Monday, August 12, 2013
Please Join the Faculty...
...in our summer reading. Here is one of the articles we're reading this summer, in anticipation of your return. The author, Mark Prensky, sees technology as becoming an "extension of our brains; it's a new way of thinking." In what ways do you see this in your own learning, your own lives? What ideas in the article ring true to you? Which seem less applicable, obvious, or other? Are there ways you would appreciate seeing this approach implemented at SBS? How and why? Before you sit down to dinner on Sunday, please answer these questions and others that the article raises for you. Along the way, share two or more Knowledge Questions extracted from the text and your relationship to its ideas.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The first thing that stood out to me in the article was when Prensky said that technology is the key to a student’s success rather than reading. This is a bold statement to make and when I read it, I did not agree entirely, but my mind was not made up either. I was slightly frightened when he said, “technology is now part of mental activity.” I am completely in favour of the advancement of technology and the integration of it in our curriculums, but I was appalled when he suggested that teaching students how to read and define words and concepts might not be worthwhile anymore. I wouldn’t want an animatronic voice reading for me. Stories are experiences for many people; experiences of a life they’ve lived as a storybook character. Illustrations are seen as one reads along to the picture the author has written. Reading is an intimate activity. Furthermore, I didn’t understand why Prensky didn’t bother to say written languages might become inessential along with reading. What use would a dictionary be if the future generations were illiterate? What use is language? If we forget these, we’ll be reversing time, not forwarding it. I feel as though if we keep pushing technology to replace human capabilities and assist in our incompetence, a being will have been created that is more intelligent, more adept than any sci-fi monster conceived. I believe it’s essential to the dignity of the mind to challenge it to the extent where humans are still encouraged to be innovative, critical thinkers and to have intellectual curiousity.
ReplyDeleteWhen I reached the part where Prensky redirects his second grader to Siri when he asks for a definition, I was stunned. If one learns a word’s definition instead of constantly relying on Siri for it, efficiency increases. This is the beauty of the human mind. Also, I disagree with his thought that the best way to learn something is through technology. I believe it’s through experience. However, his belief stands well when applied to math problems and volumes of data.
I completely agreed with his piece on “Moving From Trivial To Powerful”. I think our school should consider combining classes with teachers from around the world. I believe we need to move forward and make the future generations feel as though they are people of the world and not separated by distinctions. To create more global citizens, transnational cooperation is necessary. By allying ourselves with other schools that offer the IB and the same IB courses, we could have discussions and broaden our understanding on topics. In one class we could come up with questions for the other class. Maybe we could work together for a CAS project. There is no end to the possibilities and benefits.
Who would have access to these new technologies, and at what cost?
The new curriculum Prensky presented was interesting. It was strange to me since I didn’t study according to that curriculum. I would appreciate seeing a course like “effective action” adopted at SBS, or at least electives such as entrepreneurship and business. And honestly, I would like to see my nephew and niece attend a primary school that teaches effective thinking, action and relationships. I’ve always believed in exposing logic to children as early as possible. It seems with this new curriculum there will be more motivated and involved youth. Also, by having children work closely together to accomplish group work, I believe they may mature socially quicker. It seems as thought it would work well.
KQs:
DeleteWhat are the risks in creating knowledge?
To what extent is knowledge necessary to lead a fulfilling life?
Very often I see that technology is becoming a dominant learning and teaching tool, especially in the maths and sciences. The global connections mentioned that technology allows us is definitely an important and beneficial aspect that I can see in my education and life. The internet and technology have given students the ability to access information almost instantly and this calls for a different style and curriculum of teaching.
ReplyDeleteAs a student that has had both a public and private education, like many of us at school, I can say truthfully that the public school system is the reason I have chosen to not peruse a career in teaching. I agree that the curriculum needs to be changed fundamentally, but I do not think that Marc Prensky’s emphasis on technology is as important as he made it seem. Technology definitely touches every aspect of our lives, but I think there must also be emphasis on learning through other outlets like music, art and nature. I have seen and experienced firsthand how technology can consume our thoughts and actually disconnect us from the people around us; so to put more emphasis on technology in schools we must first change the ways we use technology. The powerful connections that technology permits students like global communication must be treated more seriously if integrated into the curriculum.
When Prensky’s asked “What subject matter from the past is still relevant, and for whom?” I immediately thought of George Orwell’s 1984. For me that book emphasized our need as a society to have a strong and true recollection of our past, so that we do not make the same mistakes twice.
KQ- If information about our past, or any other information, can be found just by searching the internet, is it important to actually teach and learn about it?
In the last year I have intensely changed and assessed my ways of thinking and most importantly found that there is no one right answer, but many answers to consider. In many ways I can already see how Prensky’s new curriculum is present in our education. For example, I agree that thinking skills are unconsidered by a majority students. Personally I think I have become a student that errs on the side of effective thinking and tries to focus more on the process rather than getting stuck in the content. Prensky’s take on building effective relationships is already something that humans do naturally, and I can see it present in our schools now. Students are offered the opportunities to join sports teams and clubs which foster effective communication.
KQ- Is effective communication more important on a local or global level? How can schools aid these types of communication without technology?
Tina writes (part 1): Technology does bring a lot of changes to my life, and many of these changes are positive. It just reminded me a small incident when my mother and I wanted to drive to a place this afternoon. This place is pretty far away from my home, and my mother was not sure how to get there. In the past, she would research it online before we went, but this time, she tried to use the GPS in the car. However, we quickly realized that the GPS did not seem to be right, and then I say," I'll use my iPhone to guide us." In fact, it worked very well. From this incident, I found two aspects of technology. The first one is that technology can make our lives much easier in many cases. I do not need a map, and try to find the name of the roads written in about 8 font; I just need to type my destination in Google map on my iPhone, and it will show me how to get there in different ways. Certainly, it is a new way of thinking in our life. However, this incident also shows a negative aspect of technology: it does not always work. If we followed the wrong guide on the GPS in the car, we might end up in a random place, or we might get there an hour later. Luckily, my mom had a brief sense of what roads she should pass. This told me that I should not rely on technology too much; I should still use my knowledge to "guide" it and determine whether it is right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea that technology is becoming an extension of our brains because it makes our lives more efficient and convenient. For example, it eliminates the barrier of distance, and now I can receive TOK homework the same time as the students in the US. Also, regardless of good or bad, I have access to a variety of information online whenever I need. However, it can only be an "extension", but it is so hard to draw a line between "control" and "being controlled" because sometimes it is mixed. For instance, since my father started to use smartphone, he has found a lot of friends whom he had lost contact with for a long time in an app on his phone. I see this as he "controls" the technology to do what he wants. On the other hand, the technology "steals" the conversations in my family. After dinner, my dad would play games on his Galaxy, my mom would look at her iPhone, and I would use my iPad. There are less conversations among us because we are all busy using our technologies.
Tina writes (part 2): Talking about the "new curriculum" in the article, I think it is a new interesting way of teaching, but at the same time, I am also worried about it. From my own experience, I think hand-on experiments are much more influential and effective for me. When I did an experiment online, I felt that I was just clicking the mouse, and copying down the data. Also, although introducing technology to kids in a young age can let them get familiar with this "new way", but how to teach them to control the technology is a big difficulty. Even a person like my father's age can be quickly attracted/addicted to technology, how to have a kid use it "appropriately"? I like the way the "new curriculum" teaches knowledge, but it can be used with less technology when kids are in a younger age; it sometimes can be replaced by a way in which kids are more frequently interact with one another, so that they can naturally learn how to communicate. Same at SBS, I think that the middle schoolers should not be overwhelmed by the use of technology; instead, they can have more activities that require "real" experiments to shape their knowledge. Upper schoolers can use more technology because they are more likely to control themselves, and some of the experiments are hard to carry out in real life.
ReplyDeleteHere are some knowledge questions I came up with:
To what extent should we rely on the use of technology?
How to find a boundary between "controlling the technology" and "being controlled by technology"?
How do we benefit the most from technology?
To what extent is technology a good way for early education?
Technology is a wonderful development in the world. To answer the question about how it is used in my own life I can say there is not a day where I don’t use technology. Whether it is checking my email, or looking up something for homework there is no easier way than using some sort of technology. The thing techonology is helping the most is speeding up the process. Instead of taking the time to look up a word in a dictionary or looking up directions on a map, there are much faster ways to do this on a computer. It is an extension of our brains because all we need to do is enter key words, and technology will do the rest. A main example is spell check. I don’t know if I see it as a new way of thinking but rather a short cut to thinking and using our brains to the greatest potential. I feel like it is ripping off our brains.
ReplyDeleteTake this for example…you’re in a conversation where a question is asked. You do not have a cell phone and another person does. Let’s say it’s a really hard math question or something of those sorts. The person with the phone has so many more options for help. For one they have a calculator and can look up anything about math on the internet. You only have your brain and past knowledge. Oh and let’s even the playing field: you both graduated the same year and took the same classes, getting the same grades. It will be much easier for the person with the cell because they have more places to reach out to, they could even call someone.
I agree with the article about how it is an extension of our lives it almost makes us super human. I also agree that we need to teach older and younger people that technology is great, but I don’t know if it is the BEST way because even though I may not love to read it is important to teach and be able to use. It is not the number one skill students need to take from school in order to succeed. Reading is the root of everything. You won’t be able to use technology if you do not know how to read. You wouldn’t be able to look something up and understand it if you didn’t know how to read. Think about instructions and directions, you need to be able to read them. When they say that technology is learning to…it certainly is but they said that “these technologies then do the calculations – the part that machines do best – enabling students to focus on whether the answer makes sense.” This is true but I believe that one of the most important things in learning about something is understanding HOW you got there. I would be so confused if I did not know how something came to be. Another example is my friend who is learning Chinese but doesn’t know how to write the characters. In her school they just learn the pinyin because they do everything on an Ipad where she types the letters and it transforms into the character. I find this strange but that is what technology is doing.
I’m really looking forward to the school using online books because it is first of all be a lot better for the environment, it will make our bags lighter, and it will be just a whole lot easier…I think. We are all at the age that technology is not a completely new thing and I think it is wonderful we are switching now. However…recently and actually quite often I have had the conversation about “I just like holding a book.” Just a little over a week ago I was talking with my driving instructor and he has a online book store where he sells old copies of book. He was saying though, some people of the older generation just can’t switch over to using only technology when reading a book. I believe that this is because they didn’t grow up with it like we have. Ever since I have been alive which has only been 17 years, there has been a computer in my house.
Something else that SBS does is they limit our internet usage which quite honesty I think is great. When I stay over on a school night it really helps me focus on doing my studies. Being at home, cell phones and internet are VERY distracting. But then also in class we are learning the ways of technology. For instance the required course of technology that the freshmen take is great because it gets them ready with all of the new things they will use in high-school.
ReplyDeleteTechnology will continue to development and I don’t think will ever stop. The problem is…every time there is a new development, costs go up. This creates an economic problem because the people with more money will be more technologically advanced, and I don’t think that is fair. We are turning into a technology run world, which will always have its pros and cons.
Knowledge Questions:
-To what extent is technology running our lives and making us superhuman? Are we becoming robots?
-To what extent should we allow technology to continue improving?
-When and how do we know if technology is becoming more than we can handle?
-Why have we allowed ourselves to develop technologies using billions of dollars instead of using that money in other places such as poverty?
**I really liked this article and post
When I just started reading the article, before getting deep into the argument, I immediately appreciated that Prensky included a definition of “technology” in his article. Technology is a very ambiguous term. Many people use it and throw it around without really understanding what it means, assuming that it refers solely to electronics and new machines that are created. However, while technology does encompass mechanization, it is not limited to it. Prensky makes that distinction.
ReplyDeleteI partly agree with Prensky when he states that technology is an “extension of our brains; it's a new way of thinking.” Everyday terms are now automatically assumed to include the use of technology. For example, when someone says that they are “talking” with a friend, it no longer necessarily means actual verbal talking with the people standing next to one another. It now means talking on the phone, skyping, texting, commenting on each other’s posts on Facebook, etc. The way we think is shaped by language (as we have discussed many times in class) so when language automatically encompasses electronics, it becomes the way we think. We panic in math class when we’re not allowed to use calculators and in English class when we can’t use word to check our spelling and grammar.
Prensky stated that it is true when people say “When I lose my cell phone, I lose half my brain.” Even though Prensky states that “Integrating these tools into our minds is not dependence in a negative sense; rather, it's closer to symbiosis.” doesn’t it still negatively impact our brains when those objects of dependence are removed from us? One accustomed to depending on the spell check option in word correct would not be able to otherwise spell a word on his/her own. To me, it looks as though this sort of dependence definitely negatively impacts our abilities. Instead of experiencing the world first hand, we experience it from the screen of our laptops. Instead of having proper face to face conversations, we text and write; choosing to limit the extent of first hand exposure. Therefore, we lose the ability to observe and truly appreciate the real world.
It is also inaccurate to refer to the relationship between humans and technology as a symbiotic one because a symbiosis refers to “A mutually beneficial relationship between different people or groups.” such as one between a remora and a shark. Can we really say that our lives have improved with technological advancements?
I agreed with certain parts of the “Rethinking the Curriculum” section and linked the mathematics section with something my dad always told me. My dad always tells that real math is what goes on before we put our pencils on the paper. Real math is when you look at a problem and you figure out exactly what to do in order to solve it. Determining the numbers and values is just arithmetic. Math isn’t beautiful because we can add and subtract numbers; the numbers are just the tools we use to express mathematical ideas. Therefore, even though we may have calculators and mathematical software, we need to make conscious decisions about which formulas to use and which methods will be most effective in yielding the most helpful answer. In fact, the more math increases in “difficulty” the less numbers are used. I have seen countless memes which I find quite amusing.
http://www.onlineatlantic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/math-memes-numbers.jpg
A calculator will not be able to help with ideas; only with arithmetic. Therefore, it makes sense not to spend time learning things that the calculator can do for us. However, I am not fully convinced by this argument because I know firsthand the unreliability of technology.
Prensky stated that “If our technology does break down temporarily (and everything does), we repair it and move on.” This quote fails to address just how unstable technology is. Letters that have been written on stone blocks in 3200 BC still exist today. However, who can now access a word file written on Windows 95 merely a few decades ago? A virus in a company’s system can completely obliterate the life work of a group of people. What would be the state of the world if AT&T suddenly closed down? If Apple wasn’t able to fix a bug in their products? This also links back to dependency and illustrates the extent to which all of society is dependent on a handful of major companies around the world.
ReplyDeleteI cannot deny that Prensky is persuasive. Instead of learning the subjects and the topics, we are taught the skills we need in order to understand them when the time comes for us to pull up a certain piece of knowledge from our phones or laptops. The reform that Prensky is suggesting makes me think of TOK as a class. In a way, his suggestions are implemented at SBS. We learn about how we learn, not what we learn. Ability is given precedence over content. We sometimes have problems differentiating between content and ability; there is not always such an obvious difference.
However, I am very hypocritical. Even though I think electronics have caused deterioration in our society as a whole, I am not willing to stop using them. I don’t want SBS to implement Prensky’s ideas. I don’t want the human race to depend on technology, even though it does. Even though Prensky’s suggestions do not seem to negatively impact a human’s ability to think, I’m not convinced no matter what he says.
Finally, my knowledge questions are:
Have our lives improved with technological advancements?
This directly impacts me because I am part of generation that has some of the most exposure to technology. Can I say that my life is better than the ones of those who lived hundreds of years before I did?
How do we determine whether knowledge is predominately fact-based or ability-based?
This has to do with the material that is taught in schools. Does this mean that most of what we are being taught does not enhance the way we think?
Is technology natural or unnatural? What does it really mean for something to be natural or unnatural?
Are we taking action that contradicts human nature? If so, then how can it be considered a contradiction?
In many ways this article relates to conversations that have occurred in my neighborhood. Many of the parents are very into the new technology and want their children to become more into it. They believe that technology is going to take over the world and if we do not take advantage and power over the growth of technology, then the “geeks” of computers are going to take over the world and Earth will be under the dictation of technology robots. But thats just the wild minds of my family and neighbors.
ReplyDeleteIn my own learning I can most definitely see the growing dependence on technologies to further knowledge. While reading on my iPhone I use the one touch dictionary. For research projects the first place that I go to, to do research is the Google search engine. My parents and I were just discussing the benefits of getting a Kindle or iPad to put my textbooks on. This conversations, as of now, has been left unfinished.
There was a part of this article that mentioned if it was even worth teaching handwriting, and cursive any more in elementary school. My sister is 9 years old and she is glued to her iTouch. She does not like to write anything down. When she is playing school her “Attendance list” is in the notes section on her iTOuch instead of in a paper notebook like the ones my oter sister and I used to use. I do think that it is important to still teach handwriting so that they know how to write and are able to write an essay if technology fails.
I really like the Effective Thinking, Acting and Relationships. In many ways this is what is happening at SBS, especially the effective thinking. I think that there is opportunity for the actionand relationship aspects but they are not as out right or obvious to someone who is not aware of them. I think that these would enhance the SBS curriculum because they would make SBS an even more culturally aware and active school. Setting up programs with other schools around the world would make way for a new type of communication and connects for students and knowledge.
How can the lack of knowledge of the uses of technology lead to inadequate usage?
To what extent is current education holding students back from knowledge they are capable to obtain with the help of technology?
This article was an interesting read for a variety of reasons. While parts of this article sickened me, to be frank, in the end I was questioning some of my previously held beliefs regarding technology integration. Author Mark Prensky states that technology is a new way of thinking. I think technology eradicates thinking, outsourcing our thoughts to machines so we don’t have to trouble ourselves. However, I began to wonder whether I was just in denial about the amount of technology I myself use. The truth is that I use more technology than I’d like to admit. I rely on it. I freak out when I don’t have wifi, and drive frantically to the nearest Starbucks. I use technology to get my news, to talk to people, to gain information in every way, shape, and form. I even took an online class earlier this summer, accessing this content directly from technology. I see this in my own life and learning perpetually, and this article made me feel a whole lot less guilty about it.
ReplyDeletePrensky raised some interesting questions and made a few very good points. It does make sense to re-vamp the curriculum to match the times. His example of teaching children how to hunt for food was very effective. Why learn something you can always look up? I completely understand where the author is coming from. Endless knowledge available at the push of a button does seem like a learner’s dream. It does make sense to teach children how to use this technology and maybe push for a more modern curriculum which reflects the changing time period and increasingly intelligent technology. However, I also have several bones to pick with this article. Making the argument that the sentence, "Romeo and Juliet is an ironic, poetic, and emotional look at how misunderstandings and societal problems can turn innocent love into tragedy" is sufficient in terms of revealing a depth of understanding? Where’s the evidence? Children who learn to write like this will also learn to think like this – glib, shallow, and meaningless. Essays are a vital part of the learning process because they teach the importance of formulating thought and carrying through to a proper conclusion; how to articulate themselves and convey their thoughts intelligently to other people. A training mechanism. These are all important skills for young minds seeking to succeed on a global stage. Secondly, all this technology and access to information is well and good, but what happens when it’s taken away from us? Using my own example again, I was technologically stranded when my computer said that the Wi-Fi wasn’t working. I lost all access to that information. All of that was ripped away from me. Technology is inherently unstable, and is also one of the fastest progressing industries. There is always a new piece of technology and a new way to record something. Technology is a constantly changing field, which outdates itself far too often. The word ‘cassette’ isn’t even in the dictionary anymore. When I said the word ‘VCR’ in a conversation a few days ago, my co-conversant didn’t know what it was. All the files that can only be played on a VCR, all the songs you can only hear on that one cassette, chances are that they won’t be able to be read, seen, or heard in the future. That information will be lost forever. Who’s to say the same thing won’t happen with modern technology? The Rosetta Stone, the key to the modern understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphics, was just that, a stone. It still exists today, probably in the British museum, like everything else. The most basic and elementary form of record, carving into a stone, has been preserved since 196 BC, while in a few years we won’t be able to play a cassette tape from the 80s. The 1980s. If we thought Y2K was scary, if we thought we were technology dependent at that point, imagine the nightmare in this day and age if we suddenly lost access to technology. Even worse, in Prensky’s getting-less-and-less-theoretical-by-the-second world, utter chaos would ensue.
No one would know what to do because everyone would have been trained in a technology-dependent atmosphere. Now where are the geniuses who came up with this system? An apocalypse wouldn’t necessitate a hurdling ball of fire, only a glitch in the man-made system. We may be digging our own grave with our increased dependence on technology.
ReplyDeletePrensky’s curriculum suggestion seems like the most hard-to-apply concept in the article, mainly because it would involve an overhaul of the education system, and the agreement of town councilors everywhere on the fact that this is where our society is headed. If it’s a hard concept for me, a technology-addicted 17 year old to swallow, then you can bet that our current traditional education model isn’t going anywhere any time soon.
For now I am glad to see SBS taking a less extreme approach to technology integration, while staying conscious of the fact that it is an important learning tool, with classes like Global Tech and an abundance of technology-related assignments.
This article raised many questions for me, but the four knowledge questions which stood out to me were: Can we truly claim to know something if we are wholly dependent on another source to access and receive the piece of knowledge?
After finishing this article, I wondered whether I would have had the same reaction if I had not just had my Wi-Fi disappear. I felt the panic, which made me extra-skeptical when it came to Prensky’s advocating for relying on technology. My second KQ, therefore, is this: Is persuasion a matter of the author’s use of pathos, logos, and ethos, or does it mainly rely on a knower’s disposition to the topic?
Is outdated knowledge still considered knowledge? How long can a piece of information exist before it is no longer valuable or even considered something worth knowing?
Should technology be considered a way of knowing by itself, or does it need human interaction and knowledge and skills for it to be utilized correctly and for it to be categorized as a way of knowing?
“They say I'm old-fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast!” – Theodor Geisel