To filter or not to filter, and yet another question.

Feb 18th class

Thank you Mike for getting us started with such a thought provoking presentation. Two of your points really screamed at me given my recent experiences. First, the idea of filtering and the challenges that comes with it. Secondly, we started talking about assessment, what are we assessing, the trouble with setting criteria and separating artistic expression and content.

The dreaded filter. Where do we draw the line and who decides? Most of us, being the technology savvy educators that we are, have a multitude of online resources that we have sourced, researched, and apply to our teachings. Nothing is more frustrating then planning a lesson at home only to have the whole thing fall apart because the website that you want is blocked. In class Ben mentioned that we need to protect our students from the extremes, like pornography. Many parents would argue that schools need to protect further, but how far? Due to the unfamiliarity and constantly changing nature of sites like Youtube, Facebook, and other personal content sites, control is impossible unless you just block it completely. There are, as Roman stated, ways to go around the filters and access blocked content, so the students that want to use it inappropriately will do so regardless.

The odd thing about technology and the internet is that the onus is put on the school to protect (filter) students from misuse. If a student were to use gym equipment to injure another student, or used art supplies to create inappropriate imagery, the fault would be with the student. If a student were to bring in pornographic magazines into the school, the student would be at fault, but if the student actively sought these images online at school and was able to access them, the school would be questioned. With technology for some reason the fault seems to be placed on the school. Since the school is the provider of the means, in this case they are also responsible for controlling the content. I don’t feel that this is a fair distribution of responsibility to put on schools alone.

We also can not have completely unblocked content either. Where and how the line gets drawn though is definitely beyond my narrow scope. The line does need to be constantly examined and free to be moved. It should be negotiated by parents, students, teachers, administrators, divisions, province, and lastly the IT person that flips the switch.

The second idea of how and what do we assess is something that I have really struggled with as a teacher. Is it our job to only assess content? To answer it quickly, no. We need to go beyond content. I can not think of any job in which I will get hired based on my knowledge of grade 11 physics, history, or pre-calculus math. There are not too many everyday life situations that are going to call on that content either. We have to teach it though, but I would argue that the content can and should be the means by which we teach life skills. Aspects of education include teaching the whole person. To make a student a valued member of society through life skills and citizenship. This is where the artistic (and many other skills) would come into our assessments. If the expectations are made clear that your classroom, and the school community at large, is more about the content mastery, then it is valid to assess these other skills.

We dug Heidegger

Feb 4th class

We seemed to be on the verge of a lively debate on technology and control in class and seemed to run out of time. The idea of technology no longer within our power or control summons to the mind Hollywood images of the Terminator or some other post apocalyptic nightmare in which “the machines” have taken over. Einstein said in response to the dropping of nuclear bombs on Japan “It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.” An understandably bleak assessment given the situation at the time. 65 years later there have been no additional nuclear bombs offensively detonated suggests that there is some hope, at least a little, that we are capable of escaping the fate that Einstein had in mind. But has day to day technology use condemned us to a worse fate? Are we all just mindless drones, sitting in front of the idiot box for the purpose of entertainment? Depending on how far back you want to go, take your pick of the computer, television, radio (War of the Worlds anyone?).

My opinion is yes and no. Humankind has developed many technologies that have added many hours of leisure time to our lives, there is no arguing that. Society has certainly found many ways to fill those hours of leisure with technology. Radio and Television were one way media, in that the audience was a passive viewer of the material. There were certainly educational aspects to these media, as we saw with Grierson and the documentary, but entertainment became the focus and the audience had very little say in what programming was produced for them. Control was regulated to a few powerful people that made decisions that were probably in their best interest. The masses had no power, and were controlled by the technology.

Internet technology, as it grows and expands, is taking that passive element out of our leisure time entertainment. As we saw with the Kaiser Report, we are devoting even more time then ever (at least our young people) to technology use. While this would imply that there is only greater levels of control by technology, I would argue that the interactivity that these developing technologies adds is starting to turn the controls back into the hands of the users. Creative outlets are being formed that allow people to explore in many new ways. It has a long way to go, and its full potential may never be realized, but I am excited about the possibilities. I am sorry that I forget who said it in class, but someone mentioned the two guys that created Facebook. A perfect example of how someone small can alter the world (sources put Facebook number of active uses between 100-350 million worldwide). With the recent proroguing of parliament here in Canada there were several rallies planned and organized on Facebook to demonstrate against the governments actions. The speed with which these actions are organized is phenomenal, and would not have been possible with technology even 10 years ago.

Technology is inescapable, more so now then in Heidegger’s time. Does the creative potential that new technologies promise allow for humans to escape the enframing model of thought that Heidegger speaks of? I think that it is a push in the right direction. Thoughts?

Third Class Jan 21st

Two topics from class really stuck with me over the weekend and I have been chewing on both of them for a while. First, the Kaiser Report on Media Use. The numbers that we looked at in class were a little surprising. I suspected that media use was certainly up, but for kids to pack over 10 hours of media use into everyday seems staggering. Reading a little bit of the report reveals that this number does not include time spent texting on their cells phones (1.5 hours) or talking on their cell phones (33 minutes). Given that many students are involved in other activities (sports, clubs, etc) I wonder where these kids are finding time for anything else. Sleep seems to be the area where most kids cut back, but studies and homework also takes a hit. We saw in the video profile of the 3 kids that homework was either not a priority (xbox boy), or something that must be done in order to avoid punishment (losing media privileges). There is little or no intrinsic value associated with getting the homework done, just that it needs to be done so that I can play. While this attitude with students is nothing new (I often would have preferred playing, I still do sometimes), the opportunities for and level of distraction seem to be greater. The world is merely a click away, friends are sending constant messages. How are we, as teachers, to compete? I try to make grade 11 physics as interesting as I can, but there is only so much that I can do. Should we even be trying to compete? That is a whole other argument for another day.

I had a rather long draft saved where I talked about Grierson. I found his comment about picking the teachers of teachers being the job that he would most want. My original comment was rather long and meandering, so I will attempt to revise. Grierson obviously felt that having this position would afford him great influence over teacher training and in the long run some influence over students in general. Shaping their attitudes and skills, much like that of his film proteges. Alas, Grierson either was wrong or again just thinking a little differently. (The many different styles, beliefs, and methodologies that I have witnessed from professors over my many years of university training lead me to believe that there is no grand plot to have us all under one influence, so no one has caught on to this idea....yet). I do wonder what someone with his vision would have done in this day, with all of the technologies out there to allow people to get their message out to everyone else. I imagine that he would, much like talking to the film crew at the party, ask us if we don't find it incredibly boring having to sift through so much junk, the boring stuff, the random musings of millions.

When reading Cave for the first time I felt that the analogy was that of students fumbling around in the dark, brought up into the blinding light. I originally thought that we, the teachers, were the ones that were trying to expand the vision of our students, bring them into the light. It even worked on the level that the student that begins to understand what the teacher is trying to say, who embraces the teachers reality and becomes enlightened (the keener student), often faces ridicule and exclusion from the group that they originally belonged. Even how the prisoners competed with each other over who could guess the shadow, similar to students who compete for marks. What this had to do with educational technology I did not know. For the moment I forgot the theme of the course and just went with the picture in my head.

However, after going through the reading in class the picture in my mind transformed. Bringing in the themes from class, the freed prisoner went from the students to the teachers. My journey through the Faculty of Education sometimes felt like being trapped in the cave. I knew of this "teaching thing" that I was training for, but really had no idea of the reality that was coming. Within the first couple of years of my career I already feel like I am in the blinding light, fumbling around and trying to get my bearings. I am starting to see that some of the things that I once held as realities or truths are not valid, while others have morphed into other realities, much like the shadows that become real objects. I am trying to find my way, and I am the one that is the student. There are many that are helping me to form this new reality. The main difference between Plato's story and mine is that I will not (hopefully) travel back to the cave. It does feel sometimes that the other prisoners have escaped and have brought the negative attitude to me. The can not attitude, those that dismiss any view or practice other then their own, who resist change of any kind, are the prisoners in the cave that never see the light and are comfortable in their own realities because it is all they know.

How does technology fit into the story? As I try to grow as a teacher I am trying to incorporate practices that enhance the learning of my students, of which technology is a major part. Embracing change in this age means that we must embrace technology at least in some form. I have still seen those that argue that the calculator should not be allowed in school. I have to remind myself that they are still in the cave, it is all they know.

Set up the blog.

I really found the McLaren Opening Speech tied in to many of the experiences that I have had within education. I have seen presenters struggle through technology issues and, like in the video, these struggles become the message that the audience holds onto rather then the content. McLaren's character could have finished his simple message at any point, but instead repeatedly starts over with "ladies and gentleman". The technology becomes the show and his content is lost. When he gives up on the microphone and uses the screen for the animated welcome, his content is nicely displayed and delivered.
An interesting aspect in that he became one with the technology, jumping into the screen. We sometimes see technology as becoming extensions of ourselves (or taking over). I am not sure which view to take: Was he the master of the screen, or did the screen take over. Was his content (welcome) enhanced enough by the screen to warrant the use of it? Or would he have been just as well off to simply shout out his welcome to the audience? As with technology in the classroom, I feel that it is the presenters ability to use technology to enhance rather then to distract, which I think was achieved by McLaren's character at the end.

I hope that I am not too far off the iceberg.