A Whole New(?) World

If you have about an hour to spare, you should probably watch the January 2008 Frontline special "Growing Up Online." For parents, I'm sure it's a very enlightening program because it gives numerous perspectives on the many facets of the Internet. For those of us who consider ourselves to be part of or not far removed from the generation "growing up online," it's interesting to see how our lives are described. In either case, the Internet is still fascinating, and it's becoming ever more a part of our lives.

As far as the Internet's effect on children today, I think it has more positives than negatives. Every new technology will have its pros and cons; it's a matter of figuring out if the pros significantly outweigh the cons. The are plenty of people in this world who use the Internet to disseminate important information. There are plenty of great resources for teachers in particular on the web. These resources help children learn material more thoroughly and meaningfully. Kids are going to be using the Internet at home, usually, and there's no way around it. Communication is faster. Gaming is more interactive. Research and studying is easier. I think, as I mentioned on August 29 in my post about technology, that teachers are being trained more than ever to use technology, and I hope they will incorporate it into their classrooms. In addition to teachers, parents need to make the effort to stay involved in their kids' online activities without being intrusive.

Though I believe the Internet has an overall positive effect on kids today, I do worry about the negatives. Because the Internet speeds everything up, it can make bad situations worse in a hurry. Child predators can be anonymous using Instant Messenger. Kids who are suffering from bullying or depression can find that the Internet just makes the situation worse. These are reasons why teachers and parents need to educate this youngest generation about new technology rather than remain ignorant.

I remember when I was in fourth grade or so, I was talking in a chatroom and started talking to someone who said she was around my same age. We began talking on the side on IM, and it was fun to have a friend online. It seemed almost like having an actual imaginary friend, if that makes any sense. On a few other occasions, I IMed her, but each time I had to remind her who I was and that I was not some creep. That "relationship," if you want to call it that, did not last long. Though I thought my online friend was overly cautious, I suppose she was just trying to use the Internet in a safe way for kids our age.

The Internet is a great tool, but only if it's used with intelligence.

$$ for Grades Doesn't Make Cents

I recently read an article in the Chicago Tribune, which you can view here. The subject is "paying students for good grades." An 'A' earns $50, a 'B' nets $35, and each 'C' is rewarded with $20. I really do not see how this is a good long-term solution to kids' motivation problems. The idea of paying for grades reminds me of an except from a certain famous comedian's stand up routine: some people want to be rewarded for doing what they are supposed to do.

After reading a few of my CI 335 classmate's blogs, I see that there are a variety of reactions to this idea. Some, like Ryan, like the idea of paying students for their good grades. He says that it is a way to "even the playing field" because it gives children from poorer families the same incentives that more wealthy children have. Though he likes the program, he does acknowledge that there are some negative aspects, such as the fact that many schools are left out and that the program's effectiveness could eventually be lost. On the other side of the debate is Angela. She doesn't support the idea because it makes kids value money over learning. Schools aren't supposed to be the same as businesses, and the money used for the program may eventually start to come from taxpayets' pockets. Other viewpoints fall in the middle, such as Mallory's. Rather than use money to motivate kids, intrinsic motivation techniques must be used. She sees the positives that the program is trying to reach, but perhaps there are better ways.

To me, it just doesn't make too much sense to pay students for grades. I think most teachers have taken a class or two about educational psychology. If not, I'm sure they've studied motivation at some point. Students who have an "ego goal orientation" have their learning connected more to circumstances. If they get a good grade, a sticker, praise, etc., they're proud and study. These same kids are the ones whose grades slip if they don't see a reason to study. Teachers should want students to be intrinsically motivated to learn. Learning itself is the goal, not the grade or prize at the end.

I don't think all rewards are bad, nor do I think that not all teachers who support this program think that rewards are the ultimate solution. I just don't believe that this is the right way to go about solving our problems. Paying students will lead to a future of adults who care about what's in it for them. People should care about self-improvement and volunteer work, which don't typically come with a paycheck. I think this is another step in the wrong direction. College athletes aren't paid. Should they be? Good parents aren't paid. Should they get bonus checks from work? No, people shouldn't get paid for everything good thing they do.

Sometimes it can be difficult for students to find the motivation to study. Perhaps they have to work a job to support their family. Maybe their parents aren't very responsible. I don't know all the reasons why students don't perform well in school, but I'm not very confident paying them for grades is the answer. I suppose it doesn't hurt to try the program out to see if it does, but I have my doubts.

Learning How to Teach What Doesn't Exist...Yet

Today, I was watching the videos above, and I came to a conclusion; in some ways, I'm learning how to teach things that don't even exist. One of the videos, A Vision of Students Today, presents various statistics compiled by college students who surveyed themselves. It presents what I think is a fairly accurate picture of the typical college student's life today. (I think the presentation of time students devote to certain activities was especially telling; we really do cram 26.5 hours, or more, into every day!) The other video, A Vision of K-12 Student Today, is very similar to the first except that its statistics describe a younger population and its message seems to be more motivational to future teachers. Students today use vast amounts of technology that some of their teachers never imagined would be created when they were in school. Since that's the case, I'm a bit scared to think about how many new gizmos my students will have that I will have never touched. As I said, in some ways, I'm learning how to teach things that don't exist yet, things I haven't ever imagined!

As a future educator, I need to be open to change. It's difficult to adjust to new technology, but humans are all about adjusting and adapting. When it gets cold, I put on a coat: that's adaptation. So when something new and shiny comes along, I need to ask myself "How can I use this in my class?", not "How long can I avoid this?" Just as today there are teachers who refuse to "cave in" to new technology, I'm sure there will be teachers like that in the future. I need to make sure that I'm not one of them. After all, if learning is such an important ability that we mandate kids do it 40+ hours per week, teachers should be willing to do the same kind of mental work.
Today, we're trained to get children prepared for tests, for college, and for careers. How can I prepared to do that when the career my student will have doesn't even exist yet? I think part of the answer lies in demonstrating a respect for change and an enthusiasm for discovery. If in my classroom I show my students that new technology should be used for our benefit, then they will be more willing to employ new technology. When something unexpected occurs, they'll learn to ask "Why?" rather than slouch and yearn for the "good ol' days." If they see a teacher model a desire to discover what new and exciting things can be learned, then they'll most likely do the same.
I need to make sure to be a catalyst rather than an impediment of change. In my class, I want to create assignments that allow students to use all the fun gadgets available to them. As a math teacher, I want my students to be able to do basic addition, subtraction, etc. in their heads because I think it helps keep the brain mentally active and fit. However, this desire of mine should not make me afraid of the calculator. Graphing calculators and programs such as Fathom or The Geometer's Sketchpad have a lot to offer. Some students have a hard time really wanting to learn math. Maybe that's because some teachers only think it their responsibility to present information rather than creating a fun lesson.
I think it's absolutely my responsibility to make the math classroom a place where students expect to have an enjoyable experience learning. Some simple things I can do include subscribing to magazines and journals that address modern mathematics teaching. I'm much more likely to find better ways of presenting material if I'm providing myself with the right resources to read. I should experiment with new techniques and technology before implementing it in the classroom, and I need to not be afraid for an idea to fail. To sum it all up, I want to be prepared right now to prepare my students for what's to come. That way, when the future arrives, it won't be all that unfamiliar to them.

Schools Should Plead "Not Guilty" to Murder

Schools are meant to educate children in a wide variety of areas. Some areas of knowledge, however, are given precedence over others. In his talk entitled "Do schools kill creativity?", Sir Ken Robinson answers "yes." He believes that schools cater to the math and sciences, setting them a step above the humanities and several steps higher than the arts. Rather than educate all talents equally, education systems around the globe choose to focus on subjects that "will get you a job" and ignore others such as dance and drama, for which you "can't get paid." Schools kill creativity, says Robinson, and many of my classmates in Educational Technology agree.

On her blog, Jen Carlson "completely agrees" with Robinson on the issue of creativity in the schools. She feels like children are made to feel afraid of failure, that being wrong is awful. She also thinks that emphasis is placed on core subjects, like math and science, while others, like the arts, are not given any time because they're just "hobbies." Joyce Zhang provides similar arguments in her blog. With all the emphasis on certain types of education, she thinks that degrees in math and science are becoming less valuable. Like Robinson, she thinks that everyone is being pushed to get "more and more degrees," making talent in the more strongly emphasized subject matter less unique. She proposes that teachers urge kids more often to "think outside of the box," as the saying goes. At her blog, Mimi Roon argues that all the emphasis on being perfect and increasing proficiency in certain subjects has led to an obsession over grades. In conjunction with this obsession has come a loss of creativity. She believes that people learn from making errors. "Whatever happened to thinking outside the box?" she asks us. Finally, Susie Murphy writes on her blog that creativity needs to be nurtured through our school system. Students learn differently, and those differences need to be addressed. She believes students must be able to "think out of the box."

After listening to Robinson's excellent talk and reading my classmates' responses, I am left with mixed thoughts on the matter. There are a few points with which I strongly agree. Degrees really do seem to be losing their importance. The emphasis on needing a bachelor's and now a master's and possibly later some doctoral work resembles the arms races of the Cold War; everyone needs to have an advantage. Also, behavioral disorders are being diagnosed with greater frequency. It is hard for me to tell whether the methods of analysis have improved such that more children are being properly diagnosed or if it's just easier to write "ADHD" on a sheet and move on. I mean, is it really that odd for a kid third grade to want to move around a bit? Maybe in this day and age of greater childhood obesity it is, but I digress. In addition to these points, I also believe that certain areas of knowledge are being marginalized. I'm a big believer in multiple intelligences, and deciding that someone's gifts are not valuable is absolutely wrong. Every student has something to contribute to society, whether it be a "beautiful mind" or "happy feet."

When it comes to our schools, I think they're doing a good job of educating, both to structure and to creativity. I've had plenty of teachers encourage me to pursue my interests, even if those interests laid outside their field of expertise. It's not the schools or teachers that are choking creativity to death; it's the administration that does most of that. The teacher who has spent his or her whole 20 years in the "real world" as a teacher knows that creativity is important; the superintendent of public schools who may have spent just a few years teaching while trying to move on up and escape the classroom is the one determining what needs to be taught. We need to back up and zoom out. Schools aren't killing creativity; we're asking them to euthanize it.

It's a vicious cycle. Parents want their kids to grow up to be doctors and lawyers because of all the things their parents said to them, and so on. We need to encourage kids to be creative in their daily lives. We need to let them know that their creative abilities are useful, and I think we do to some extent. Just think of the following: YouTube, the iPhone, Coldplay, "So You Think You Can Dance?", and pioneering in invisibility. There's no way any of those, personal opinions of like/dislike aside, come about without creativity, without emphasizing uniqueness. I definitely think that schools could benefit from a lesser emphasis on tests and a greater emphasis on creativity, but let's not say they "kill creativity" because I don't think they do.

Everyone likes to say we need to "think outside the box." What box?