All young people need a place to hangout and interact with peers. In these modern times, shopping malls and their dizzying array of attractions seem to be thee place for young people to spend time. Is this because young people are typically independently wealthy? Nope, I believe it's largely because it is a space that is rule-driven, also gives teens a lot of opportunities. Having spent enough time in malls myself, I understand the draw of teens to a bright, open space where they can meet, socialize, explore new trends and collaborate.
Now imagine if teenagers wanted to hangout as in a library as much as a mall! Okay, stop laughing and read on.
The Chicago Public Library in conjunction with the MacArthur Foundation have conceived and realized such a library. I dare say it's the library of my dreams. YouMedia is a space that offers all kinds of digital tools, mentors, and opportunities for young people to explore and collaborate on projects. The library space open to teenagers only, could be used for homework or school projects however purely creative, artistic, or individual interest projects seem to be the life blood on the space. It is not a quiet space, but not out of control either. It almost seems like the idealistic place of learning; students want to be there and take an active role in their learning.
I'm sure the YouMedia space has it's pros and cons. Perhaps teens have to book a recording studio well in advance to capture their band's music, or maybe imaginations wild too wild. I don't know the ins and outs of the place. I only wanted to mention this program as an example of what libraries could and should become; popular. Book heavy libraries used to be popular, but then the world evolved to value other methods of communicating knowledge in addition to the almighty book. Libraries can be relevant, but must allow for relevant media to be included and supported. I think YouMedia in Chicago has simple been quick to embrace and employ this realization.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
A Silver Lining to Email and Texting?
As someone who feels the excitement of new communication methods, I have a hard time believing that texting and email are completely ruining our writing skills. Yet as a high school English teacher I also have a hard time believing that texting and email are the best thing for our writing abilities. Recently reading Christina McCarroll's article in The Christian Science MonitorI felt a peace that yes, email and texting as changing our abilities to write, and not necessarily for the worse.
McCarroll's article is centred on the institution of the S.A.T. and how new communications such as texting and email are influencing performances. Well performance is not really the focus of the article, in that no data is offered whether scores are up or down. Instead, (and this may be telling of why I found the article most pleasing) a variety of stakeholders' theories are presented to explain their respective feelings for and against claims that texting and email are harming communications abilities.
And while there certainly is no declarative conclusion, McCarroll's sources and tone suggest that different writing practices are just that, different. Not necessarily better or worse, just different. And while some interested parties are gung-ho to judge this better or worse verdict, I think through sheer popularity, I have to agree with the author's statement that "there's a genuine writing renaissance under way". With emailing, texting, and blogging, I now write more than I ever have before in my life, including during high school and my undergrad degrees. Am I a better writer now? Arguably yes, simply because of my daily practice. I recall some ancient saying about practice, "practice makes perfcet" (and spellcheck doesn't hurt either).
McCarroll's article is centred on the institution of the S.A.T. and how new communications such as texting and email are influencing performances. Well performance is not really the focus of the article, in that no data is offered whether scores are up or down. Instead, (and this may be telling of why I found the article most pleasing) a variety of stakeholders' theories are presented to explain their respective feelings for and against claims that texting and email are harming communications abilities.
And while there certainly is no declarative conclusion, McCarroll's sources and tone suggest that different writing practices are just that, different. Not necessarily better or worse, just different. And while some interested parties are gung-ho to judge this better or worse verdict, I think through sheer popularity, I have to agree with the author's statement that "there's a genuine writing renaissance under way". With emailing, texting, and blogging, I now write more than I ever have before in my life, including during high school and my undergrad degrees. Am I a better writer now? Arguably yes, simply because of my daily practice. I recall some ancient saying about practice, "practice makes perfcet" (and spellcheck doesn't hurt either).
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Why Do I Need to "Make a Case" for Relevant Tools?
Wesley Fryer's post "The Case For Instant Messaging In The Classroom", really left me with a strange, uppity feeling. Why is it that teachers have to make "a case" for providing opportunities for their students to use relevant media in the classroom? I may not be the most seasoned teacher under the sun, but it seems pretty clear to me that the world has changed from a book-driven model of disseminating knowledge. I love books. Books are good. But for a number of completely valid reasons, books are not the only, or the most popular medium out there.
I know when it comes to buying books, school budgets and spending procedures seem to have long established and predictable. But media such as instant messaging really shouldn't eat into the considerable budget put away for books. What are the software budget needs? Free! Hardware costs? Minimal! Students already largely have the devices and will continue to upgrade ad nauseum. We need not be concerned about a threat to our book money.
Why else do teachers need to "make a case"? Perhaps because some teachers are unfamiliar with new media? I don't see this as a valid reason to prevent others from doing so. There are teachers in my school that have knowledge and skills pertaining to their subject areas that I am completely lost to follow. If there is already a discrepancy between teachers, their methods, and their knowledge and skills, the "threat to those unfamiliar" argument ought to be a moot point.
I simply cannot find a valid argument for keeping a contemporary communications media out of my English class. Thanks for reading. I'm already feeling a little less uppity.
I know when it comes to buying books, school budgets and spending procedures seem to have long established and predictable. But media such as instant messaging really shouldn't eat into the considerable budget put away for books. What are the software budget needs? Free! Hardware costs? Minimal! Students already largely have the devices and will continue to upgrade ad nauseum. We need not be concerned about a threat to our book money.
Why else do teachers need to "make a case"? Perhaps because some teachers are unfamiliar with new media? I don't see this as a valid reason to prevent others from doing so. There are teachers in my school that have knowledge and skills pertaining to their subject areas that I am completely lost to follow. If there is already a discrepancy between teachers, their methods, and their knowledge and skills, the "threat to those unfamiliar" argument ought to be a moot point.
I simply cannot find a valid argument for keeping a contemporary communications media out of my English class. Thanks for reading. I'm already feeling a little less uppity.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Teaching Then & Now: Video Juxtaposition
I feel these two Youtube videos serve as an illustration of how school has changed and not changed because of Youtube (and ironically both these "snapshots" were found on Youtube).
While the first video has a laugh at the many demands of teaching in a simpler time, the second video illustrates consequences of those demands in the present media-rich era. I often think about how many current societal issues existed but were closeted in "the good old days", and the progress of bringing things into the light of the public eye. I still remember a bully getting "the strap" from the principal in grade 3. Times have changed. I can't say that I have a further definitive thought or thesis on these two videos. I would love to hear any of your thoughts on their juxtaposition.
While the first video has a laugh at the many demands of teaching in a simpler time, the second video illustrates consequences of those demands in the present media-rich era. I often think about how many current societal issues existed but were closeted in "the good old days", and the progress of bringing things into the light of the public eye. I still remember a bully getting "the strap" from the principal in grade 3. Times have changed. I can't say that I have a further definitive thought or thesis on these two videos. I would love to hear any of your thoughts on their juxtaposition.
Past & Present Educational Dilemmas
In his Webblogg-ed post "Why Johnny's Professor Can't Read", Will Richardson lays out a couple serious conceptual challenges to educators and parents. A response to reading a recent article on "Innovate: Journal of Online Education", Richardson boils down the thesis to its essence then delivers his own alarming call.
The title of the post is an homage to Rudolph Flesch’s 1955 criticism of the American education system's deficiency in teaching phonics (Why Johnny Can't Read), and I think would best communicate the "problem" to stakeholders. Remember when we realized that children needed phonics to be successful learners? Well, these days children need something else! And we're in a position to give it to them. While this title tweaking may seem like a blame game, Richardson does not push that far. Instead he argues for educators at all levels to share the responsibility of responding appropriately to the need, just like in the past.
I think both authors rightfully employ a parallel between a past and a present educational dilemma because they both deal with somewhat intangible things, better described as paradigm shifts. Richardson's passionate argument is both as educator and parent, persuading the teachers and professors to consider and address the changing nature of knowledge demonstration. Inferring that we know better than to deny changes in learning. Richardson's post is not a call to arms, but a canary in the coal mine.
The title of the post is an homage to Rudolph Flesch’s 1955 criticism of the American education system's deficiency in teaching phonics (Why Johnny Can't Read), and I think would best communicate the "problem" to stakeholders. Remember when we realized that children needed phonics to be successful learners? Well, these days children need something else! And we're in a position to give it to them. While this title tweaking may seem like a blame game, Richardson does not push that far. Instead he argues for educators at all levels to share the responsibility of responding appropriately to the need, just like in the past.
I think both authors rightfully employ a parallel between a past and a present educational dilemma because they both deal with somewhat intangible things, better described as paradigm shifts. Richardson's passionate argument is both as educator and parent, persuading the teachers and professors to consider and address the changing nature of knowledge demonstration. Inferring that we know better than to deny changes in learning. Richardson's post is not a call to arms, but a canary in the coal mine.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Integrated Studies: You Mean It's All One World?
I find many aspects of the Edutopia article "Schools That Work: Mixing Art + Politics - Integrated Studies in High School", to be breathtakingly simple but important in contemporary pedagogy.
First, I truly love to be reminded of the notion that subject areas are not separate in any way. I remember stumbling upon this thought as a high school student, and it making a world of difference in my studies. Seeing the real connections between French class, geography, and history made these topics suddenly come alive. Why then do we as high school teachers so often separate and divide our subject areas as if they did not influence and contribute to the same world?
I am inspired by the (sparring) use of technology to combine two seemingly dissimilar topics such as Government and Art. The collaboration between classes obviously took some time and effort by the teachers, but it obviously paid off. This sort of collaboration is often stressed by many as one of the most important skills of the future, and yet how often do we set the boundary of learning at our own subject or classroom?
While I often champion the subject I teach (English) to be beyond a hard and clear curriculum, I know that over the years, the focus of my class has often retreated into an insulated, safe-harbor of activity. Instead of blogging this afternoon, I think I’ll go try to convince a colleague in another subject area to collaborate next semester.
First, I truly love to be reminded of the notion that subject areas are not separate in any way. I remember stumbling upon this thought as a high school student, and it making a world of difference in my studies. Seeing the real connections between French class, geography, and history made these topics suddenly come alive. Why then do we as high school teachers so often separate and divide our subject areas as if they did not influence and contribute to the same world?
I am inspired by the (sparring) use of technology to combine two seemingly dissimilar topics such as Government and Art. The collaboration between classes obviously took some time and effort by the teachers, but it obviously paid off. This sort of collaboration is often stressed by many as one of the most important skills of the future, and yet how often do we set the boundary of learning at our own subject or classroom?
While I often champion the subject I teach (English) to be beyond a hard and clear curriculum, I know that over the years, the focus of my class has often retreated into an insulated, safe-harbor of activity. Instead of blogging this afternoon, I think I’ll go try to convince a colleague in another subject area to collaborate next semester.
A Worthwhile Reminder: Practice Professionalism Always
I was recently reading an article in the "Globe and Mail" entitled "Ontario teachers told not to ‘friend’ or follow students on Twitter". Two things strike me immediately about this article and its message.
First, although this is only a single, short article regarding the use of Twitter in education I feel it is a significant reminder for all teachers. In the article professional educators are reminded that despite the genuine excitement concerning new learning opportunities via technologies such as Twitter and other social networking sites, teachers are always responsible for their conduct in all spheres of life. The "power" of such technologies are that they allow learning beyond the traditional means of a classroom, but with that expansion come the possible entrance into a teacher's private life. I appreciate that a number of my colleagues use tools such as Facebook to build understanding and community with their students, but with these types of media carry inherent risks that ought to be considered. Risks I do not wish to entertain.
The second thought that leaps to my mind in reading this article is, "What does MY union say about the matter?" With no specific update to our teacher's code of conduct regarding these media, I get the sense that we teachers are being left to make the judgment of risk for ourselves. Certainly teachers in my district are held to high standards of (traditional) professional conduct, but can teacher really be expected to simply make the best decision for themselves without guidance from our professional bodies? Given the large demographic of teachers on my staff that would classify as "digital immigrants" (Prensky), this seems like a bit of a risky assumption. For mine and everyone's sake at the conclusion of this post, I'll be emailing my union rep.
Type to you later.
First, although this is only a single, short article regarding the use of Twitter in education I feel it is a significant reminder for all teachers. In the article professional educators are reminded that despite the genuine excitement concerning new learning opportunities via technologies such as Twitter and other social networking sites, teachers are always responsible for their conduct in all spheres of life. The "power" of such technologies are that they allow learning beyond the traditional means of a classroom, but with that expansion come the possible entrance into a teacher's private life. I appreciate that a number of my colleagues use tools such as Facebook to build understanding and community with their students, but with these types of media carry inherent risks that ought to be considered. Risks I do not wish to entertain.
The second thought that leaps to my mind in reading this article is, "What does MY union say about the matter?" With no specific update to our teacher's code of conduct regarding these media, I get the sense that we teachers are being left to make the judgment of risk for ourselves. Certainly teachers in my district are held to high standards of (traditional) professional conduct, but can teacher really be expected to simply make the best decision for themselves without guidance from our professional bodies? Given the large demographic of teachers on my staff that would classify as "digital immigrants" (Prensky), this seems like a bit of a risky assumption. For mine and everyone's sake at the conclusion of this post, I'll be emailing my union rep.
Type to you later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)