Economy Booming, Ethics Lagging Behind

I came across a blog post today that has me shaking my head only to stop and shake it even harder.

 Photo by Bird Abroad

 A Bird Abroad's post Are You Listening Steve Jobs? reports that the economic "progress" in China is at such a break-neck speed that it's capitalizing on Apple's exclusive image and enjoying a booming trade of knock-off electronic products. They're even being so bold as to open very convincing, but definitely fake Apple Stores.

I own and enjoy a few Apple products and regularly have to rationalize them to some people. I like many aspects of Apple's design and engineering and often lust after their latest "game-changing" piece of technology.

I mentioned to a friend last weekend that I've been considering finally purchasing the latest iPhone, and he replied that he's considering a Chinese knock-off. I laughed and he got really serious. He told me the deals being advertised and his strategy for a carrier plan and I got serious with questions. And at the end of the night, I went home and forgot to consider it, until I read the above article. Now I am left to wonder... would I buy a knock-off Apple product? Well, the answer is no, I wouldn't. Just like I wouldn't order a mail-order bride.

It's one thing to look for deals, it is another to look for "too good to be true" deals, and yet another thing again to actually support an illegal activity with your money. I'm not trying to come off as some sort of self-appointed deputy sheriff for the Internet, but there's a rule I often return to with my classes and in my own online activities: "If I wouldn't do this in real-life, why would I do it online?"

If nothing else, it appears I've got a new case study to discuss in my grade nine Media Literacy course. I wonder how long it will be until this sort of thing comes crashing into our society?

Blended Education?

Tom Vander Ark's recent article in Edreformer certainly gave me something to look into. While blended learning could easily be just another vessel on the sea of educational jargon, the idea of "a shift to an online environment for at least a portion of the student day made to improve learning and operating productivity" holds water with me for a number of reasons. Vander Ark offers "10 Reasons Why Teachers Love Blended Learning", with a number of links that I will be exploring further this week. However, instead of addressing all ten, I offer my own take simply on the above definition.


Shifting learning to an online environment for a portion of the day seems to me to be a more stable approach than throwing out all traditions of teaching in leu of 100% game-based learning or other approach. I have just experienced a rather challenging school year piloting a new iPad program in our school. I'm not about to whine about getting a class set of iPads, but the radical departure from paper-heavy tasks in my English class was clearly very challenging for a significant number of my students. A number of times I had students asking if they could just do things without doing them online, on a computer, the old fashioned way. 


It struck me as a bit odd and counter to what I've been reading about this generation. It also got me reconsidering claims being made by many that the employment skills of the future will be radically different that any previous generation. There certainly will be different careers with different skills, but society will still rest upon traditions (albeit some electronically enhanced).


I'll be reading more about blended education in the near future and hopefully come to evaluate the theory and practice in a more comprehensive fashion. Until then, it would be great to hear anyone's experiences, understandings, or opinions on the topic.

Library of My Dreams

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.