What do people have against books? Time and again techno-philes and proponents of wiki-whatevers claim the computer to be superior in all ways to books: it's free, fast, and, unless one has a laptop, doesn't need to be transported. Those arguments are fine if we users could trust all content posted online. The fact of the matter is this: Internet information is usually unreliable and written by people who are not experts on their selected topic. Students of any age should not be learning, as a primary source, something that any Joe or Jane Schmoe could have written--which often happens with Wikis or internet publications. It's great that students create web pages, wikis, whatever, and share them--but other students should not be relying on those pages for information.
Part of the problem is students want information right away. Why should I read a book when I can go to Google and find information--and a lot of it--in a matter of seconds? Why should I go to a library when I can look for information from home? Why should I page through journals, magazines, newspapers, when I can see graphics of my search or click through pages online? And there are times when I would love nothing more than to sit in front of Google to find information. But the reality is this: the soon-to-be teachers who believe, or are lead to believe, that the Internet is the best way to find information, are misguided. Regardless of where this thought originates, here are some of the dangers of relying too heavily on the Internet:
1. Students, and hell, many adults, do not know how to discern information and/or find credible sources.
2. Students, by not reading, by and large have smaller vocabularies, worse grammar, usage, and spelling, and poor oral skills.
There are many theories about why and when kids stop reading. I love reading; I always have. My parents and sisters are readers; my best friends are readers; and when asked what my hobbies are, reading is always listed first. I don't know if the 24 and younger set think it's dorky or uncool, or takes too much time, or lack the reading skills necessary to read a book, but it's a frightening trend because as teachers and parents, we need to be modeling what we want. Teachers cannot encourage reading and stress its importance if they themselves are not readers.
More to come on this...
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Miscellany about Morgan
I clearly love alliteration...perhaps it elevates me into from geeky-cool into just geeky, but what can I say? I'm getting my Master's in English, so all things literary are fascinating to me. This is my second semester as a graduate student; I am hoping to be finished next May so I get a real, full-time job and have money again. I graduated in January 2005 from UW-O, and while some think it's strange that I returned here for my Master's, the real reason is this: when I applied for grad school, I lived and worked in Appleton, which would have made it very easy for me to take a night class here and there. Then I got hired as a teacher and moved, putting grad school on the back burner. After I got laid off last spring, I re-activated my student status and voila! Here I am.
This is my first semester as a grad assistant, and I am enjoying the 'behind the scenes' part of a college classroom. It's great experience, as I'd like to teach at the post-secondary level when my degree is complete.
Here's the Cliff Notes version: I think Cliff Notes enable laziness and it should be illegal to publish them...censorship of any kind riles me up...I love to read...have 2 younger sisters (see pictures)...went to Fiji for two weeks in January (and didn't want to leave!)...grew up in Portage...love classic rock, "Lost," "General Hospital," and "Glee"...am emphasizing my degree on African American literature...and am an otherwise fascinating mix of caffeine, pop culture, and sarcasm.
A little bit about my teaching experience: my job was at a (now-defunct) charter school in Sheboygan. I worked with 28-35 students labeled with everything: at-risk, ADHD, ELL, ED, LD, and probably more I wasn't aware of. These were the naughtiest of the naughty students--they were withdrawn from their home school, usually for gang violence/fighting or drug/alcohol reasons, and sent to my school. While only having that many students may seem like a breeze, the reality is that I taught grades 6-12 and both English and history. Basically, every student had their own learning plan, which involved credit recovery. So, for each student, I created English and history lessons, often times multiples in each area because they were at risk of not graduating on time. My demographic was almost all male--I had 5 female students; almost all my students were Hispanic or black; and the issues I had are nothing than can be taught in a methods or behavior management class. After months of frustrating and bizarre behavior from one student, he was finally diagnosed as schizophrenic, which involved massive amounts of time, meetings, reports, and attempts before figuring it out. It was an untraditional and unconventional experience, but I was pretty devastated when Sheboygan cut my program (as well as myself and 45 other teachers!) However, it lead me to grad school, so in the long run it was all a blessing in disguise.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Wikipedia? Devilpedia!!
I hate wikis. Wiki books, wiki pedia, whatever. The very term alone equates laziness and inaccuracy, and it is not a little disconcerting that teachers are relying so much on wikis in their classrooms.
People go to college to learn--they get their Master's and PhD's and become experts in their discipline. THEY should be the ones who are putting the information out into cyberspace--not someone with limited knowledge. Furthermore, teachers are so reliant on wikis that they are neglecting critical skills along the way: research, disseminating information, finding credible sources. This is such a disservice to their students, and creates a cycle of laziness. When the teacher relies heavily on wiki-whatevers as the source of information, they are being lazy in their job. The students in turn are lazy because they don't know how to properly research or find information.
Finally, the idea that students should type instead of writing because it's easier for the teachers--what a slippery slope. Why teach writing at all? and with that, why teach spelling, since a computer will "catch" it for us? Computers are not the be-all and know-all; they know what the user knows. Spell check will not catch the difference between "Its a cold day" and "It's a cold day" because both spelling of its/it's is correct. The USAGE is what is wrong. Computers breed laziness.
Maybe I am more of a Luddite than I realize.
People go to college to learn--they get their Master's and PhD's and become experts in their discipline. THEY should be the ones who are putting the information out into cyberspace--not someone with limited knowledge. Furthermore, teachers are so reliant on wikis that they are neglecting critical skills along the way: research, disseminating information, finding credible sources. This is such a disservice to their students, and creates a cycle of laziness. When the teacher relies heavily on wiki-whatevers as the source of information, they are being lazy in their job. The students in turn are lazy because they don't know how to properly research or find information.
Finally, the idea that students should type instead of writing because it's easier for the teachers--what a slippery slope. Why teach writing at all? and with that, why teach spelling, since a computer will "catch" it for us? Computers are not the be-all and know-all; they know what the user knows. Spell check will not catch the difference between "Its a cold day" and "It's a cold day" because both spelling of its/it's is correct. The USAGE is what is wrong. Computers breed laziness.
Maybe I am more of a Luddite than I realize.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
The digital age...
It's not often that I watch PBS, but yesterday I watched the "Frontline" program "Growing Up Digital" and it scared the hell out of me. Two journalists researched the effect of digitalization on kids, and the results were shocking--and also slightly amusing. The youth (included were MIT students in their 20s down to 8th graders) were wholly confident in their abilities to multitask--look at Facebook while texting and IMing and doing homework. A number of researchers tested the students on their retention abilities, and, not surprisingly, the students failed at this. The students were so arrogant and nonchalant about all the technology they were using that is was shocking how badly they failed the number of tests researchers asked them to complete.
Another aspect of the program discussed how people make "friends" on the Internet, and how "connected" they feel to people they've never met. This is sad.
Finally, the most upsetting part of the 90 minute episode was how staunchly techno-philes defend the use (overuse, IMO) of digital gadgets. They claim it is "progress" and cite how upset people were when the phone lead to a decrease in letter writing, and how people couldn't believe a train would be faster than a horse. But where is the progress in having our youth spending their lives online? There are skills that can never be taught by using a computer--skills such as public speaking. Personal interactions. Human contact. The ability to carry on an actual conversation--one that isn't peppered with abbreviations, emoticons, slang, or text-speak. No one will ever convince me that these skills are outdated or old fashioned. Now, the program highlighted some innovative and cutting-edge companies who employ virtual reality as a substitute for meeting in person; the participants in these experiments tout money-saving as a benefit of using VR; another alleged benefit of VR is the ability to work from home. These people are fooling themselves. How business can be conducted via a computer is beyond me--where is the facial expressions? the non-verbal communications that convey emotions and feelings? the hand shake? when we as a society lose the capability to defend our arguments, discuss topics face-to-face, cannot meet people in the eye, is this really progress?
I am not a Luddite by any means. If it were not for email and Facebook I would be unable to communicate with my sister halfway around the world, or my German "sister," or my best friend when he taught in Korea. I love that I can send an email to a professor or friend or my parents and get a response within minutes. And I love being able to share my life (aspects, anyway!) with my closest friends and family via Facebook. But gaming and IMing and texting will never replace the sound of my loved ones' laughter, or the feel of their arms in a friendly hug, or the clinking sound of beer glasses at my bar. Those are things you cannot get from a computer, iPod, iPhone, Blackberry, or any other piece of technology.
Another aspect of the program discussed how people make "friends" on the Internet, and how "connected" they feel to people they've never met. This is sad.
Finally, the most upsetting part of the 90 minute episode was how staunchly techno-philes defend the use (overuse, IMO) of digital gadgets. They claim it is "progress" and cite how upset people were when the phone lead to a decrease in letter writing, and how people couldn't believe a train would be faster than a horse. But where is the progress in having our youth spending their lives online? There are skills that can never be taught by using a computer--skills such as public speaking. Personal interactions. Human contact. The ability to carry on an actual conversation--one that isn't peppered with abbreviations, emoticons, slang, or text-speak. No one will ever convince me that these skills are outdated or old fashioned. Now, the program highlighted some innovative and cutting-edge companies who employ virtual reality as a substitute for meeting in person; the participants in these experiments tout money-saving as a benefit of using VR; another alleged benefit of VR is the ability to work from home. These people are fooling themselves. How business can be conducted via a computer is beyond me--where is the facial expressions? the non-verbal communications that convey emotions and feelings? the hand shake? when we as a society lose the capability to defend our arguments, discuss topics face-to-face, cannot meet people in the eye, is this really progress?
I am not a Luddite by any means. If it were not for email and Facebook I would be unable to communicate with my sister halfway around the world, or my German "sister," or my best friend when he taught in Korea. I love that I can send an email to a professor or friend or my parents and get a response within minutes. And I love being able to share my life (aspects, anyway!) with my closest friends and family via Facebook. But gaming and IMing and texting will never replace the sound of my loved ones' laughter, or the feel of their arms in a friendly hug, or the clinking sound of beer glasses at my bar. Those are things you cannot get from a computer, iPod, iPhone, Blackberry, or any other piece of technology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
