Sunday, May 22, 2011
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Digital Native vs Testing
I have been rethinking the idea of digital native vs digital immigrant. We commonly think that students today, having grown up with digital technology at their side, are better attuned, and so more comfortable, with technology. This has not necessarily been my experience.
Students are exceptionally good at sending text messages and looking at YouTube, but actual creative activity is really very low, and that which is created is no better than other generations have been able to muster. Students are fairly good at finding shortcuts to accomplish their work, and I am not completely against this, but the amount of knowledge that soaks in seems no greater than we have seen in the past, and often is less.
Finally, I think that game design is an excellent way to teach content, but generally speaking, the tools involved in game design have a steep learning curve, that only the most dedicated students are willing to climb.
I'm thinking about that Friedman piece, in the Times last week, where a researcher said that a major problem is student motivation. One response was to ask what if we made school engaging enough to generate that motivation?
And that is true, as far as it goes, but schools have other problems that force them in this direction or that. I'm thinking of this nonsense that the LA Times has pushing regarding ranking teachers by the test scores of their students. They talk about "value added" to suggest that the tests ranking only look at progress from one year to the next. It is a fantasy.
I started teaching in a middle school in Pacoima, where the average sixth grader read at a third grade level, if I was lucky. Now let's suppose I'm a fantastic sixth grade teacher, and I can move them two years in the space of one year, arguably a great job. Now they are reading at a fifth grade level, but they have to take the sixth grade test, which they fail miserably. Now my pay and my reputation are at stake, even though i've done a great job.
The solution--don't take chances, and don't work in a low performing school. That means no games or projects in class, only content that is sure to get my kids to score better on the test. Nothing else matters. Every time they come out with new ideas for teaching, but fail to change the way they test, teachers look at it and say "no, thank you".
My own research has shown that increasing technology in middle class schools has only a marginal benefit, but introducing or expanding technology at low socio-economic schools has a significant effect on learning, but has nothing to do with the tests. So who is going to do that if their job is at risk?
Students are exceptionally good at sending text messages and looking at YouTube, but actual creative activity is really very low, and that which is created is no better than other generations have been able to muster. Students are fairly good at finding shortcuts to accomplish their work, and I am not completely against this, but the amount of knowledge that soaks in seems no greater than we have seen in the past, and often is less.
Finally, I think that game design is an excellent way to teach content, but generally speaking, the tools involved in game design have a steep learning curve, that only the most dedicated students are willing to climb.
I'm thinking about that Friedman piece, in the Times last week, where a researcher said that a major problem is student motivation. One response was to ask what if we made school engaging enough to generate that motivation?
And that is true, as far as it goes, but schools have other problems that force them in this direction or that. I'm thinking of this nonsense that the LA Times has pushing regarding ranking teachers by the test scores of their students. They talk about "value added" to suggest that the tests ranking only look at progress from one year to the next. It is a fantasy.
I started teaching in a middle school in Pacoima, where the average sixth grader read at a third grade level, if I was lucky. Now let's suppose I'm a fantastic sixth grade teacher, and I can move them two years in the space of one year, arguably a great job. Now they are reading at a fifth grade level, but they have to take the sixth grade test, which they fail miserably. Now my pay and my reputation are at stake, even though i've done a great job.
The solution--don't take chances, and don't work in a low performing school. That means no games or projects in class, only content that is sure to get my kids to score better on the test. Nothing else matters. Every time they come out with new ideas for teaching, but fail to change the way they test, teachers look at it and say "no, thank you".
My own research has shown that increasing technology in middle class schools has only a marginal benefit, but introducing or expanding technology at low socio-economic schools has a significant effect on learning, but has nothing to do with the tests. So who is going to do that if their job is at risk?
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
The reports of blogging's death have been greatly exaggerated
The latest from Cory Doctorow. http://bit.ly/a2IZBL
Monday, July 12, 2010
Google continues to democratize the web by letting everyone get in on the fun.
Google has released software that will enable regular people to create applications for their Android mobile device (phones for now, presumably tablets in the future). http://nyti.ms/9kWJ4X
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Walled Garden Proves Successful
Apple successfully guarded its "walled garden" by banning a malicious developer. http://nyti.ms/d8HRwM This validates Apple's policy, and should be a warning to those who would download carelessly, from an app store or anywhere else. Apple has protected its customers, even if they don't want the protection, but it has also protected its brand. While I think Android is very cool, it may be destined to be the Windows of mobile OSs--big, but vulnerable.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
iPhone vs Android
The whole iPhone vs Android debate is reminiscent of the Mac vs PC discussion, with the same types of issues. With iPhone (and I include iPad) you get the so-called walled garden, in which you can do anything you want as long as it is approved by Apple. This is is similar to the dearth of application available for the Mac compared to Windows. In recent times, that has changed some, but the overwhelming majority of new application are created for the PC. It will only be a matter of time before there are exponentially more Android phones than there are iPhones, so the two situations will be twins. It turns out that just like Windows being more likely to get a virus or to get hacked (not because of any design flaw, but it's a numbers game for hackers), Android devices are already seeing hacks and viruses propagate throughout their ecosystem.
If one were to advise a computer buyer about purchasing a laptop, one would usually ask if the computer was to be used at work or as a personal machine, whether it was for business (number crunching, correspondence, etc.) or for graphics, movie editing, photos, ease of sharing, etc., the advice would almost certainly be to buy a PC for business and a Mac for personal. This argument seems reasonable for the iPhone/iPad vs Android debate. Part of the reason, perhaps the main reason, that a Mac "just works", as opposed to a PC, is that Apple only has to design for a single platform, and they control all the variables in hardware and drivers. Whereas Windows must account for thousands of different hardware configurations, thus it requires more work on the part of the consumer to make it all work.
In the coming months I believe we are going to see an analogous situation between iPhone and Android. Those who like getting their hands dirty are going to opt for Android, while those who just want their device to work as advertised will opt for the iPhone. It comes down to what I have been saying for years--do you want the computer to work for you, or do you want to work for the computer?
If one were to advise a computer buyer about purchasing a laptop, one would usually ask if the computer was to be used at work or as a personal machine, whether it was for business (number crunching, correspondence, etc.) or for graphics, movie editing, photos, ease of sharing, etc., the advice would almost certainly be to buy a PC for business and a Mac for personal. This argument seems reasonable for the iPhone/iPad vs Android debate. Part of the reason, perhaps the main reason, that a Mac "just works", as opposed to a PC, is that Apple only has to design for a single platform, and they control all the variables in hardware and drivers. Whereas Windows must account for thousands of different hardware configurations, thus it requires more work on the part of the consumer to make it all work.
In the coming months I believe we are going to see an analogous situation between iPhone and Android. Those who like getting their hands dirty are going to opt for Android, while those who just want their device to work as advertised will opt for the iPhone. It comes down to what I have been saying for years--do you want the computer to work for you, or do you want to work for the computer?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
