How we use tech...
...quite honestly, depends on us. Of course, you may think, well, is that not the most obvious of the obvious. Yes, perhaps. But, click on the following link and press PLAY, http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs13/f/2007/077/2/e/Animator_vs__Animation_by_alanbecker.swf.
I'd like your feedback on the show. Had you seen it? What does this short film say about technology in education? I'll say more after I post to the confernece on NiceNet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, back from NiceNet conferencing. I found the animation of the stick figure fighting it out with the developer really neat. There is a fair amount of work that goes into making such a show. It was sent to my dad through a video club, Winnipeg Amateur Moviemakers.
So, getting to how technology is used in the classroom. A video like the Animator vs. Animation could be done as a Flash project, if one teaches that. It can definitely serve as an exemplar of creativity and quality work. Of course, that example speaks to a minority of teachers and students. But the creativity element is universal. Another universal is critical thinking. How should tech be used to develop that? The Maddin film is an excellent example. On NiceNet, all we've done is offer critcal analysis - not negative remarks, but reflections about its meaning. Film is a powerful medium. Did anyone, besides me, watch the CBC series ZeD that ended on 2006? It was on after the late news. It had some very interesting short films and an ethereal kind of music that had groove. I think the short film should be used a lot, as work projects students do. They could create something like Maddin, finding old pictures, mixing them with new, adding their own voice. All to tell a story or make a report (documentary). In a school I worked at a few years ago, a student ran for student council but didn't make a live speech. Instead, he played a video made of him. It was good. He won. I may try the video essay soon. How about a video thesis?
We all know about how we need to handle the internet; but, like James said on NiceNet, there just may be teachers out there who don't know what it means to Google something. These days, I'd say that would be rare, but not impossible. In a nutshell, teach how to search and tell about authoritative sources. I have found guided searches can work well with middle years kids.
One more thing... PREP!! Using tech well requires prep. Those who don't want to make the prep investment probably won't use tech well, if they do at all. There are many ways to effectively use tech in the classroom given today's tools. Computers & peripherals, smartboards, mobiles, TV, radio, films, sound recordings. What am I missing? How about everyone at the high school level taking a computer science course (programming, not Word or Excel)? Creating software certainly can develop great critical thinking skills.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Class 3: January 21, 2010
Essences
On its website (the old name for a wiki), the Kaiser Family Foundation says "our product is information." Interesting. So was John Grierson's. What information is actually gleaned from a produced work is my question, of course. Do the consumers of the information hear/perceive the intended message of the work/author/creator? Is the intended message of a work the same thing as its essence? Somehow, I don't think so. But, Wayne Dyer (Dr.) made a big production of the "Power of Intention." I have not heard him talk about essence.
We saw that the Kaiser report contained some, what I thought to be, alarming statistics. Those representative statistics of the general youth population are, however, biased. The report tells of a population sample of 2002 youths that has an oversample of African American and Hispanic students. I have not read the entire report, just a few lines. So far though, so interesting. The intention of the report was to draw attention to media use among a the grade 3-12 student population. The message: look at what's going on in the lives of youth. The essence of the report? Not quite sure. But here's a looper: What's the essesnce of time? Why care about the 7 hrs and 38 mins youth spends every day with media devices? Perhaps Roman's comment in class about how electronic device based games actually are benefiting youth is what needs to be heeded. I won't expand anymore on this now because I want to work with other ideas in this post. This means that I will use this week's post as "creative time" - Goolge gives 20% of the work time to employees to do whatever they want and from that time comes half of the ideas they actually use... see http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_pink_on_motivation.html. Perhaps any tangential hyperlinking done here will generate better reflective fodder.
Since we are getting into the essence of things, I have chosen to follow the lead of some others (we know who you are: Julye, Roman) and post TED talks that I heard about today during the (IEP) inservice I attended in Winnipeg. The one above says the reward-coercive method is just wrong. In this one, http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jan_chipchase_on_our_mobile_phones.html, the cell phone is shown to have become part of the basic human survival kit. Knowing that, how does one see the essence of technology? And I guess I should ask this question, "What is the essesnce of information?" given that I began this entry referring to information.
Information and technology. Hmm. Do you remember a Rowntree chocolates commercial with actor David Niven that was on TV years ago that had in it the line "Christmas and Rowntree go together like the fire in the hearth, and the warmth in your heart?" So goes information and technology, to some degree anyway. Can the essence of technology be information? What if the essence of technology was education? John Grieson proposed that "education is the medium of all media," so why not play with the idea of technology's essence being education. What technology may do in the long run, and here I am partly answering the question that I posed during class about what technology does to us, is bring us to a fresh but heightened, more intense and involved experience of physical reality. In this sense, technology may be serving to educate (inform) us about where we can find a rush, either at the comfort level, the cool level, emotional level... however one may describe the effect it has on us. Now consider this idea: let's suppose that TV, the security of the cell phone, texting, the Wii and DS, Xbox and the numerous internet experiences like Facebook, YouTube and the i-games, let's suppose that we reach a limit when there isn't much more that can be satisfying from engaging ourselves with those devices, that the virtual world becomes dead to us. We know that people these days sit across from each other or next to each other and text either each other or someone else. They are engaged and obviously getting some kind of satisfying experience, call it a rush (oh what a feelin'... what a rush! - recall the song by Crowbar). I suggest that this will disappear; no more satisfaction. So, if that be so, then what? Perhaps people may discover each other again and engage the human relationship reality at a new level. People may actually begin to make eye contact again. Imagine that! What a concept. What about being able to feel empathy or to be able to pick up on another person's feelings in a way that today perhaps only the most gifted of psychologists do. Again, what a concept. An awakening to physical reality for sure, but, maybe a spiritual one too. Perhaps the preoccupation with technology can actually lead humanity to rediscover itself at a deeper, sharper and more fundamental level. Perhaps the thing to do then would be again to go to the ball park or sit down, play the guitar and sing with a group. What about just talking face-to-face? Imagine. What ideas! Who would have thought that such activities could be fulfilling after being so consumed with all electric. Could technology in the long run actually be a liberating force that brings people to an authentic level of living, to an understanding of the essence of who they really are? Plato again? Might technology really be a way out of the cave? Perhaps it is educating (informing) us, whether we know it or not, of what to look for in terms of a real and satisfying experience in life. What might Grierson have said? Don't know. As a tool, technology has brought us closer together and information to us like in no other time known to us. It serves and will continue to serve well the needs of education as we currently know it. But in other ways, apart from the real information it supplies, it may be generating other information, even more real than the content it delivers. If the medium be the massage/message (McLuhan), then the medium may be delivering the information that says to us, "you won't find me here, try another way." We are looking for something; we are on a quest. Technology has been giving a temporary fix, like a drug. It is illusory. What is it that lasts? What is real? That's what we want, and ultimately, that is what we will seek. Should we worry about how much time our kids are spending in the virtual universe? Maybe not. Technology has no intention apart from us; it never has had. It's essence? What do you think? In the end, we might just find it is or has been a useful tool on the way somewhere else.
On its website (the old name for a wiki), the Kaiser Family Foundation says "our product is information." Interesting. So was John Grierson's. What information is actually gleaned from a produced work is my question, of course. Do the consumers of the information hear/perceive the intended message of the work/author/creator? Is the intended message of a work the same thing as its essence? Somehow, I don't think so. But, Wayne Dyer (Dr.) made a big production of the "Power of Intention." I have not heard him talk about essence.
We saw that the Kaiser report contained some, what I thought to be, alarming statistics. Those representative statistics of the general youth population are, however, biased. The report tells of a population sample of 2002 youths that has an oversample of African American and Hispanic students. I have not read the entire report, just a few lines. So far though, so interesting. The intention of the report was to draw attention to media use among a the grade 3-12 student population. The message: look at what's going on in the lives of youth. The essence of the report? Not quite sure. But here's a looper: What's the essesnce of time? Why care about the 7 hrs and 38 mins youth spends every day with media devices? Perhaps Roman's comment in class about how electronic device based games actually are benefiting youth is what needs to be heeded. I won't expand anymore on this now because I want to work with other ideas in this post. This means that I will use this week's post as "creative time" - Goolge gives 20% of the work time to employees to do whatever they want and from that time comes half of the ideas they actually use... see http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_pink_on_motivation.html. Perhaps any tangential hyperlinking done here will generate better reflective fodder.
Since we are getting into the essence of things, I have chosen to follow the lead of some others (we know who you are: Julye, Roman) and post TED talks that I heard about today during the (IEP) inservice I attended in Winnipeg. The one above says the reward-coercive method is just wrong. In this one, http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jan_chipchase_on_our_mobile_phones.html, the cell phone is shown to have become part of the basic human survival kit. Knowing that, how does one see the essence of technology? And I guess I should ask this question, "What is the essesnce of information?" given that I began this entry referring to information.
Information and technology. Hmm. Do you remember a Rowntree chocolates commercial with actor David Niven that was on TV years ago that had in it the line "Christmas and Rowntree go together like the fire in the hearth, and the warmth in your heart?" So goes information and technology, to some degree anyway. Can the essence of technology be information? What if the essence of technology was education? John Grieson proposed that "education is the medium of all media," so why not play with the idea of technology's essence being education. What technology may do in the long run, and here I am partly answering the question that I posed during class about what technology does to us, is bring us to a fresh but heightened, more intense and involved experience of physical reality. In this sense, technology may be serving to educate (inform) us about where we can find a rush, either at the comfort level, the cool level, emotional level... however one may describe the effect it has on us. Now consider this idea: let's suppose that TV, the security of the cell phone, texting, the Wii and DS, Xbox and the numerous internet experiences like Facebook, YouTube and the i-games, let's suppose that we reach a limit when there isn't much more that can be satisfying from engaging ourselves with those devices, that the virtual world becomes dead to us. We know that people these days sit across from each other or next to each other and text either each other or someone else. They are engaged and obviously getting some kind of satisfying experience, call it a rush (oh what a feelin'... what a rush! - recall the song by Crowbar). I suggest that this will disappear; no more satisfaction. So, if that be so, then what? Perhaps people may discover each other again and engage the human relationship reality at a new level. People may actually begin to make eye contact again. Imagine that! What a concept. What about being able to feel empathy or to be able to pick up on another person's feelings in a way that today perhaps only the most gifted of psychologists do. Again, what a concept. An awakening to physical reality for sure, but, maybe a spiritual one too. Perhaps the preoccupation with technology can actually lead humanity to rediscover itself at a deeper, sharper and more fundamental level. Perhaps the thing to do then would be again to go to the ball park or sit down, play the guitar and sing with a group. What about just talking face-to-face? Imagine. What ideas! Who would have thought that such activities could be fulfilling after being so consumed with all electric. Could technology in the long run actually be a liberating force that brings people to an authentic level of living, to an understanding of the essence of who they really are? Plato again? Might technology really be a way out of the cave? Perhaps it is educating (informing) us, whether we know it or not, of what to look for in terms of a real and satisfying experience in life. What might Grierson have said? Don't know. As a tool, technology has brought us closer together and information to us like in no other time known to us. It serves and will continue to serve well the needs of education as we currently know it. But in other ways, apart from the real information it supplies, it may be generating other information, even more real than the content it delivers. If the medium be the massage/message (McLuhan), then the medium may be delivering the information that says to us, "you won't find me here, try another way." We are looking for something; we are on a quest. Technology has been giving a temporary fix, like a drug. It is illusory. What is it that lasts? What is real? That's what we want, and ultimately, that is what we will seek. Should we worry about how much time our kids are spending in the virtual universe? Maybe not. Technology has no intention apart from us; it never has had. It's essence? What do you think? In the end, we might just find it is or has been a useful tool on the way somewhere else.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Class 2: January 14, 2010
Plateau... I mean Plato
I pondered what to write in this entry, for two days. That, however, is not to say what I actually wrote took two days. I actually began with my own allegory. I plateaued on that one! Anyway, a shadow of what Plato stirred for me, in terms of philosophy and technology, is mirrored below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly what true philosophy is alludes me a little (see the last two words in the last statement of Socrates). I know what philosophy is. The free online dictionary gives multiple definitions (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/philosophy), two of which are:
So, given those definitions and what is said at the end of the Plato piece, it is logical to conclude that the ascension from darkness to light involves asking questions and critically thinking about existence. Ya (na)?
Everyone has an understanding of truth, especially their own. Having said that, I am reminded of my first tour of university back in the mid 80's, when I came across a book written by a fellow named Harry Weinberg, Levels of Knowing and Existence. It's abook about semantics, and though I didn't read much of it, the title stuck with me. Levels of knowing and existence. Are there levels of knowing? Are there levels of existence? Plato's allegory definitely says so, and we too all know that without stretching our imaginations much. But, those questions, for me, lead to these: "Does there exist a level of truth unknowable to humans?" and "Do we exist in a reality with N plateaus and once we have come to level N, that's it; that is, the good defined in The Allegory of the Cave?" It's fun to fiddle with such questions.
We know that growth from childhood to adulthood occurs through stages, and as we pass from one stage to the next, we find ourselves on loosely (or more firmly) defined plateaus (consider Piaget). No revelation there either. But, our encounters with the realities in our lives undoubtedly shape us. Learning is a consequence of experience, and once we learn something, we can not go back to a previous level of knowledge; it is impossible. Having said that, though, a level of knowledge may change, but we can still remain on the same plateau. So when do we actually move from one plateau of knowledge to another? I'll stop here. Need to go back a bit.
We may, over time, consciously forget a detail of experience here and there, but our encounters do mark us on the inside in such a way that we will always know where we've been. If we encounter the same thing again, though it may be years later, it's like a deja-vous; automatically, our being senses a previous encounter. I've not heard of anyone ever forgetting how to ride a bike. And, though the enlightened one in Plato's cave goes back, the knowledge gained, at some level (conscious or not), will remain.
Ok, so now what? What's my point? I backed up from plateaus of knowledge to discuss marking. Let me return to knowledge plateaus. Consider that information and communication technology does shape our character and the essence of who we are. A paper by Albert Borgman titled The Marlboro Man (which I read a couple of years ago) made a play on the rugged, earthy smoker who was in touch with the range: horses, cattle, the land, and at that time, tobacco! Borgman suggested that the Marlboro Man knew his world in a way that a GPS system or a Google map just doesn't do justice. Marlboro's technology was the rope, the spur, the branding iron, and maybe the rifle. But, paints Borgman, Marlboro's way of life, once pretty normal, has become an artefact, a lost art. It has been replaced by a society of softies whose way of life involves sitting on couches channel surfing after a day in the systematized world of technology. We watch Survivor Man instead of living it.
Our info and communication technology has become a lens, a filter, a middle man - an interpretter of reality - for us. We now process the world through technology. Does this mean we live now at a different level or plateau of reality? The raw experience that directly connects a person to the entitly/reality is removed. The character of our experience, and hence our personal character, has also changed; we expect more. But, has technology really enlightened us? It has enhanced our way of life, that is certain. But, do we know reality any better? Maybe, maybe not.
When considering education and the role of technology in it, I think the raw experience of doing a science lab can never be replaced by an on-line virtual lab, nor can a virtual visit to Egypt compare to actually walking in the Valley of the Kings. Enabling timely access to data is one of info and communication technology's biggest pluses, but in other ways, all it does is cast shadows on a wall. Has technology put us on a different plateau of knowing reality? Or, has technology given us another level of knowing on the same plateau? I think technology can put us on a different plateau of knowing, but not necessarily a better one. It can also give us a new level of knowing on the same plateau, such as how to access and create data faster.
I pondered what to write in this entry, for two days. That, however, is not to say what I actually wrote took two days. I actually began with my own allegory. I plateaued on that one! Anyway, a shadow of what Plato stirred for me, in terms of philosophy and technology, is mirrored below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly what true philosophy is alludes me a little (see the last two words in the last statement of Socrates). I know what philosophy is. The free online dictionary gives multiple definitions (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/philosophy), two of which are:
- investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods;
- the critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
So, given those definitions and what is said at the end of the Plato piece, it is logical to conclude that the ascension from darkness to light involves asking questions and critically thinking about existence. Ya (na)?
Everyone has an understanding of truth, especially their own. Having said that, I am reminded of my first tour of university back in the mid 80's, when I came across a book written by a fellow named Harry Weinberg, Levels of Knowing and Existence. It's abook about semantics, and though I didn't read much of it, the title stuck with me. Levels of knowing and existence. Are there levels of knowing? Are there levels of existence? Plato's allegory definitely says so, and we too all know that without stretching our imaginations much. But, those questions, for me, lead to these: "Does there exist a level of truth unknowable to humans?" and "Do we exist in a reality with N plateaus and once we have come to level N, that's it; that is, the good defined in The Allegory of the Cave?" It's fun to fiddle with such questions.
We know that growth from childhood to adulthood occurs through stages, and as we pass from one stage to the next, we find ourselves on loosely (or more firmly) defined plateaus (consider Piaget). No revelation there either. But, our encounters with the realities in our lives undoubtedly shape us. Learning is a consequence of experience, and once we learn something, we can not go back to a previous level of knowledge; it is impossible. Having said that, though, a level of knowledge may change, but we can still remain on the same plateau. So when do we actually move from one plateau of knowledge to another? I'll stop here. Need to go back a bit.
We may, over time, consciously forget a detail of experience here and there, but our encounters do mark us on the inside in such a way that we will always know where we've been. If we encounter the same thing again, though it may be years later, it's like a deja-vous; automatically, our being senses a previous encounter. I've not heard of anyone ever forgetting how to ride a bike. And, though the enlightened one in Plato's cave goes back, the knowledge gained, at some level (conscious or not), will remain.
Ok, so now what? What's my point? I backed up from plateaus of knowledge to discuss marking. Let me return to knowledge plateaus. Consider that information and communication technology does shape our character and the essence of who we are. A paper by Albert Borgman titled The Marlboro Man (which I read a couple of years ago) made a play on the rugged, earthy smoker who was in touch with the range: horses, cattle, the land, and at that time, tobacco! Borgman suggested that the Marlboro Man knew his world in a way that a GPS system or a Google map just doesn't do justice. Marlboro's technology was the rope, the spur, the branding iron, and maybe the rifle. But, paints Borgman, Marlboro's way of life, once pretty normal, has become an artefact, a lost art. It has been replaced by a society of softies whose way of life involves sitting on couches channel surfing after a day in the systematized world of technology. We watch Survivor Man instead of living it.
Our info and communication technology has become a lens, a filter, a middle man - an interpretter of reality - for us. We now process the world through technology. Does this mean we live now at a different level or plateau of reality? The raw experience that directly connects a person to the entitly/reality is removed. The character of our experience, and hence our personal character, has also changed; we expect more. But, has technology really enlightened us? It has enhanced our way of life, that is certain. But, do we know reality any better? Maybe, maybe not.
When considering education and the role of technology in it, I think the raw experience of doing a science lab can never be replaced by an on-line virtual lab, nor can a virtual visit to Egypt compare to actually walking in the Valley of the Kings. Enabling timely access to data is one of info and communication technology's biggest pluses, but in other ways, all it does is cast shadows on a wall. Has technology put us on a different plateau of knowing reality? Or, has technology given us another level of knowing on the same plateau? I think technology can put us on a different plateau of knowing, but not necessarily a better one. It can also give us a new level of knowing on the same plateau, such as how to access and create data faster.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Class 1: January 7, 2010
Technology is/as Art
Technology is/as art. It's a concept that makes sense. I have wrestled with this idea before, and was happy to hear it given attention tonight. I'll work with it here.
I begin by conjecturing that most teachers will acknowledge pedagogical practice as an artform. Now, if that be true and with logical transitivity applied, it can be said that technology is/as pedagogy. Seems quite reasonable.
A paper is available in the JSTOR database titled Ideas of Technology: The Technological Order. It was written by frenchman Jacques Ellul (1962) and translated by a guy named John Wilkinson. Anyway, Ellul describes technology as technique. In fact, the paper says that in his book La Technique, Ellul agrees with H. D. Lasswell's (Lasswell was a professor who wrote quite a bit about technique, so said my Google search about him) definition of technique, which is, "the ensemble of practices by which one uses available resources in order to achieve certain valued ends." That sounds like it could be a definition for an artform.
The techniques which I use in the classroom are practices/procedures/processes applied after consideration is given to a desired end. My (pegagogical) technique, which includes how I discern what is good and not for my students, is an artform (technology is/as pedagogy). My technologies are not just the laptops, data projectors, tablets or the software (tools) available for me to use, but the ways I use them.
Going further, the product of technique may also be called art. Technology is/as art, is easily seen when the art is a tool developed thanks to an inventive mind. The computer is the art of the computer engineer, and so is the student the art of the teacher. Hmm. Something doesn't seem right here. Does that make a student a technology? A computer can be used to help get a job done; it is a tool. But is a student a tool? Maybe (context). A student is a learning technology (as we all are). And, students are definitley works of art, works created by many artists.
The idea is technology as technique and technique being an art, hence technology is/as art.
Technology is/as art. It's a concept that makes sense. I have wrestled with this idea before, and was happy to hear it given attention tonight. I'll work with it here.
I begin by conjecturing that most teachers will acknowledge pedagogical practice as an artform. Now, if that be true and with logical transitivity applied, it can be said that technology is/as pedagogy. Seems quite reasonable.
A paper is available in the JSTOR database titled Ideas of Technology: The Technological Order. It was written by frenchman Jacques Ellul (1962) and translated by a guy named John Wilkinson. Anyway, Ellul describes technology as technique. In fact, the paper says that in his book La Technique, Ellul agrees with H. D. Lasswell's (Lasswell was a professor who wrote quite a bit about technique, so said my Google search about him) definition of technique, which is, "the ensemble of practices by which one uses available resources in order to achieve certain valued ends." That sounds like it could be a definition for an artform.
The techniques which I use in the classroom are practices/procedures/processes applied after consideration is given to a desired end. My (pegagogical) technique, which includes how I discern what is good and not for my students, is an artform (technology is/as pedagogy). My technologies are not just the laptops, data projectors, tablets or the software (tools) available for me to use, but the ways I use them.
Going further, the product of technique may also be called art. Technology is/as art, is easily seen when the art is a tool developed thanks to an inventive mind. The computer is the art of the computer engineer, and so is the student the art of the teacher. Hmm. Something doesn't seem right here. Does that make a student a technology? A computer can be used to help get a job done; it is a tool. But is a student a tool? Maybe (context). A student is a learning technology (as we all are). And, students are definitley works of art, works created by many artists.
The idea is technology as technique and technique being an art, hence technology is/as art.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)