I completely agree with Thao’s response to the book entitled “How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future”. I also admire Thao’s controlled way in which he counters the subject of the book and the article on it because I had to get a cup of tea and read 3 Deepak Chopra books so I could be calm enough to write this post. Basically the author of the article (who is in agreeance with the aforementioned book) dismisses an entire generation (Gen Y) as ‘the stupid generation’ and then makes a spectacular leap over the ignorance fence to pin the blame on technology. deerrr

Now I wonder if he were born to the generation prior to Thomas Edison, would he also relate the coming of an amazing invention such as the light bulb to some form of phantom dumbing down of the youth that reject the parafin lamp. Imagining a problem and then pinning an imaginary cause on it is the kind of irrational thinking that causes many of the problems in this world.

With all this talk of constructionism, constructivism, gen Y and digital immigrants I think some of us may have forgotten what the internet is for…funny pics

There are few genuine ‘great thinkers’ in the world today. Sam Harris I think can be called one of the great thinkers of our time. For those of you who have never heard of Sam check out this video.

Attempt to embed <here>

Another of my favourite thinkers is the charismatic Dr Ken Miller.  Check out some of his fine work in his defence of evolution v intelligent design
 

After reading this article by Papert I was interested in how a teacher may effectively implement constructionist use of technology in their classroom. After playing a game called Fantastic Contraption I wondered if this could be considered constructionist and what are the merits of its use in class. Basically the game is a nice way for students to understand that laws of physics can be modeled in a simulated environment. It involves puzzle solving and making a creation (to solve the problem) however the students do not actually make the game themselves.

So is playing this game constructionism? Is it effective teaching? The game is about solving problems with highly varied solutions, however it is about solving someone else’s problems and therefore cannot be considered constructionist. It is however highly engaging and I believe a valuable exploration tool for students to use.

Apparently there is a technological revolution going on in Australian classrooms. Every student will have their own laptop. This is great news isn’t it?  Well to tell the truth I was excited when Rudd unveiled his one laptop per child policy. Since that initial announcement what has been heard? It is ironic that when I tried to access the Federal Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations’ website page on “Australia’s future using educational technology” that I get the following message:

“Page Not Found

The page /archivePublished could not be found.

PAGE NOT FOUND: try using the  search where you can conduct a quick search, publication search, archive search or an advanced search; or navigate from the homepage to find the information you are looking for.”

Now since I can’t get any information on the policy, even from the horse’s mouth itself, I can’t really continue on the same tact with this blog so if I had to make a point it is this: There is definitely great things that can come of technology in the classroom but technology needs to backed up by systems and ideas. Wouldn’t it be a much more reasonable proposal that instead of a laptop per child that we have a laptop with a projector per classroom first? I have been in staff rooms before where there was one computer per 3 teachers. Now how can a teacher prepare to use ICT if THEY DONT HAVE A COMPUTER!!!!

I just read this article which coincided with thoughts I always had about my own language education. To give you an idea of why I share some of the views expressed in this article I’ll first explain a little about my own language education and then why I feel it has let me down to a certain extent.

In primary school all I and my peers learnt of grammar was verbs are doing words and nouns are things. That’s it. It seems that traditional english teaching, that is the rule of grammar, sentence structure and punctuation, have been pushed aside by a modern pedagogy under the pretence that they are mutually exclusive and therefor cannot cohabit the classroom at the same time. The modern english syllabus rides on what is know as ‘critical literacy’. Critical literacy is based on the idea that students should be able to do more than simply derive meaning from a text in that they should be imbued with the ability to critically reflect on text thereby revealing underlying messages. Now as a future science teacher I believe this is a highly valuable skill – I believe science is a critical reading of the workings of the universe. However we cannot afford to lose mastery of the english language due to a misconception that critical literacy is somehow inconpatible with tradiotnal english teaching.

I’ll give you a personal example of how this can negatively affect products of the education system (ie us). I lived in Japan for 3 years teaching english to children and adults. It is true that children have the ability to construct the language by themselves but adults do not have this amazing ability. Adults need reasons why things are the way they are. When an adults student asks”Why do we say it like this?” and the only response you can give is “It’s just the way it is”, it is simply not good enough. It was quite shocking that although I have a good idea on how to use the english, I have no idea on its workings. I wish I could explain why we say things in a certain way but I have no idea. It’s a shame that traditional ways of teaching are always, and seemingly fanatically, considered to be inferior to new pedagogical research.

Warning: The following message may contain elements of trumpet blowing.

Recently at prac I was teaching a topic on motion to a year 10 class. The class was a mix of students, some interested in science and some with a less than motivated attitude to science, and physics especially. One lesson required the introduction of Newton’s Laws. Now for those who are unfamiliar with Newton’s Laws, they are vital in explaining the movement of objects not only on earth but throughout the universe. Although they may seem amazing in their simplicity to a physicist, to your typical year 10 student they are about as interesting as Morris dancing. A typical classroom teacher-student interaction on the topic may take place as follows:

Teacher: <Places pen on desk>“Why isn’t my pen moving?”

Student: “Dunno. Cause the desk is there..?”

Teacher: “Exactly. Because the desk is holding it up. What about if I push it off the edge. What will happen?”

Student: “It will fall.”

Teacher: <pushes pen as promised> “Correct. Now what force made it move?”

Student: “Your hand”

Teacher: “Good. What else?

Student: “Gravity.”

Teacher: “Great. So Newton’s first law is that an object will not change speed unless acted upon by an unbalanced net force. Now write that down.”

Now this may be a fairly contrived example of a dialogue but this is exactly how I remember being taught Newton’s first law of motion when I was in high school. Not wanting to inflict the same dullness onto my students I showed them a video that I thought may spark their interest in the topic I showed a clip of the show Top Gear. Now this may seem like a cheap trick, and it probably is, but by showing the clip every student in the class saw the relevence of learning Newton’s Laws

This clip was a good way to demonstrate Newton’s Third Law, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

For all those who have got NO IDEA who or what Carmen Sandiego is I’ll explain in a sec but firstly just let me say that this post is in relation to the debate between Pea and Cuban debate over the pros and cons of technology in the classroom. Ok, Carmen Sandiego was probably the most successful education computer game series ever made. The franchise started in early Gen Y days and to my knowledge the last game was made in 2001. The game involved you, the detective, jetting around the world looking for clues to find the infamous but elusive Carmen Sandiego. Clues involved knowledge of the world such as knowing capital cities, knowing famous places around the world and other famous geographic features. I used to love collecting clues and chasing Carmen around until I’d finally catch her, get a promotion and start again ( I never questioned how she’d escape every time). Although I was completely engaged by this game I don’t think I learned a single thing. I spend hours playing the game, getting stuck on a question, asking my parents for the answer to the question and then promptly forgetting the answer as soon as I had moved onto the next stage in the game. In this way the computer as a tool for learning is no different.

It is inevitable that a digital revolution in learning will and is occurring. It is important however that we are careful that the computer as a tool for learning is not driven by rote, shallow understanding but by a more constructionist, creative approach. In an article by Mitchel Resnick a comparison is made between a paintbrush, a television and a computer, and a question is asked: Which is the odd one out? Most people will say the paintbrush as it is the tool used for creative output. It is this thinking that needs to change if the technological revolution in learning is to be successful. Computers must be used to create and construct rather than to replace textbooks al la Carmen Sandiego. It is the way that we conceptualise and create technological based learning that must undergo a revolution if we are to truely have a revolution in teaching and learning.

In Chris’ blog he discusses the article Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. Chris raises the argument that digital native/immigrant labels are pointless in the educational sphere as the grounding principles of education remain unchanged (Let me know if I’ve got that wrong Chris ). He also raises the point that the so far undiscussed point that not every Gen Y is a hacker/programmer/media designer/CAD technician/web designer/gamer/game designer. Sure Gen Y is the first generation born with a mouse in hand and I myself fit into that category (only just) but I can’t help get the feeling that the label of ‘Gen Y’, as with all labels, is a broad generalisation. It is difficult to compare the factors that shaped Baby Boomers and Generation Y and I feel that the influence of technology on Gen Y is often overestimated.

~The BBs were a generation born from the post world war economic boom. Gen Y have facebook.

~The BBs were raised by a generation who had experienced the horror of war and could fully appreciate the safety of peace. Gen Y were raised by a generation who could afford computers so that they could use facebook.

Of course technology can be utilised to compliment education of a (usually) tech-savvy generation but we are fooling ourselves if we believe that Gen Y and their education is somehow on the precipice of a technology revolution that we must all ride. In summary, another nice blog Chris

Made available under Creative Commons 2.0 Attribution Licence: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

Available at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbassett/1797503847/

It’s amazing how many things I can find to do when I have an assignment to do. Everything from cleaning, taking a sudden interest in daytime television and playing solitaire for gratuitous amounts of time to that old student favourite of checking and then re-checking the fridge. One of the few, if not the only, positive things to come from the large periods of procrastination is discovering that I can argue… ahem…discuss points of interest with people around the world via the glorious creation that is YouTube. Now you may be asking how is spending time debating on Youtube forums instead of doing assignments a positive? Well I didn’t realise at first that it was – especially the night before my assignment was due. In fact it took me a while to figure that this distraction that was cutting hours off my allocated time to do assignments was not only fun but that I was also learning.

Let me give an example. Being a science teacher I have an interest in the latest developments in evolutionary biology and enjoy the videos posted by research scientists around the world. When one is watching these highly informative well researched videos you can’t help notice the volume of videos that pop up with titles such as “Evilution” and “Satan invented evolution” in the related videos and video responses fields. Now to those who have never heard of the Intelligent Design movement let me just explain briefly. Intelligent Design is the covert cousin of creationism in the sense that it is an attempt to justify creationism as a scientific theory equal to the theory of gravity or the theory of plate tectonics. It is also most certainly intended to be a replacement for the current theory of evolution due to the fact that evolution contradicts the literal translation of the bible and is therefore unpalatable to any “true” Christian.

Now in order to debate this issue with my fellow primate but non-fellow creationists I needed proof. I needed information to counter their arguments. To get my point across I needed to educate myself in a number of areas previously not covered by my formal science education and experience such as radiometric dating, thermodynamics and geology as well as history and religion. In order to put forward a logical and scientific argument I needed to become proficient in all of these areas. This was a self experiment in effective constructivist learning and I didn’t even notice!

So would conducting an online debate/discussion be an effective exercise for a high school class? In an article by Lee Rainie the idea that a technological language barrier between educators and students of the Millennial Generation exists in that the old methods of teaching are not matching up with the new methods of learning. It is because of this inability to tap into the information savvy students of today that progress in education is not moving as fast as it should. Surely involving students in an online discussion or debate or even argument where they have to not only provide their opinions but also back their opinions with evidence is a great way to foster self directed, discovery based learning outside the classroom. Students soon realise that they cannot give a good argument if they do not have the knowledge and evidence to back it up. This effectively means students will have to research in order to fight for the thing that they believe in – Something that is useful in science and the world after school.