What a great message! The debate, reflection and debate that has arisen since that is clearly valuable and thoughtful. Thanks for that, Bill!
Here's a question: Does the use of the label, "a tool" oversimplify the role of technology? I would suggest that this term does not do justice to the technology given the breadth of what it covers. Certainly, technology can be, and perhaps most often is nothing more than a tool ... something that is used as one of many possible means to an end. The fact that it is an effective and efficient tool does not mean it's anything more than that. I can send an email, responding to a blog post, or write a letter. What is the most important skill here? Certainly, the ability to communicate effectively and is not to be done through the "tubes of the Internets."
I believe, however, that technology can be (not always, or even often) tool and product. Not only the brush, paint, canvas, or gallery, but more significantly the artwork hanging on the wall. The final product.
If a child could write a story and outline drawings for a graphic novel, but he preferred to write the story as a game and having classmates represent, we might call fine arts / theater simply a tool or vehicle for learning? Similarly, if the child wants to produce a movie, animated, recorded and edited on a computer, and the product is something technological / digital to be viewed and shared through technology, technology does not remain a mere tool? We are no longer talking about the same end by different means. Are we not talking about a half now? It is not unlike a painter a sculptor? They are both art it produces, but are not substantially different?
I fully understand that many would say that the important thing here is not that any of this is done through the use of technology, but rather that students are learning the skills to create a coherent narrative, artistic expression, etc ...
But (well, a paragraph that begins with "but"?) This brings me to the notion of technology is not attractive or inspiring students. It can and does. Not for everyone, but we all know as educators that there is little that works for everyone. I offered students the opportunity to collaborate on a book or doing a similar task with the use of computers and record narration ... this is not something that has required me to ask for a show of hands to determine the preferred option . The same can be said about writing original illustrated story or do the same in a computer to produce a narrated "movie." Even after the glitter and novelty of doing similar work in a team that has gone to some, others will be legitimately excited for their ability to create a film in a way that could not have been enthusiastic about telling their stories in other ways. This inherently technological means inspire these students to continue learning, and to produce in a way that is interesting to them, educators and offer a way to engage these children.
And (wow, you start a paragraph with "y?") This brings me to what is probably the most important point of the graph that have sent Bill ... at least the most important part IMHO. No matter what we are teaching, presenting, or explore, you better know why you're doing, whether it is technology or not.
I sincerely thank you, Bill, for inspiring me to reflect on this topic (not to mention many related and semi-related issues in the process), and I thank all who have added their thoughts and opinions on this rich debate.
regards,
Steve
Here's a question: Does the use of the label, "a tool" oversimplify the role of technology? I would suggest that this term does not do justice to the technology given the breadth of what it covers. Certainly, technology can be, and perhaps most often is nothing more than a tool ... something that is used as one of many possible means to an end. The fact that it is an effective and efficient tool does not mean it's anything more than that. I can send an email, responding to a blog post, or write a letter. What is the most important skill here? Certainly, the ability to communicate effectively and is not to be done through the "tubes of the Internets."
I believe, however, that technology can be (not always, or even often) tool and product. Not only the brush, paint, canvas, or gallery, but more significantly the artwork hanging on the wall. The final product.
If a child could write a story and outline drawings for a graphic novel, but he preferred to write the story as a game and having classmates represent, we might call fine arts / theater simply a tool or vehicle for learning? Similarly, if the child wants to produce a movie, animated, recorded and edited on a computer, and the product is something technological / digital to be viewed and shared through technology, technology does not remain a mere tool? We are no longer talking about the same end by different means. Are we not talking about a half now? It is not unlike a painter a sculptor? They are both art it produces, but are not substantially different?
I fully understand that many would say that the important thing here is not that any of this is done through the use of technology, but rather that students are learning the skills to create a coherent narrative, artistic expression, etc ...
But (well, a paragraph that begins with "but"?) This brings me to the notion of technology is not attractive or inspiring students. It can and does. Not for everyone, but we all know as educators that there is little that works for everyone. I offered students the opportunity to collaborate on a book or doing a similar task with the use of computers and record narration ... this is not something that has required me to ask for a show of hands to determine the preferred option . The same can be said about writing original illustrated story or do the same in a computer to produce a narrated "movie." Even after the glitter and novelty of doing similar work in a team that has gone to some, others will be legitimately excited for their ability to create a film in a way that could not have been enthusiastic about telling their stories in other ways. This inherently technological means inspire these students to continue learning, and to produce in a way that is interesting to them, educators and offer a way to engage these children.
And (wow, you start a paragraph with "y?") This brings me to what is probably the most important point of the graph that have sent Bill ... at least the most important part IMHO. No matter what we are teaching, presenting, or explore, you better know why you're doing, whether it is technology or not.
I sincerely thank you, Bill, for inspiring me to reflect on this topic (not to mention many related and semi-related issues in the process), and I thank all who have added their thoughts and opinions on this rich debate.
regards,
Steve
No comments:
Post a Comment