Tech-No?

Most that this course has taught us thus far is that the world is moving quicker and quicker into the digital age. We are surrounded by technology in our everyday lives and our dependence on it grows tremendously. Although, there are many times where technology “refusal” can be useful.

The use of technology is the classroom often times causes it to lose its “unity”, “personality”, and “spark” (Leander, 2007, p. 67). The last thing we want our students to become are zombies with the lights from a screen shining on their faces. Sometimes the technology can create an actual physical barrier between students and teachers that makes it difficult for educators to see their students’ faces (Leander, 2007, p.68). For a teacher who truly cares for their students it can often times make the biggest of difference to be down on a student’s level to look at them face to face in order listen to what they have to say.

Although I believe that these things are true, I also believe that when technology is used correctly that it can enhance the classroom experience for students. Teacher’s roles are clearer in a traditional classroom setting (Leander, 2007, p. 67). I can’t help but believe that many educators are worried about not knowing what their role is in a different setting. With the use of technology in my classroom I see kids work much better independently and collaboratively. As the teacher, I become a guide to activities which in turn lead to learning. It is so much different and very difficult. The hardest thing is planning how to use the technology the right way and knowing when to let a student figure things out for themselves and just not disturb their thinking. When listening to and reading about educators who feel the technology is a distraction or danger I can’t help but feel as if that this is their way of keeping from having to change with a new age of learning. These fears are just of the unknown (Leander, 2007, p. 62).

Multimodal Play and Remixing... It's Happening... Just Not Everywhere

There seems, to me at least, to be much overlap of ideas in reading through our materials this week that goes along with readings in past weeks. There were a few new things introduced such as multimodal play and remixing but when it comes down to it this is the continued conversation of the idea of being in a new age of digital literacy.

Out in the field of education, there are many people who have taken sides in whether traditional literacy or digital literacy are where we should focus our schooling efforts. Traditional literacy tends to put a writer as “lone creative genius” (Erstad, 2008, p. 45). This turns many students off and makes them think that they either have it or they don’t, where “it” is the implied talent needed to take on traditional literacy. In other words, literacy “implies processes of inclusion and exclusion” (Erstad, 2008, p. 41). Why would we want to exclude any of our students at all?

On the other hand, the use of digital literacy enhances engagement of adolescents in ways that move across spaces of home, community, and school (Vasudevan, DeJanes, & Schmier, 2010, p. 25). Students feel that their previous knowledge is greater appreciated as in Mr. Cardenas’s journalism class at East Side Middle School (Vasudevan et al., 2010, p. 26). There are those that feel that digital tools need not be taught in schools because students get knowledge of this from outside of school. What they do not realize is that digital literacy means more than just being able to work an electronic device.

To create an identity as a learner, a student must be able to have competence to reflect on the use of digital media in different contexts and not just how to operate the technology itself (Erstad, 2008, p 41). Kathleen Tyner describes the latter as “tool literacy” and the former as “literacies of representation” (Erstad, 2008, p. 42).  The two must be separate and understood if schools really want to improve student learning.

Although, I see personally, as all teachers do, on a regular basis that we look to continue to ignore this new “techy” way of reading and writing as we continue to push kids to meet standards set by a test. If a student can’t read and write by the standards of that test they are seen as underperforming or not meeting yearly adequate progress.

In the second chapter of our reading we see examples of success and struggle in Norway. What I took away from this is that at least it seems that this country is looking to create change within its own system of education. It feels like we are not on the same track here as a whole.