the other hand, the last site that we explored (the podcasting booklet) provides some avenues for achieving reading/writing development with the ultimate goal of providing experiences with technological communication (i.e. creating a podcast). Planning for making such recordings or videos requires writing a script, editing, planning a narrative, etc. By embedding these exercises within the context of creating a video, students might be all the more motivated to learn the basics while at the same time be exposed to the new, artistic technology the Lucas speaks of. Full circle indeed!
I think that one must be very careful on the amount of time that is devoted to allowing to teaching "technology". As we have seen in our lifetime, the ways that we communicate have changed drastically. Jobs that our parents held are dramatically different, and thousands of job categories that didn't exist ten years ago are available now.
ReplyDeleteBeing able to communicate in the language of our time still depends on the ability to spell, write and speak with fluency and with correct grammar. Teaching how to use a camera and a computer can be used to enhance the assignment, but should not be the crux of the assignment.
One must also consider the budgetary restrictions of the school. Should several hundred dollars be spent in the purchase of two or three computers, or could that money be spent on painting classrooms, replacing windows, etc? While I applaud the concept of teaching technology, the money can be spent in an incredible number of ways and the time can be spent doing other activities. We must spend both wisely.
I love George Lucas's idea of a circle of communication. So often we teach our students each subject separately without teaching them the connection between all of the subjects they are learning. I wish, though, that Lucas had better addressed the issue of money. As several of us have been saying, money is a big concern. I believe that it is possible to integrate lessons about technology literacy into lessons in each class and I do think that is is important to do so to help today's students succeed in the real world. I'm just not convinced that schools today have the money to make it happen on the scale that George Lucas suggests. I think the key is what Lucas said near the end, that one problem with funding is that money is being spent on military rather than education. To change that, though, requires a shift in the way society thinks, and that is not going to be an easy or quick change.
ReplyDeleteMore than just the issue with money, time is a huge concern, as John mentioned. With SOLs and testing in general acting as the standard for teachers, teachers have to be careful to spend their time in ways that will increase their test scores. A teacher teaching technology and the connection between subjects and all kinds of other worthwhile things might still look like a terrible teacher if her class does not score well on standardized tests. Teachers have increasingly limited time with each student. They don't really have time to teach them another literacy even though it would prove more helpful to their students in the future than what they're being told now they have to teach.
I am sorry for the late arrival of this, I had some problems with my Google account, this not posting, and am not re-writing for the 2nd time.
ReplyDeleteWhich is a shame, because I have a lot to say about George Lucas...
George Lucas is well known to me. While in undergrad, I knew people from the theater department and physics department who knew an extreme amount about him (and his ranch). He is very futuristic and some say a VERY domineering director. Others argue that he simply has a large, domineering team. Anyway, his influence is tremendous. Physics majors watch futuristic Star War movies and end up believing that is how the world is really going to evolve. The place a tremendous amount of faith in him. I have a couple friends with degrees in physics who have already basically designed their own futuristic village with buildings on those gigantic steel poles, just like what is in Star Wars. They are overly concerned with being 2000 years ahead of their time, however, they have a good point. The only direction to go is up.
Anyway, it is worth it to give George Lucas a good listen regarding his views in education. When people realize that George Lucas is also about 2000 years ahead of his time, they might not quite grant all he wants to do with technology in public schools.
In my science classroom, in which 80% of my students believe that Star Wars is the real future, I can see myself using some of the movie making and editing technique. However, relevancy does become an issue. In high school Earth Science, students are learning less glamours technology, such as how to formulate equations and graphs in Microsoft Excel. I cannot discount how much time this takes, it varies from class to class and on how quickly the students pick it up. If I find my students picking up the necessities quickly, like I think they might - that is the time to add all these nice extras that broaden student experience.