When I attended HASTAC 2017 I was very excited to listen to Jennifer deWinter I was attracted to her presentation on The Half-Real Humanities: Hard Problems in Humanities Games. I was not disappointed. In her talk (which was very brief on her part) she referenced two separate articles of hers which addressed the inequalities in gaming. She made sure to mention that many inequalities in gaming are unaddressed because of under-represented youth in the gaming market.
The first concept addressed in Taylorism 2.0 was, surprise, Taylorism. Taylorism is a type of management used originally by Fredrick Winslow Taylor. Also called scientific management, Taylorism was created to make labor more efficient and productive by breaking the production of a product down to address “inefficiencies in production systems”. (deWinter, Kocurek, & Nichols, Taylorism 2.0: Gamification, scientific management and the capitalist appropriation of play, 2014) Stages of production are broken down into individual pieces to create more efficient workers. Taylor originally created this to encourage democracy and creativity in the workplace. The opposite was the result. Taylorism is criticized as eliminating democracy in the workplace and take away the ability of workers to show their creativity. Jennifer deWinter, Carly Kocurek, and Randall Nichols use Taylorism in regards to gamification. Gamification is the process by which companies and institutions use game like elements in programs and activities that are traditionally not games. The issue that deWinter, Kocurek, and Nichols bring to the forefront is when gamification is used as a benefit of an institution rather than the user it subverts the purpose of games. (deWinter, Kocurek, & Nichols, Taylorism 2.0: Gamification, scientific management and the capitalist appropriation of play, 2014) This relates back to the idea of disruptive fixation and Christo Sims. Sims asserts that there needs to be disruption of the tunnel vision that surrounds technology reform in education. (Sims, 2017) Gamification is a wonderful concept but not when it put the needs of the industry in front of the needs of the user. In Games, Gamification, and Labour Politics this is addressed again. For example, the Wii is gamified exercise and it helps with learning and coordination. (deWinter & Kocurek, 2014) When this gamification approach is applied to an industries goals instead of the users goal it is not the utopia that gamifiers like to pretend that it is. “This approach treats users as mindless zombies, lurching through the system in pursuit of engineered rewards with little space for desires or goals of their own.” (deWinter & Kocurek, 2014)This is not to say that the authors are against gamification but that they are against the use of games to extend the ideology of dominate groups. This is, of course, related to connected learning and finding ways to better the education of students. How can teachers and schools teach with the best interests of their students in mind. One way to allow this to happen is by choosing a game that has an avatar with many different choices. “The avatars operate as projections of one’s own self”. (deWinter & Vie, 2008) Sometimes these relate to how the user actually looks and sometimes they have to do with how the user wishes they look. This allows for an authentic environment in which to learn. In the article they do note that Second Life is not a utopia and there is sexualized content and questionable activities possible. (deWinter & Vie, 2008) For example, there is racism and sexism present because of the user element in the game. The authors address the issue that Second Life has intertwined social systems and corporations. deWinter’s goal throughout these articles is to work towards a more inclusive online space. She is striving to achieve a more inclusive educational setting as well. Gamification is not the answer but neither is it moving away from the solution. Just as technology does not have politics without humans to add them gamification is not inherently a negative use of technology until the needs of the corporation are put in front of the needs of the user. Sims stated that there needs to be a cycle of disruption in order to make sure that the underserved youth are represented in education, especially when it comes to the use of technology. This disruptive fixation must also apply to gamification and learning. Works CiteddeWinter, J., & Kocurek, C. (2014). Games, gamification, and labour politics. Journal of gaming & virtual worlds, 103-107. deWinter, J., & Vie, S. (2008). Press enter to "say": Using Second life to teach critical media literacy. Computers and composition, 313-322. deWinter, J., Kocurek, C., & Nichols, R. (2014). Taylorism 2.0: Gamification, scientific management and the capitalist appropriation of play. Journal of gaming & virtual worlds, 109-127. Sims, C. (2017). Disruptive fixation school reform and the pitfalls of techno-idealism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton university press. https://www.academia.edu/8472045/Taylorism_2.0_Gamification_Scientific_Management_and_the_Capitalist_Appropriation_of_Play http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=8d1701bc-65d1-4a29-a84f-224873c4046e%40pdc-v-sessmgr01 https://ac-els-cdn-com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/S8755461508000388/1-s2.0-S8755461508000388-main.pdf?_tid=65fa5bc8-d86e-11e7-aae7-00000aacb362&acdnat=1512335613_d0eaee8f78397fafc518d615b1a5e4a3
0 Comments
Yaël and I worked towards an understanding of who a digital learner is and how they connect to each other. It was interesting to me to see a very different take on the articles. Yaël had checked up on some apps that exploit those who do not stay up to date on their privacy settings. A point she made that I had not quite brought to the surface of my thoughts yet was that many times it is the integrations that make our everyday lives easier that allow for these exploitations. For example, there is an app called Girls Around Me which shows girls in their real-time locations in the local area. More specifically, “These are all girls with publicly visible Facebook profiles who have checked into these locations recently using Foursquare.” (Brownlee, 2012) This stopped me in my tracks. The app links to social networks from foursquare and provides this information to anyone on the app. I keep my Facebook on lockdown, I don’t link my sites to my social media and I make sure that my location services are turned off whenever possible and this still makes me uncomfortable. Brownlee sums it up beautifully, “It’s that we’re all horrified by how exposed these girls are, and how exposed services like Facebook and Foursquare let them be without their knowledge.” (Brownlee, 2012)
We must keep adapting to anything that technology throws our way. As adults we understand this. It is for this reason that adults also know that we need to change our learning as the technology available to us changes as well. “What is required to succeed in education is a theory that is responsive to the context of constant flux, while at the same time is grounded in a theory of learning.” (Thomas & Brown, 2009) There needs to be constant movement in learning and what we know to respond to the pace at which technology is changing. In fact, this is neatly summed up in the concluding statement, “Where traditional models of learning have moved from models of direct knowledge transfer to broader notions of skills, we believe that neither of these is sufficient to explain and account for the fundamental epistemic shifts and new affordances that 21st century presents.” (Thomas & Brown, 2009) The interesting this is that students tend to be equipped to respond to this shift in technology within their personal lives outside of the classroom, it is the educational system that is lagging behind. These students are rarely seen without a cellphone or some sort of digital device. It is finding ways of connecting the learning to the classroom and back to their personal lives. This also applies outside the traditional classroom, Jenkins states that “The challenge is how to connect decisions in the context of our everyday lives with the decisions made at local, state, or national levels” (Jenkins, 2009) Students sometimes do not see the implication of their learning to their “real lives” and therefore are not interested in investing time or effort into it. “It is clear that different youth at different times possess varying levels of technology- and media-related expertise, interest, and motivation.” (Ito, et al., 2010) Learning and technology should never be considered separate entities. Even when there are examples of digital media far removed from the classroom, students still find ways to learn and succeed. Media is not isolating youth but “Contrary to popular images of the socially isolated geek, almost all geeking out practices we have observed are highly social and engaged” (Ito, et al., 2010) These students who work to cultivate their digital lives are developing skills they will need in the ever-changing landscape of digital media. I personally wish that my education has incorporated more digital media and learning. I sometimes find myself awash in technology and far behind my peers in technological literacy. As a recent example, I have avoided twitter because of the negative aspects related to an employer finding a twitter profile with less than desirable tweets on it. I am not learning how to tweet at a much slower pace than my peers. Thankfully, Yaël has been willing to guide me in the right direction. As I reflect on my learning I can see how a closed twitter like platform would have benefited me by providing a safe place to post my thinking before having it displayed to the rest of the world. In closing, I agree with Brownlee that “our approach to education and learning needs to be as rich and complex as the challenges and opportunities we face.” (Brownlee, 2012) We can not use a one size fits all model and we can not remain stagnant in our teaching practices if we are to continue to prepare students for the modern world. Works CitedBrownlee, J. (2012, March 30). This Creepy app isn't just stalking women without their knowledge, it's a wake-up call about facebook privacy. Cult of Mac. Ito, M., Baumer, S., Matteo, B., Boyd, D., Cody, R., Herr-Stephenson, B., . . . Tripp, L. (2010). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media. Cambridge: MIT Press. Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: media education for the 21st century. Cambridge: MIT Press. Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2009). Learning for a world of constant change: Homo sapiens, Homo Faber & Homo Ludens revisited. University of Southern California. Thinking about machines and how they have power and revisiting the past readings was very interesting. Given my perspectives based on the later readings these had even more context for me. I had touched base with Yaël and discussed the relationship between technology of the past and technology of the future. In looking back on her blog, I noted a very different focus. I had focused on machines of the past and a focus towards the future. She and I both discussed the benefits to technology and the drawbacks.
So, what is the point? The benefits of technology depend on the user not the technology itself. If there is not training and an effort to keep technology unbiased then the technology will “amplify whatever pedagogical capacity is already there.” (Toyama, 2015) This leads us to the following question: what is in place to stop misuse? The first level would be ourselves, we are all responsible for our own behaviors, but after that we understand that it is the norms of an online group will put restrictions on behavior “, a set of understandings constrain behavior, again through the threat of ex post sanctions imposed by a community” (Lessig, 2009) Some people may claim that this is not enough. This is why there are also laws regulating the online world and according to Lessig, “We should worry about a regime that makes invisible regulation easier; we should worry about a regime that makes it easier to regulate” (Lessig, 2009) This being taken into account, it could be said that teachers reject technology due to it being a hindrance instead of something that benefits the learner. When looking deeper into Yaël’s blog post she discussed not having good use of technology and in the article by Kentaro Toyama I read this from his perspective. When discussing schools that had been given technology to use he found that without support, “the machines were locked away, and the computer lab was repurposed.” (Toyama, 2015) Even when machines are not locked away (for their own safety or otherwise) we find that “Students are often asked to copy-and-paste bits of information they find online into PowerPoint slides without being challenged to think about how to select good material or how to construct a strong argument.” (Toyama, 2015) This is not to say that technology can never be used positively or in a way that benefits the user. We must remember that it is not the technology that is at fault it is the user. The systems we use should be assumed to hold biases and “As with other criteria for good computer systems, such as reliability, accuracy, and efficiency, freedom from bias should be held out as an ideal.” (Friedman & Nissenbaum, 1996) It is important that as a community we analyze this and make sure to analyze the technology before liberally applying it to our students for use. This being said there are studies that show that using technology in the classroom can be highly useful. In fact technology can provide “a phenomenological lens to explore the complexity of these literacy practices draws on ‘notions of the sensory, unfolding material world and the multimodal, textual and “imagined” digital world’” (Toomey, 2017) We can learn from Toyama who stated that “By inventing and disseminating new, low-cost devices for learning, we believed we were improving education for the world’s less privileged children“ (Toyama, 2015) but he slowly realized that without constant revisiting of the programs and training the programs did not work effectively like they did in the trials. In fact, much of the technology was very difficult for teachers who did not receive training. They did not receive the support and information required to keep their students on task and “For teachers already struggling to keep their students engaged, a computer is less help, more hindrance.” (Toyama, 2015) This all being said we can look at the beginning of his article on the MultiPoint program and see that it did work. In fact, the article addressed exactly what made the technology successful. They had partner schools with teachers and principals that were involved, the students focused on the tasks given to them, and the researchers helped to assist with implementation. This needs to be happening in schools. In my own teaching career, I watched as budgets were slashed. Not for technology itself but for support staff for that technology. Our school started with a dedicated technology help person and slowly that job was absorbed into the “media center” as time went on this job became less about the technology and more about another hand in the library. Just like in the article, the computers were locked away and teachers had to learn about the technology on their own and fight to keep it. When faced with such pessimistic outlooks it is hard to remember that the technology itself is good, but the support and training is what keeps it alive. Works CitedFriedman, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (1996, July 3). Bias in Computer Systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, pp. 330-347. Lessig, L. (2009). Cyberspaces. In L. Lessig, Code version 2.0 (pp. 120-137). New York: Basic Books. Toomey, M. (2017, October). Engaging the enemy: computer games in the English classroom. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, pp. 38-49. Toyama, K. (2015, June 4). Technology won't fix america's neediest schools. It makes bad education worse. The washington post. Throughout these articles I was enthralled. I grew up with the evolution of cyber security and more specifically the “protection of youth”. I quickly found that this wasn’t actual protection but instead was a sheltering from anything that was deemed unsavory by my parents. This is not to say that my parents were incorrect in their thoughts about the internet and how unsafe it can be, but rather that they wanted to shield me from a world that is not unwholly separate from the physical world that existed without the internet. The two concepts that I will be focusing on are that youth are searching for their own space and themselves on the internet and also that the internet is not dangerous in itself but is simply an extension of the world that we already live in.
The first concept, that the online world is not a separate entity, is clearly fleshed out in the readings. “Technology’s primary effect is to amplify human forces.” (Toyama, 2015) When technology is introduced it does not change what was already lurking in the peripheries it simply allows it to come out into the light. We also can reference previous readings by looking at "the ways human ends are powerfully transformed as they are adapted to technical means." (Winner, 1988) There is no doubt that technology allows for terrible and dangerous things to be spread quickly and without control, but they have to come from somewhere. “There is little doubt that technology inflects age-old issues in new ways” (Boyd, Marwick, Aftab, & Koe Maeve, 2009) but it is not about if the internet is dangerous but if we can protect children from people using the internet. “Children and teenagers face considerable risks in their everyday lives and need adult support as they navigate those risks, and information technologies have presented new possibilities for victimization and crime.” (Fisk, 2016) This does not exclude the everyday life of youth but encompasses it. Many people who did not grow up with technology in their lives do not see technology as a social activity but as work related materials. We can understand that “computers have appeared to many as an anti-social technology, as an intrusion of instrumental work life into the home.” (Fisk, 2016) This is not close to the truth. It connects youth to their friends, classmates, and people from all areas of the world. It is as fearful to some as the telephone once was. Just as my grandparents complained about youth not writing hand written letters my parents complain about people not writing emails anymore. The language that is “online” and not true English as even entered the everyday language of youth with pushback from the older generations. However, “If the Oxford English Dictionary is able to recognize the importance of these types of words in today’s culture, then millennials should be able to use them in informal situations without judgement.” (Beg, 2017) When we consider youth and how they use the internet we need to understand that when it comes to youth seeking out others and searching the internet for these more deviant people and beliefs “they are simply looking for spaces where they can socialize with one another.” (Fisk, 2016) I have read more articles than I can count on how millennials are ruining the way that “it” has always been done. More specifically, I read an article on how memes are connecting youth. It addressed internet slang is important because it creates an in group in which the speakers become exclusive. The article stated that “This creates a culture between teenagers that some question whether is acceptable or not.” (Beg, 2017) This is not a new concept or a new movement. If we didn’t have the internet, then the people in power would complain about something else about youth culture. It is in the nature of youth to seek their own truth and alternatives to the path set forth by their parents. “Those spaces that youth are allowed in without direct supervision are increasingly marked by technological surveillance, ranging from surveillance cameras to smartphone enabled GPS tracking.” (Fisk, 2016) Children and young adults are desperate to break free and find areas in which they can be themselves. These youth need to be taught about “correcting others, being open to being corrected oneself, and working together”. (Davidson & Goldberg, 2009) This is not to say that parents are incorrect in trying to limit the exposure of youth to negative influences and dangerous things. Fisk states, “Although adults usually do know best and youth typically want them to know best, there is value to having spaces where young people can learn lessons for themselves.” (Fisk, 2016) It is not about online and offline roles or rebellion. “The risk constituted around online sociality is that of failing to fully realize the potential offered by both information technologies and youth themselves” (Fisk, 2016) Works CitedBeg, A. (2017). BEG: Memes connect millennials and improve society. MarquetteWire. Boyd, D., Marwick, A., Aftab, P., & Koe Maeve, M. (2009). The conundrum of visibility. Journal of Children and Media. Davidson, C. N., & Goldberg, D. T. (2009). The future of learning institutions in a digital age. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Fisk, N. (2016). Framing internet safety. MIT Press. Toyama, K. (2015, June 4). Technology won't fix america's neediest schools. It makes bad education worse. The washington post. Winner, L. (1988). The Whale and the Reactor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. When starting these readings I was highly interested in the perspectives that were being put forth. One of the main concepts that was highlighted in the reading was the power of words. I am very familiar with the term “gamification” however I did not have any knowledge of the pushback against this terminology. According to Merriam Webster, gamification is “the process of adding games or gamelike elements to something (such as a task) so as to encourage participation”. (2010) Simple and straightforward. As with many things that seem simple they become much more complicated when their layers are pulled back. According to Ian Bogost “names offer powerful ways to advance a position” (2011) and this is especially true when it comes to gaming. This concept of words having power and cheapening or making something seem more intriguing due to words was repeated throughout. I have personally experienced a lot of frustration when it comes to the way companies approach their applications and “games”. For example, I have an app for healthcare that tries to assign points in response to health care milestones. This is the easy prepackaged way that the articles address gaming. Bogost coins this “pointsification” as a more accurate description of this process.” (2011) Applying this process to games makes it easy and marketable and “allows organizations to tick the games box without fuss.” (Bogost, Persuasive games: exploitationware, 2011)
This leads us to a separate problem. Gamification is Bullshit states that “-ification is always easy and repeatable” (Bogost, 2011). It takes credibility away from people who work very hard to create meaningful games. By using “gamification” “it takes games—a mysterious, magical, powerful medium that has captured the attention of millions of people—and it makes them accessible in the context of contemporary business.” (Bogost, Persuasive games: exploitationware, 2011) So where does this leave us? We have corporations who say that what they are doing is simply making their apps user friendly and those within the gaming community that say that it is ruining games. There must be a happy medium where the companies can make their apps user friendly and interactive without simply using a check in the box strategy. What worries me most is that “children need to know when they are being targeted by commercial appeals, and how the information they provide can be used by commercial corporations.” (Buckingham, 2007, p. 48) When this is not made plain it becomes very easy to trick children into giving out information they would otherwise keep to themselves. After discussing what makes gamification so insidious I also noted what the articles discussed in regards to what makes games good. “Good games confront players in the initial game levels with problems that are specifically designed to allow players to form good generalizations about what will work well later when they face more complex problems.” (Gee, 2003) Games should grow with the learner. They shouldn’t be a tick in the box method that fills the quota for a producer. “Games can show us how to get people to invest in new identities or roles, which can, in turn, become powerful motivators for new and deep learning in classrooms and workplaces.” (Gee, 2003) This, of course, relates back to connected learning. There should be “weaving” or connecting ideas and knowledge across different pools of knowledge. (Cazden, 2006) Gamification could be good if used in this way, but because the word has this connotation behind it there is no way for it to regain the positive power it could have. I have loved games like Minecraft that allow for me to create new worlds within the game. Some players have made complete replicas of their towns and cities. True building skills and work that correlates back to future careers and real life. Why wouldn’t we encourage this for children (and adults)? It is from these readings that I understand how gamification is bad because of the way that the producers cheapen true game design and the process of games. On the other hand, the readings also addressed how 'good' games can be used in educational settings even when not directly connected to the content due to connected learning. The learner is able to create scenarios that they would normally not be able to experience and learn from it. Games deserve more than to be simply "gamified" versions of boring concepts. Works CitedBogost, I. (2011). Gamification is bullshit. Wharton Gamification Symposium. Ian Bogost. Bogost, I. (2011). Persuasive games: exploitationware. gamasutra, 1-4. Buckingham, D. (2007, November 1). Digital media literacies: rethinking media education in the age of the internet. Research in comparative and international education, pp. 43-55. Cazden, C. B. (2006). Connected learning: "weaving" in classroom lessons. Pedagogy in Practice (pp. 1--18). University of Newcastle. Gamification. 2011. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved November 10, 2017, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamification Gee, J. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. ACM computers in entertainment, 1-4. Steinkuehler, C., Squire, K., & Barab, S. (Eds.). (2012). Games, Learning, and Society: Learning and Meaning in the Digital Age (Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139031127 Last week we discussed how there is no “silver bullet” when it comes to inequality with technology. Technology is dependent on the person that is using it. One of my favorite quotes from the readings is “In education, technologies amplify whatever pedagogical capacity is already there.” (Toyama, 2015) Educators must seek to include technology in the classroom for technology to reach its full potential. With this in mind the articles this week addressed what technology looks like in the classroom and what can make technology successful or unsuccessful.
Yaël and I have worked hard to explore the use of technology in the classroom. Many teachers are looking to integrate technology in the classroom in an effort to level the playing field but the question of how to implement it is constantly on my mind as an educator. In my last post I noted that the key to a successful technology program is “training teachers, creating software and digital content, delivering maintenance and support, and sustaining a long-term commitment.” (Kraemer, Dedrick, & Sharma, 2009) The articles that we worked on this week focused on the implementation of technology. Another article, Note Taking with Technology, focused on the benefits of technology and how it allows students to support their needs, save their notes, search for important information, and share with peers. (Holland, 2014) The article 3 Tips for Managing Phone Use in Class, they addressed phone use in the classroom. Teachers often have a no cellphone policy. Student consistently try to get around this rule regardless of age. In my elementary school classroom, I take away about cellphones a month from students who are trying to text or play games during school. The main issue that I had for this article was that by having control or allowing use of cell phones the teacher takes responsibility for their use. This article seemed to make more sense for a high school classroom. The article discussed how teachers should establish ground rules in the first week of instruction and make sure that they have open dialogue about the use of cell phones. (Kolb, 2017) This is something that I completely agree with regardless of the subject. When students are asked to be up front with their questions there is less confusion and the students feel more comfortable with asking when the answer is not apparent to them. In my elementary classroom cell phones are not permitted, however I established rules with the students in class the first few weeks of school and discussed why these rules were there. I have far less issues with this proactive approach rather than relying on the students to remember the school’s policies. In a high school setting I can see how technology will assist learning. Using tips for managing phone use and applying these tips to technology is important for educators. Allowing students to use technology in ways that are useful to the students is key for creating networks for learners and creating skills that the students can use in their careers. The real question once the use of technology has been established is what makes it successful. According to the guide on what makes it successful the technology must be accessible and ready to use, support the curriculum, and be routine and transparent. (Marian, 2007) This I agree with completely. If technology isn’t easy to integrate then it can’t be successful in the classroom. Technology should be an extension of learning and not simply used for the sake of technology. In the college environment we use many of these skills. It is second nature to have a cell phone out to use for class either to fact check information or to quickly add up information on a calculator. It makes sense that we should begin to integrate technology in this way earlier than the college environment however many educators are hesitant. What makes technology “good” in the classroom and what makes it “bad” is typically the same thing. It allows for quick communication and access to information. When this is used appropriately in the classroom this creates a wonderful environment for learning. If students are taught to use this technology appropriately in early school years then this use of technology will become more seamless and intuitive which will create a successful environment for technology. When a pro-technology environment is created students will be able to better use technology in the classroom. Though this will not allow for students to magically obtain a level playing field it does allow for students to become familiar with appropriate uses for technology in the classroom which will prepare them for college and future careers. Works Cited Holland, B. (2014, October 4). Note taking with technology. Edutopia. Kolb, L. (2017, September 11). 3 tips for managing phone use in class. Edutopia. Kraemer, K., Dedrick, J., & Sharma, P. (2009, June). One laptop per child: vision vs. reality. Communications of the ACM, 73. Marian, S. (2007, November 5). What is successful technology integration? Edutopia. Toyama, K. (2015, June 4). Technology won't fix america's neediest schools. It makes bad education worse. The washington post. Looking at readings from the past few weeks creates a pattern which I have found very intriguing. Technology is something that has taken over our world and education has been slow to adapt. This week we specifically read about how technology will not fix education and this is very true. It is my personal belief that it is not pieces of the system that is broken but the system itself. Most educators know that the educational system was originally created to construct laborers for our industrialized system. We did not build this system to work with developmental levels but instead assigned children to levels based on age due to size and the ability to complete tasks in a factory. It is with this mindset that I approached the readings this week. Across the United States, access to technology has been a hot-button issue. Computers in the hope, internet access, and technological knowledge are difficult to find in many low socioeconomic households which puts these students at a disadvantage when comparing these students to higher socioeconomic households. This leads to many asking if technology could be a silver bullet to end educational inequality. Looking back on the book Do Artifacts have Politics? Winner stated, "the ways human ends are powerfully transformed as they are adapted to technical means." (Winner, 1988), by providing technology we do not automatically make everything equal. In fact, it often separates us even more. Christo Sims discussed how technology comes into education with the idea of fixing the system but after being introduced into the system they often revert to our traditional school structure. The idea that technology is disruptive to the status quo was challenged and found to be much more conservative and less disruptive than expected. (Sims, 2017) Sims also discussed how education tends to favor the more educated parents since they find ways to work within the system and make sure their students have the advantage. Though “freedom from bias should be held out as an ideal.” (Friedman & Nissenbaum, 1996) it is almost impossible to create a bias-free situation. In a video from the Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science they discussed a case study, IPads for Social Justice, which interested me because the case study was in Los Angeles the demographics were very similar to my own elementary school. The study noted that though there was access to technology, many classes used paper and pencil instead of utilizing the technology. I personally saw this in my own schools. At the elementary school I taught at 2 years ago, they had the same armored charging stations that no teacher (except me) wanted in their classrooms. This creates an issue because “In education, technologies amplify whatever pedagogical capacity is already there.” (Toyama, 2015) It is ludicrous to expect these teachers to magically change their teaching simply because an IPad was introduced to their classroom. When introducing technology there are many requirements including “training teachers, creating software and digital content, delivering maintenance and support, and sustaining a long-term commitment.” (Kraemer, Dedrick, & Sharma, 2009) Teachers need support to incorporate technology and the current level of support is not nearly enough. Technology is not a magical fix to all problems and it would be silly to treat it that way. The children with parents who are involved and educated will always have the support at home to have a deeper understanding of the technology introduced. That is not the purpose or point of introducing technology. When I think of technology in a classroom environment, I immediately think of students finding skills that relate to their own lives. These students need a network both in and out of school. They need to learn about “correcting others, being open to being corrected oneself, and working together”. (Davidson & Goldberg, 2009) With this network established the technology will become an extension of who they are, not something that is only applicable to the educational setting. In this same way the technology should not be used despite curriculum but instead to enhance it. The real issue lies in the way that the school systems approach technology. They do not have the long-term commitment to any one piece of technology to see it through. Without this commitment, how can we expect technology to continue? There can be no solution without constant evaluation and commitment. There is no silver bullet that is effective without a skilled marksman to wield it. Works Cited Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S) Boston, Massachusetts. Wed. August 30 Sat. September 2, 2017. http://tinyurl.com/kt85k94 Davidson, C. N., & Goldberg, D. T. (2009). The future of learning institutions in a digital age. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Friedman, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (1996, July 3). Bias in Computer Systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, pp. 330-347. Kraemer, K., Dedrick, J., & Sharma, P. (2009, June). One laptop per child: vision vs. reality. Communications of the ACM, 73. Sims, C. (2017). Disruptive fixation school reform and the pitfalls of techno-idealism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton university press. Toyama, K. (2015, June 4). Technology won't fix america's neediest schools. It makes bad education worse. The washington post. Winner, L. (1988). The Whale and the Reactor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Yaël and I discussed the many aspects of the connected learning framework. Thankfully there are many resources related to this that we could reference and pull from. One thought that kept reoccurring as I read and annotated was that traditional public education no longer addresses the needs of its students (if it ever did.) More specifically, as we grow as a technology laden community it becomes more difficult to teach the skills needed to succeed in the classroom without overhauling the entire system. Connected learning allows for students to explore themselves and learn in environments that traditionally would not be supported by the school system.
One of the articles we discussed, Designing Connected Learning: Emerging learning systems in a craft teacher education course, directly addressed how teachers themselves can change instruction to meet the needs of their students. I love the concept of connected learning, however with the current state of education I have concerns about how to implement it in the classroom without having administration tell me it is not structured enough. The article stated that the “process is not scripted in detail in advance but has to be actively designed by the students themselves.” (Vartiaien, Pöllänen, Liljeström, Vanninen, & Enkenberg, 2016) This is almost impossible in the current public education setting. The framework speaks to me as an educator and I would love incorporating it into the classroom. The goal is not about grades or scores in school but it is about real-world contributions and achievement. From a teacher’s perspective this involves “weaving” or connecting ideas and knowledge across different pools of knowledge. (Cazden, 2006) Education needs to pull from this more often. It is not enough to have ‘book smarts’. Students must develop the tools to think critically and apply their knowledge into many different aspects of their lives outside of school. When I was in college this was called “funds of knowledge.” The idea was for students to use their own knowledge to make learning more concrete and work to embed the learning into a context the students understand. This also allows the students to learn how to challenge the status quo. Yaël and I have spoken at length about how society approaches learning and agree that steps should be taken to progress far beyond where we currently sit. There is an example in Cazden’s keynote address that discusses a Mother’s Day lesson. This lesson asks for students to bring in articles and catalogues for representations of mothers. Then the children participated in discussion to “identify gaps and suggest possible changes” (Cazden, 2006). This teaches students so many things but one of the most important aspects to me is that it teaches students to think critically about how the media represents people. By showing students that magazines and media are not always accurate it opens dialogue on what else may be misrepresented and how it can be changed. By accepting non-traditional media into the classroom teachers allow for their teaching to become more meaningful. This is very difficult because of the system currently in place. For connected learning teachers should not always give a “end result” or procedure and instead should have students come up with their own. (Vartiaien, Pöllänen, Liljeström, Vanninen, & Enkenberg, 2016) There is currently a paradox in public education. Teachers are asked to have students control their learning and manipulate their classroom environment but they are also asked to have clear end results and grading rubrics at every step of the lesson. It is impossible to do this and allow for students to make mistakes and reassess their learning within the road maps and time constraints permitted by the district. Having students bring in articles to allow for discourse about a current event sounds wonderful, but I am required to have a standard posted, a goal task, and how the student will know they have reached the desired “goal”. If students are practicing inquiry they need to follow their own path, not one set by the teacher. This is not to say that I believe rubrics should never be allowed in school or that planned out lessons are not useful. I understand that they have their place, but I wish that my students were given more freedom to explore their world and use their own motivation and interests to guide them. I hope to see more connected learning in mainstream schooling, but with the current school systems expectations I do not see it as part of a curriculum at any point soon. I believe that students learn better with a connected learning framework and I wish that I could encourage my students to take advantage of it more inside and outside of school. To use the students’ funds of knowledge and allow for exploration would be an ideal and very beneficial experience for both students and their teachers. Works CitedJones, J. (2007). Connected learning in co-operative education. International journal of teaching and learning in higher education, 263-273. Vartiaien, H., Pöllänen, S., Liljeström, A., Vanninen, P., & Enkenberg, J. (2016). Designing connected learning: emerging learning systms in a craft teacher education course. Design and Technology Education, 32-40. Williams, A. (2013, April 03). Connected learning: tying student passions to school subjects. MindShift. Retrieved October 15, 2017 from https://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2013/04/03/connected-learning-tying-to-student-passions-to-school-subjects/ Cazden, C.B. (2006a) Connected Learning: ‘weaving’ in classroom lessons. Keynote address at Pedagogy in Practice conference, University of Newcastle, 18 January. This week included readings centering around connected learning and making learning student centered. I found it very interesting because I have been researching what will help close the gap between high SES and low SES learners. Embracing authentic learning opportunities and connecting with a student’s interests are key to this type of learning. I read this week thinking of all the ways that education could be better but is not. When I picture a classroom with student centered learning the first major shift I see is that the teacher is not the facilitator of learning. The teacher is not in front of the class teaching standards but instead is allowing students to explore as necessary. This classroom would also need space for the students to work on themselves as people. Reflection logs, journals, meditation areas, etc. How do we allow students to grow as individuals?
Students in traditional environments often feel disconnected from their learning environments because the learning is not meaningful to them. Connected learning aims to “elevate the culture and identity of non-dominate children and youth.” (Ito, et al., 2013) It allows the students to make learning meaningful regardless of cultural touchstones. As technology progresses it embeds itself into many aspects of our lives and, just as many adults do not know how to operate when their phone battery dies, students are increasingly dependent of technology. Why is it that we have not seen an equal shift in our classrooms? In one of our texts there was a line that stuck out to me, “But our schools – how we teach, where we teach, who we teach, who teaches, who administers, and who services – have changed mostly around the edges.” This struck a chord because I deal with this every day! When attempting to use technology there is a lot of red tape and once I push through that I encounter push-back from administrators about how I should be teaching. The computers seem to either be used as a babysitter or not at all. When students are asked to collaborate online with larger groups of people they are required to learn skills about disagreeing online. In The Future of Learning Institutions in the Digital age I noted that the individualized learning focused on working together with people from all walks of life. One of the key points was that the students would need to learn how to respectfully agree and disagree with others. They discussed how networked learning requires students to “correcting others, being open to being corrected oneself, and working together”. (Davidson & Goldberg, 2009) Learning how to work with others and striking a balance on how and when to disagree is something that is currently lacking in our public educational system. For evidence of this, simply look at the comments of any popular YouTube video. With 4 years of my education being in a Montessori school, I feel like I have been exposed to this learning already. I was given a taste, told to work towards it in my college programs, and then was squashed by the public-school machine. Tailoring learning to the students is parroted by every administrator and district (public) but then we are asked to teach in the same way, are evaluated in the same way, and are asked to respond in the same way. How does this differentiate? It does not. It never will. The school system is more interested in the idea of differentiation than the differentiation itself. The biggest proof of this is when teachers attend a professional learning training. The presentation is typically a PowerPoint with someone reading off a pad of paper. They go through the motions and teach in a lecture style. Sometimes there is a funny “hook” or attention-grabbing device in the beginning of the lesson, but overall the lecture is the same format without any of the differentiation that the district claims is so important. One of the big pushes in education has been for a student centered and inquiry based classroom. This is touched on many times in Structuring Equality but is echoed in the other readings as well. How do we teach these students not only become successful in educational setting but also in their everyday lives. As a teacher I strive to allow students to grow as individuals and to ask why. Challenging the system is tricky and not without difficulties but a major shift needs to happen in order to keep up with these students. We need to make sure that the students are having their needs met both inside and outside the classroom and that their learning is impactful to them. When students are treated respectfully and their ideas are taken seriously they will begin to learn and they will be invested in learning. When we create curriculum that rubber stamps each student and do not allow them to grow the students become dissatisfied with the system that didn’t allow them to grow. Schools are ‘changing around the edges’ but are not embracing digital learning and technology while students are clinging to it like a life preserver. We need to embrace digital learning and ‘connectedness’ to best reach the needs of our children. If not now, then when? Works CitedDavidson, C. N., & Goldberg, D. T. (2009). The future of learning institutions in a digital age. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Ito, M., Gutierrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., . . . Watkins, C. (2013). Connected learning. Irvine, CA.: Digital media and learning research hub. The Graduate Center Learning Collective. (2017). Structuring equality: A handbook for student-centered learning and teaching practices. HASTAC. The texts this week truly spoke to me. I grew up in a household that valued technology but also restricted its use. There was one computer accessible in the family area and it was only used for class projects and computer games. Cable and video games were not available until I entered 6th grade. My parents allowed my Aunt and Uncle to purchase a PS2 for my brother and me. Reading through the articles I was struck by the different approaches to technology and I consistently thought about how this affects children as they age. Typically, there are social aspects to consider. For example, in the text Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out there are many references to technology affecting social lives but they do not address how this continues to affect these children as they become adults. The ability to discuss TV shows that “everyone” else has watched (the most relevant for me is Game of Thrones) is something that is glossed over but is relevant for children and adults alike.
Of course, a main thread throughout the articles was the place of technology and media in learning. Teachers and parents often dismiss the learning value in media that is not labeled as educational. Parents think this primarily because they do not think of the connections between social media and the workplace environment. This was highlighted in Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out but was reinforced in Digital Media Literacies: rethinking media education in the age of the Internet. The most interesting aspect of this article to me was that it is dated after only seven years. The article highlighted the differences between traditional literacy and digital literacy. Of course, some skills will not be tested officially but will be tested in social situations for personal privacy and security. “children need to know when they are being targeted by commercial appeals, and how the information they provide can be used by commercial corporations.” (Buckingham, 2007, p. 48) This relates back to the purpose of school; is school supposed to create competent individuals or complacent workers? Teaching students about how to keep their information safe (don’t send it automatically to Microsoft) is something that I do not believe is emphasized enough and I agree with Buckingham that it should be emphasized. Of course, technological literacy uses the same components as traditional literacy. “There are many different social and cultural practices which incorporate literacy, so, too, many different “literacies””. (Gee, 2010) It is not just about students being able to use computers and technology in a strictly educational way but instead using them to develop as a whole individual. These students need to be able to work with others and understand not only the material in context but also be able to apply their learning to other facets of their lives. There has been a major shift that education can not seem to keep up with. Children need more interaction with technology to reach their full potential as adults and adults need interaction with technology to make sure they do not fall behind. (Jenkins, 2009) The interesting thing to me, is that the increase in workload is ignored. When research papers were assigned a few years ago they would take around a month to finish since students of all ages would need to go to the library and physically research materials. Now, we are expected to synthesize materials in a week or less because these are available to us. This same shift has occurred in the work environment as well. Where employees used to “unplug” on the weekends not they are constantly connected and expected to respond to work related queries. There is no escaping it. Even with all of this societal pressure to integrate technology teachers must still send permission forms home for our students to use the internet (in purely educational pursuits) and parents still say no. Typically it is the fear of the internet that stops them from giving consent. The true core of all these articles is that online and offline life are no longer separate. Unless a person wants to cut themselves out socially it becomes very difficult to stay offline. Though these articles focused on “youth” it is so clear to me that there is very little difference between social expectations in the adult and child spheres. Unless children are exposed to digital media early and are consistently updated as the technology changes they will fall behind as adults. This is not only in social spheres but also in marketability for employment. Technology is already integrated into most aspects of our lives, it is up to us to make sure that our youth are aware of the benefits and dangers it presents before they discover it on their own. Works CitedBuckingham, D. (2007, November 1). Digital media literacies: rethinking media education in the age of the internet. Research in comparative and international education, pp. 43-55. Gee, J. P. (2010). A stituated sociocultural approach to literacy and technology. In E. A. Baker, The new literacies: multiple perspectives on research and practice (pp. 165-193). New York: Guilford Press. Horst, H. A., Herr-Stephenson, & Robinson, L. (2010). Media ecologies. In M. Ito, S. Baumer, M. Bittanti, D. Boyd, R. Cody, B. Herr-Stephenson, . . . L. Tripp, Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out (pp. 29-78). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: media education for the 21st century. Cambridge: MIT Press. Mizuko, I., Horst, H., Bittani, M., Boyd, D., Herr-Stephenson, B., Lange, P. G., . . . Robinson, L. (2008, November). Living and learning with new media: summary of findings from the digital youth project. chicago: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. This week we read several texts in which the power of machines was taken into consideration. More specifically, I was asked to read articles that typically focused on the power that is taken away and gained by machines and technology. It is important to note at this point that 'machines' range from the smallest of technological advances to the greatest of achievements.
The articles focused on humans gaining and losing power due to technology. In the book Do Artifacts have Politics? Winner states, "the ways human ends are powerfully transformed as they are adapted to technical means." (Winner, 1988) They went on to discuss how technology has been touched by people and politics. For example, Winner references bridges in Long island that are low specifically to limit bus traffic. Structures that we do not think twice about limit our lives and social interactions. This is very much like the creation of suburbs that required cars to live comfortably. This eliminated many families that were unable to purchase a car and instead needed to rely on public transportation or walking. While reading the articles I noted a very strong theme of social actions and reactions related to technology. How can technology make our lives easier and how did technology drive us apart? Eliminating the "undesirable" humans continued as a theme in the articles. Winner stated that Cyrus McCormick said technology would "weed out the bad element among the men" (Winner, 1988) . What was this bad element? Simply workers attempting to gain rights by striking and causing the company to lose money or time. This was also referenced in The Machine Versus the Worker. Marx stated, "It is the most powerful weapon for repressing strikes, those periodical revolts of the working-class against the autocracy of capital" in response to technology and machines. (Marx, 1999) In fact, this theme continues through many of our readings allowing for analysis of the underlying social issues that relate to technology. These texts seem to agree that technology works for the employer or owner but that the common man is left out of the deal and is dispensable. What is it about technology that separates the haves from the have nots? In the previous articles the separation was between the workers and the owners of technology. Though this is often true, the complete picture is not so simple. We are divided by technology and drawn together by it. Just as overpasses limit busses, technology limits people. Humans are left out and not appreciated when technology is concerned. According to the article “Technology won’t fix America’s neediest schools. It makes bad education worse.” technology is also dividing high achieving students from students in need. In addition to this article, I read through another which discussed bias in computer systems. I have found that typically when I discuss technology people tend to assume that it is unbiased. The article “Bias in Computer Systems” would have a very different opinion. In short, this article discussed how the programming of the airline reservation system allows for preference to certain airlines. In fact, that language is not strong enough since the text states that bias involves discriminating against specific groups or individuals. What a bleak picture! Technology is to blame. This is where I have an extreme divergence from the readings. I do believe that technology has the power to divide. If technology is left to its own devices and guidance is not provided then it does not help anyone but the owner of technology. I have seen technology thrust upon those who did not desire it and cause more trouble than it was ever worth. However, as a teacher who has been trained in technology I have seen the benefits with my own eyes. “In education, technologies amplify whatever pedagogical capacity is already there.” (Toyama, 2015). It is not the fault of technology that there are social divides. Technology itself is not the issue. It is the job of the creator and owners to make sure that the social impacts are examined before singing the praises of technology, especially when it comes to the education of our children. I have seen students light up and understand concepts because technology was used effectively. How can we expect technology to close gaps that we are not ready to bridge as people? Though these articles had a bleak outlook of technology and its ability to divide us socially, I look to technology with hope. To quote from one of the articles “freedom from bias should be held out as an ideal.” (Friedman & Nissenbaum, 1996) Humans make technology political and it is our responsibility to make sure that the divides that occur do not truly separate us and instead allow us to come together as one group moving towards a common goal. Educators and users of technology are responsible to not only use technology effectively but also to make sure that as much bias as possible is removed from the human aspect of technology. Works CitedFriedman, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (1996, July 3). Bias in Computer Systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, pp. 330-347. Marx, K. (1999). The Machine Versus the Worker. In D. MacKenzie, & J. Wajcman, The Social Shaping of Technology (pp. 156-157). Buckingham: Open University Press. Toyama, K. (2015, June 4). Technology won't fix america's neediest schools. It makes bad education worse. The washington post. Winner, L. (1988). The Whale and the Reactor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Welcome! I am very familiar with Weebly and used it regularly before teaching in Hillsborough so I decided to start fresh and created a new account and page to in order to keep everything separate and easy to access. I hope that you enjoy reading through my responses.
|
Details
AuthorEllie E. Archives
November 2017
Categories |