I was asked to start by looking at the following quote:
"Our beliefs about learners and tools come via Dewey and Vygotsky, and have been informed by the 'cognitive revolution' that in the last thirty years has given these ideas scientific weight:
~ Technologies as tools that amplify and extend fundamental human capacities to observe, understand and communicate about the world- tools that give us rich data, help us manipulate and think about it, and connect us with others around it in new and powerful ways." - Bill Tally (p. 308)
Where did this little bit of quoted text come from, do you ask? It comes from an article written in the Spring 2007 edition of Theory and Research in Social Education written by Bill Tally. Ordinarily, I find articles of this nature very interesting, but I have to be honest when I say that I was less than excited when viewing the pdf and seeing "Page 1 of 17". Yep.. I was all smiles thinking of how I would be able to digest this digital dilemma in one sitting. Boy, was I in for a surprise. The article was lengthy, but it was very thought provoking and I am glad that I read it. By the way... the "end" is not speaking of finality but of cause and purpose. Rest assured, we will still be teaching Social Studies.
In many ways, I agree with Tally. He wonders why technology has not infused new life and a deeper sense of being to Social Studies education. While there are some educators that have embraced it to (in Tally's words) slow down learning, Social Studies has not "come into its own" just yet.
Why is this? Hold on.. Let's discuss the "progressive tinkerer" that Tally speaks of. These are the people that modify and shape what technology designs will best compliment instruction and support the learning of students. Being a tinkerer myself, I am intrigued even more. I am a firm believer in tinkering with something to best understand it and to find faults and/or improvements.
So let's point the blame. It must be someone's fault. First in line were the teachers. Surely they were resistant to integrating technology for whatever reason. It is sad that this belief still exists today when so many educators are using technology as a resource and investing a great deal of time into them. Do other professions reinvent themselves as well?
After that notion was dispelled, the schools were next in line. Surely you have heard the old joke about Rip Van Winkle, who awoke after a great many years of sleep to find the world a very different place. When we walked around, he was so amazed to see all of the changes in society, but when he came to a school he immediately knew what it was. He recognized it as it was, and this drives home the belief that while our world has changed, our schools have not. Tally goes on to say that technology was quickly integrated into schools, albeit at a very light and refreshing superficial way. He says that the "tasks are ruled by format and as riddled with convention as the business letter. (311) If the task is so defined and the student's expected (required) tasks are so clearly layed out, the grade will be constructed by following them and not the content or what has been created.
Tully also seems to discredit "Webquests" which have become all the in educatopia. I don't particularly care for them, as they seem too "cookie-cutter" for me. I would rather give a task and allow the students to come up with the project or outcome with me as a guide instead of restrictor. The amount of time required for technology rich projects can be staggering. This can be unrealistic to assume that teachers will invest this time willingly without issue.
This really hits home. I consider my classroom to be technology rich, and I am proud that I am able to provide such a setting. Having said that, such projects are very overwhelming even for me, and I am a tinkering tech junkie. Why do I continue? I don't know.. either I am glutton for punishment or an idiot.. or maybe both.
Tally goes on to dispell the rumor that students have some inborn ability to pick up anything digitally. I totally agree that this is not true. While the media is more natural to use, the competencies that would be taught can still be challenging. The digital world is their world (and ours too btw), but how natural is learning in this new landscape?
Tally says (last quote I promise)...
Many children who are fluent at at ease with the 'Commercial Web' i.e., who fluidly find and browse their favorite popular media sites, play games, and communicate with friends, share photos etc., have difficulty when it comes to even basic uses of the 'informational' or 'academic web' - things like executing a competent search; reading and making sense of text and graphics; identifying the source of information; copying, saving and citing information, etc
Very interesting indeed.
Looking at Museum Box (http://museumbox.e2bn.org/), I really like it. It allows the students to go as deep as they want to. It also doesn't define what type of artifacts that can be used (good or bad depending on grade level). I just looked through a few student created boxes. There was one titled "The Treatment of the Jews by the Nazis." It used text from student research and images that they had found. I would like to see the teacher directions and/or task description that brought this Museum Box to fruition, as I am interested in perhaps using it in my own classroom. It's open ended nature does lend itself to "slowing down thinking" a good deal.
When I envision Social Studies in my classroom, it is more than just facts and dates. It is a series of stories in the lives of real people. We study their experiences so that we can perhaps apply them to our own. We celebrate their triumphs and learn from their errors. We objectively validate their choices and relive their journeys through their eyes and our minds. History never repeats, right?
No comments:
Post a Comment