http://lookintovoid.blogspot.com/
is my culture blog. Not that I mean to stop thinking about educational technology, per se, but I find that I have more to say about other things as well.
If you are so inclined as to follow my other thoughts, I have posted the link over to my other blog.
If not, then feel free to enjoy this blog.
When I have new ideas, I'll return to it.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Digital Natives and Digital Naivete
Poor Marc Prensky.
In third grade, I worked on typing alongside penmanship and spelling. My school's computers were far from the state of the art, not to mention that at home, we always seemed to lag about five years behind the times technologically, but I was aware of what was out there because of my peers and the media, even if I could not afford the latest gadgets. I guess that makes me a digital native.
I feel that, after a certain point, the Marc Prensky's of the world need to take it easy. There is simply too much technology for even our digital natives to master.
My third-grade students explained the basic idea of an SD card to me (I had read of it in my Wii manual), but then I took that knowledge quickly beyond what they could do with it or knew how to do, because I had more applications for the technology in my life.
I know uses for digital cameras that many people struggle with because I learned their equivalent functions on an archaic piece of equipment called an SLR, back when we used film.
I embrace the digital camera as an advance, though I typically cannot get the same quality images out of the ones in my price range as I could out of a comparable film camera. Both my digital camera and my SLR cost about the same amount. My digital camera is a glorified point-and-shoot camera, while my SLR was adaptable.
I digress.
My first beef with Prensky is that he seems to suffer under the delusion that, at some point in the past, students were ever or could ever have been "little versions of us." There is a gulf fixed between "us" and the next generation, and technology is only one measure of that gulf.
And it is an inadequate measure of that gulf. When my cell phone, computer, or other device is ancient after 1-2 years, I would dispute that the progress is always so significant that I could not pick up the new iPod or new Windows or new Mac computer and catch on with ease.
If there is a "digital immigrant" community, I believe it is much larger than Prensky supposes. There are those many who produce the technology that we use, and this group is growing sizeably, perhaps exponentially. Nonetheless, those that use technology are always guests to someone else's world. Digital immigrants include all of our students until they start producing technology with broad impact themselves.
Regular immigrants, the kind that come into a new country from an old country, might, as my great grandparents did, declare that they are "American" now and no longer Swedish or Polish. They adopt the language of the land, they live and work in the society of the land. They have families, they die on this soil and are burried in it.
What more do you need to do to gain "native" status.
We live in a digital era and society. True hermits and isolationists are hard to come by these days. Either we are all of us digital natives, or only those that produce the technology are (assuming that they grasp what it is that they are doing).
In third grade, I worked on typing alongside penmanship and spelling. My school's computers were far from the state of the art, not to mention that at home, we always seemed to lag about five years behind the times technologically, but I was aware of what was out there because of my peers and the media, even if I could not afford the latest gadgets. I guess that makes me a digital native.
I feel that, after a certain point, the Marc Prensky's of the world need to take it easy. There is simply too much technology for even our digital natives to master.
My third-grade students explained the basic idea of an SD card to me (I had read of it in my Wii manual), but then I took that knowledge quickly beyond what they could do with it or knew how to do, because I had more applications for the technology in my life.
I know uses for digital cameras that many people struggle with because I learned their equivalent functions on an archaic piece of equipment called an SLR, back when we used film.
I embrace the digital camera as an advance, though I typically cannot get the same quality images out of the ones in my price range as I could out of a comparable film camera. Both my digital camera and my SLR cost about the same amount. My digital camera is a glorified point-and-shoot camera, while my SLR was adaptable.
I digress.
My first beef with Prensky is that he seems to suffer under the delusion that, at some point in the past, students were ever or could ever have been "little versions of us." There is a gulf fixed between "us" and the next generation, and technology is only one measure of that gulf.
And it is an inadequate measure of that gulf. When my cell phone, computer, or other device is ancient after 1-2 years, I would dispute that the progress is always so significant that I could not pick up the new iPod or new Windows or new Mac computer and catch on with ease.
If there is a "digital immigrant" community, I believe it is much larger than Prensky supposes. There are those many who produce the technology that we use, and this group is growing sizeably, perhaps exponentially. Nonetheless, those that use technology are always guests to someone else's world. Digital immigrants include all of our students until they start producing technology with broad impact themselves.
Regular immigrants, the kind that come into a new country from an old country, might, as my great grandparents did, declare that they are "American" now and no longer Swedish or Polish. They adopt the language of the land, they live and work in the society of the land. They have families, they die on this soil and are burried in it.
What more do you need to do to gain "native" status.
We live in a digital era and society. True hermits and isolationists are hard to come by these days. Either we are all of us digital natives, or only those that produce the technology are (assuming that they grasp what it is that they are doing).
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
The Fire Sermon
This is my PowerPoint made for a dramatic reading of "The Fire Sermon" from T.S. Elliot's "The Wasteland." I selected images with a mind for two things: reflecting the allusions as explained in the Norton Critical Edition. The background on the slides is one of Elliot's drafts of "The Fire Sermon. I originally made the PowerPoint on the Open Office presentation software and converted it to a PowerPoint format. The result is what you see here. I thought it was well-made.
The Fire Sermon
Check out this SlideShare Presentation:
The Fire Sermon
View more presentations from himmelsgrau.
Monday, April 27, 2009
The Devil in the Details
'Powerpointlessness,' comes somewhat close to being an un-word in the fine German tradition of nominating the most infamous word of any given year. Certainly by degree it does not rank with such concepts as "ethnic cleansing" or "collateral damage" (both one word in German) in infamy, but somewhere in the lower echelons of mediocrity and imprecision, I feel like you will find this word lurking.
The idea behind the word is surely to suggest that much of the activity done under the guise of making a PowerPoint presentation is a gimmick and shoddy work. Two wrongs, however do not make a right. 'Powerpointlessness' is a catchy catch-all with all the precision and subtly of an atom bomb used to eradicate an anthill in your backyard.
Now, the concepts behind a word can lend it some utility, but if I have to stop and explain that by 'powerpointlessness' I mean that when students, teachers, and other professionals use a PowerPoint presentation they often err in multiple ways: cluttering their slides with stock images, sounds, animations and videos that amount to so much sound and fury, signifying nothing, then you have lost the battle. There are any number of things that can and do go wrong with a PowerPoint slide show as it relates to the classroom.
Beyond indicating there is a problem, 'Powerpointlessness' as a concept does not point to a solution, per se. It reminds me of the people who tell me the political system is 'broken.'
Yawn.
The political system is broken, as my friends say, but talk is cheap--to use another well-worn phrase. My question is: if Jamie McKenzie feels that the well-placed image or graphic that serves the point of the presentation is what differentiates the 'powerpointless' from the 'powerpointed,' how does he stack up in his article?
In the credits, McKenzie claims to have shot all the photographs--except the one's he attributed to other sources, I might add. In any case, few of his images seem "powerful." 'Functional' is the word I would use. They are certainly more striking than clip-art, but leave something to be desired. The man next to 'deliver dramatically' looks dramatic, were his face not something of a low-resolution blur. The diagram with antidotes for 'powerpoint poisoning' was legible, but managed to look cluttered, nonetheless. As a centerpiece with internal links to the rest of the article, it needed a bit more polish, I feel. I could not click on every bubble and get a response. The introductiory image with the frosted-abstracted poppy and surrounding flowers did not distract from--or relate to--the article's topic particularly, unless his goal was to have a solid image that did not call too much attention to itself. Shame on him for the little clip-art photographer under "Emphasize Ideas & Logic." Sure he was a sidelight, and that was probably the point the author wanted to make, but McKenzie does not transcend that creeping feeling that I am encountering gimmicks, no matter how thoughtful they are.
McKenzie seems to be confused about the idea of 'deconstruction.' Every work of art or cultural product, according to that theory, deconstructs itself and the knowledge it communicates. A better designed PowerPoint presentation will not seal up the aporia it contains even if it tightens the coherency of the presentation considerably, which is admirable.
McKenzie at his finest--or worst is section 'Eliminate Distractions' in which he inserts a graphic of the word 'flash' randomly to show how frills are distracting from content. He willfully participates in the activities that make or break PowerPoints, and some of them fall on both sides of the spectrum. It took guts to try to lead by example, but sometimes, he falls short as we all do.
I agree with McKenzie's call to show our students that we can do better than the nonsense that usually slips under the radar of our schools, colleges, graduate schools, and businesses. There is good in McKenzie's article, to be sure.
In my senior seminar class, I participated in a group that packed dense quotes and sentences with pop-in transitions and few images into a turgid PowerPoint I would rather forget. All the right ideas were there, but they were not sufficiently summarized, organized, and thought about.
By contrast, my PowerPoint on "The Fire Sermon" from T.S. Elliot's the Wasteland for my most recent English class, struck me as well-executed. Minimal, targeted quotes with carefully selected images to accompany them enhanced our group presentation of the section.
In addition to leading by example, teachers can clearly state objectives and criteria for PowerPoint grading, as McKenzie suggests. In addition, I feel that actually demonstrating features of PowerPoint will improve the quality of student and professional work using the program.
Accurately conveying meaning, as I have already argued, requires a mastery of the medium and its conventions, without which knowledge is powerless, and, yes, pointless.
The idea behind the word is surely to suggest that much of the activity done under the guise of making a PowerPoint presentation is a gimmick and shoddy work. Two wrongs, however do not make a right. 'Powerpointlessness' is a catchy catch-all with all the precision and subtly of an atom bomb used to eradicate an anthill in your backyard.
Now, the concepts behind a word can lend it some utility, but if I have to stop and explain that by 'powerpointlessness' I mean that when students, teachers, and other professionals use a PowerPoint presentation they often err in multiple ways: cluttering their slides with stock images, sounds, animations and videos that amount to so much sound and fury, signifying nothing, then you have lost the battle. There are any number of things that can and do go wrong with a PowerPoint slide show as it relates to the classroom.
Beyond indicating there is a problem, 'Powerpointlessness' as a concept does not point to a solution, per se. It reminds me of the people who tell me the political system is 'broken.'
Yawn.
The political system is broken, as my friends say, but talk is cheap--to use another well-worn phrase. My question is: if Jamie McKenzie feels that the well-placed image or graphic that serves the point of the presentation is what differentiates the 'powerpointless' from the 'powerpointed,' how does he stack up in his article?
In the credits, McKenzie claims to have shot all the photographs--except the one's he attributed to other sources, I might add. In any case, few of his images seem "powerful." 'Functional' is the word I would use. They are certainly more striking than clip-art, but leave something to be desired. The man next to 'deliver dramatically' looks dramatic, were his face not something of a low-resolution blur. The diagram with antidotes for 'powerpoint poisoning' was legible, but managed to look cluttered, nonetheless. As a centerpiece with internal links to the rest of the article, it needed a bit more polish, I feel. I could not click on every bubble and get a response. The introductiory image with the frosted-abstracted poppy and surrounding flowers did not distract from--or relate to--the article's topic particularly, unless his goal was to have a solid image that did not call too much attention to itself. Shame on him for the little clip-art photographer under "Emphasize Ideas & Logic." Sure he was a sidelight, and that was probably the point the author wanted to make, but McKenzie does not transcend that creeping feeling that I am encountering gimmicks, no matter how thoughtful they are.
McKenzie seems to be confused about the idea of 'deconstruction.' Every work of art or cultural product, according to that theory, deconstructs itself and the knowledge it communicates. A better designed PowerPoint presentation will not seal up the aporia it contains even if it tightens the coherency of the presentation considerably, which is admirable.
McKenzie at his finest--or worst is section 'Eliminate Distractions' in which he inserts a graphic of the word 'flash' randomly to show how frills are distracting from content. He willfully participates in the activities that make or break PowerPoints, and some of them fall on both sides of the spectrum. It took guts to try to lead by example, but sometimes, he falls short as we all do.
I agree with McKenzie's call to show our students that we can do better than the nonsense that usually slips under the radar of our schools, colleges, graduate schools, and businesses. There is good in McKenzie's article, to be sure.
In my senior seminar class, I participated in a group that packed dense quotes and sentences with pop-in transitions and few images into a turgid PowerPoint I would rather forget. All the right ideas were there, but they were not sufficiently summarized, organized, and thought about.
By contrast, my PowerPoint on "The Fire Sermon" from T.S. Elliot's the Wasteland for my most recent English class, struck me as well-executed. Minimal, targeted quotes with carefully selected images to accompany them enhanced our group presentation of the section.
In addition to leading by example, teachers can clearly state objectives and criteria for PowerPoint grading, as McKenzie suggests. In addition, I feel that actually demonstrating features of PowerPoint will improve the quality of student and professional work using the program.
Accurately conveying meaning, as I have already argued, requires a mastery of the medium and its conventions, without which knowledge is powerless, and, yes, pointless.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Summary
I like long posts.
It is alluring to have the open field of white cyberspace in which to place whatever I want. Writing is something of an act of good faith that there are--or could be--what Stephen King calls "constant readers."
In an attempt to respect the "constant readers'" time, I present a summary of the previous 2.5 entries:
Technology is a lot of fun, presents multiple opportunities, and is a tool to serve one's personal and professional needs. It cannot replace personal interaction during trying times, but can facilitate it by enabling coordination and communication. Finally, the open field of white space--also known as infinite, illusory space in the previous entry--gives the student or teacher enormous creativity and versatility to format information. In formatting this information, however, the student or teacher must be aware that the technology itself (as a medium) shapes the way the information appears to outside observers.
This is a short post, for those constant readers that appreciate brevity.
It is alluring to have the open field of white cyberspace in which to place whatever I want. Writing is something of an act of good faith that there are--or could be--what Stephen King calls "constant readers."
In an attempt to respect the "constant readers'" time, I present a summary of the previous 2.5 entries:
Technology is a lot of fun, presents multiple opportunities, and is a tool to serve one's personal and professional needs. It cannot replace personal interaction during trying times, but can facilitate it by enabling coordination and communication. Finally, the open field of white space--also known as infinite, illusory space in the previous entry--gives the student or teacher enormous creativity and versatility to format information. In formatting this information, however, the student or teacher must be aware that the technology itself (as a medium) shapes the way the information appears to outside observers.
This is a short post, for those constant readers that appreciate brevity.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Infinite-Illusory Space
I went walking under the "Cloud Gate" (affectionately known as "The Bean") in Chicago's Millennium Park and took the picture you see here.
I called it by the pretentious or 'cool' (to my mind) title: "Infinite Illusory Space." More on that in a moment.
http://www.education-world.com/a_tech/techtorial/techtorial011c.shtml
and
http://eduscapes.com/tap/topic69.htm
both reference Bloom's taxonomy which proposes types or aspects of learning. The former suggests that these aspects of learning can be addressed by technology in the classroom.
Bloom's Taxonomy involves knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation--all of which influence the affective domain, which is a technical name for the space in which we live life. "Interpersonal relations, emotions, attitudes, appreciations, and values" color our perception of the world and are cultivated--if they are intentionally cultivated at all--by what we know, understand, act on, analyze, combine with other information, and assess.
On http://www.education-world.com/a_tech/techtorial/techtorial011c.shtml, the authors suggest that "Technology, however, lends itself to all six levels of thinking and learning" included in Bloom's Taxonomy.
In my experience technology performs this gargantuan task by being something of its own problem--and I mean this in the most affectionate way possible.
My picture resulted from such a problem.
In our group of 4, three of us had digital cameras. Two of the cameras used AA rechargeable batteries. The trouble with rechargeable batteries is that they last for a limited number of charges before they no longer hold their charge. I had forgotten my SD card for my camera, besides having rechargeable batteries at the end of their usefulness. The third camera had a special battery, but when its owner dropped it, the zoom mechanism broke, rendering the camera useless.
The medium in which we were to capture our trip to convey information about it to our friends was endangered by problems with the technology that enabled it.
A trip to a downtown Target store and some purchases later, we were able to continue to document our adventure downtown via photos. Doing so, however, required not only the proper equipment (batteries, working cameras, SD cards), but also knowledge of how the equipment and medium related to one another. In sum: synthesis, knowledge, evaluation, and application of information from the location of a Target store to the workings of digital cameras allowed for a felicitous outcome.
Technology is a means for discovering information: such as through the internet, but also for synthesizing, comprehending, applying, and understanding information.
Technology provides media for each of these. My camera allowed me to explore Chicago in a certain way (paying attention to the visual aspects of the city and capturing them for further reflection). I discovered the identities of certain buildings that I found particularly photogenic, applied knowledge of techniques gained from photographing other structures, and so on.
I argue that technology allows for critical thinking by opening possibilities or spaces for exploration. A student taking a picture of the "Cloud Gate" might gain approximately the same knowledge from that activity as they would from reading a description of the sculpture: "the Cloud Gate is a curved, polished mirror reflecting the skyline of Chicago whose underside warps images into reflections of reflections," but the medium of this knowledge remains distinct. Knowledge, whether conveyed in print (electronic or paper), audio, or image form, is conveyed through a medium and reported to others in a different medium. Technology challenges students to gather information from various media and put it into other media in a synthesized, analyzed, or otherwise critically processed form.
In a sense, technology is about creating an "infinite-illusory space" for information. The combination and recombination of information in different media, viewed from different perspectives, gives students tremendous flexibility in how they arrive at and explore information critically. I call this space illusory because it simply looks infinite. It is not. There are ways of critically analyzing information that are more acceptable than others. My photo is a reproduction of many reflections of the same scene in the surface of the "Bean." Technological media function similarly to show the same information from a variety of perspectives and in a variety of ways.
In a nutshell: technology helps critical thinking by giving students more tools to process information with.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
