Week Ten:
Monday, March 20th, 2017
“Amateur labour processes—maker culture—at least provide some sort of pedagogic key within the spaces of everyday life in the overdeveloped world for/at least asking questions about what labour is, and how the organization of labour limits how he world can be thought objectively.”
The key difference between creating and making lies in the opportunity a maker has in actually constructing the final product themselves. In McKenzie Wark’s A More Lovingly Made World, she points out that many of these experiences and activities are pre-made; there is no chance to actually CREATE/MAKE. Manual industrial labour has grown a lot, but it is executed elsewhere; usually the manual labour we are exposed to is when it is happening in the service industry and keeps the non-manual processes functioning, (i.e. getting coffee, cleaning offices etc.). Arvatov neatly summarizes it all when he states that: “In both east and west reigned a division between the technicians and labour. Together they made a vastly expanded world of objects for private consumption. One class fashioned spectacular forms; the other shoveled in the content.”
In Critical Making by Matt Ratto, we understand that critical making is a ‘productive engagement’ that helps close the gap between the ‘creative physical and conceptual exploration’. This is the integration of critical thinking and physical making goal based material work. Simply put, the goal is to make things. Overtime, human behaviour has been reduced and limited to machines, thus, our goal becomes making things to help develop critical reflection and reconnect our ‘lived experiences’ with the technologies that surround us. Critical making emphasizes shared acts of making and organizes its efforts around the making of material objects—the device is not the end goal. Critical design’s main focus remains on the act of sharing the critical design process; this allows for enhanced and extended “conceptual understanding of critical sociotechnical issues.” Papert states that there is a type of ‘body knowledge’. This is where a user is actively able to project themselves onto the device/machine through transitional objects such as gears, computers, and other physical objects as a way of connecting. Critical making can deepen conceptual understandings, but also allows for an opportunity for more technical innovation. It helps reconnect material/conceptual domains necessary to connect technical and social work, and also “serve as new trajectory for relating differing dimensions of our relations to objects that are currently divided among various social science disciplines”
Lastly, in Laura Elizabeth Pinto’s Putting the Critical Back into Maker Spaces, we learn that envisioning a community space where you can “do” technology without corporate involvement are ‘maker spaces’. This can be peer tutoring, collaboration, workshops, etc. The education sector is participating in this ‘maker space’ as well. These spaces use school based and community based venues—one popular space used is the Toronto Reference Library. However, as with everything, corporatized venues have begun to pop up.
Making is one of 3 basic human activities (contemplation, doing) and is formed from the “DIY” movement. It promotes a sustainability mindset; instead of buying, create it. DIY is more independent, whereas makerspaces involve a shared creative space ”collaboration for social learning”. The Maker Education Initiative is “a strategy to engage youth in science, technology, engineering, math, arts, and learning as a whole”
‘Crafting’ is also being done in some makerspaces; it follows consumerism since the individuals buy the materials and they do not repair or repurpose items; there is no innovation and everyone creates the same thing. Another example of this are 3D printers. These are controversial as there is no making or learning; the object is being produced by the printer and not them. However, I do argue that these ‘crafts’ allow students to scaffold, in a sense, until they are ready to tackle the challenge of starting from scratch. Meaningful crafting, that is crafting that provides a purpose of sorts and not just a mundane arts and crafts task, can be useful for students to learn how to get to the final product in a less frustrating way. As the grade level goes up, or perhaps looking strictly at experience level, more critical making can be executed. Critical making lets us go back to the roots of the making process between maker and the making. We can create new knowledge based on engagement, which helps promote deeper learning as opposed to ‘crafting’, and can even promote social and environmental sustainability. However, the maker must participate and not just receive info passively. You ‘figure it out’ through meaningful dialogue, and not through already provided solutions. Matt Ratto of UofT discusses critical making and constructionism Instructionist learning is where learners get ‘pre-packaged’ knowledge. “Learning is most effective when people are active in making tangible objects in the real world, and through this process construct new relationships”.
The key difference between creating and making lies in the opportunity a maker has in actually constructing the final product themselves. In McKenzie Wark’s A More Lovingly Made World, she points out that many of these experiences and activities are pre-made; there is no chance to actually CREATE/MAKE. Manual industrial labour has grown a lot, but it is executed elsewhere; usually the manual labour we are exposed to is when it is happening in the service industry and keeps the non-manual processes functioning, (i.e. getting coffee, cleaning offices etc.). Arvatov neatly summarizes it all when he states that: “In both east and west reigned a division between the technicians and labour. Together they made a vastly expanded world of objects for private consumption. One class fashioned spectacular forms; the other shoveled in the content.”
In Critical Making by Matt Ratto, we understand that critical making is a ‘productive engagement’ that helps close the gap between the ‘creative physical and conceptual exploration’. This is the integration of critical thinking and physical making goal based material work. Simply put, the goal is to make things. Overtime, human behaviour has been reduced and limited to machines, thus, our goal becomes making things to help develop critical reflection and reconnect our ‘lived experiences’ with the technologies that surround us. Critical making emphasizes shared acts of making and organizes its efforts around the making of material objects—the device is not the end goal. Critical design’s main focus remains on the act of sharing the critical design process; this allows for enhanced and extended “conceptual understanding of critical sociotechnical issues.” Papert states that there is a type of ‘body knowledge’. This is where a user is actively able to project themselves onto the device/machine through transitional objects such as gears, computers, and other physical objects as a way of connecting. Critical making can deepen conceptual understandings, but also allows for an opportunity for more technical innovation. It helps reconnect material/conceptual domains necessary to connect technical and social work, and also “serve as new trajectory for relating differing dimensions of our relations to objects that are currently divided among various social science disciplines”
Lastly, in Laura Elizabeth Pinto’s Putting the Critical Back into Maker Spaces, we learn that envisioning a community space where you can “do” technology without corporate involvement are ‘maker spaces’. This can be peer tutoring, collaboration, workshops, etc. The education sector is participating in this ‘maker space’ as well. These spaces use school based and community based venues—one popular space used is the Toronto Reference Library. However, as with everything, corporatized venues have begun to pop up.
Making is one of 3 basic human activities (contemplation, doing) and is formed from the “DIY” movement. It promotes a sustainability mindset; instead of buying, create it. DIY is more independent, whereas makerspaces involve a shared creative space ”collaboration for social learning”. The Maker Education Initiative is “a strategy to engage youth in science, technology, engineering, math, arts, and learning as a whole”
‘Crafting’ is also being done in some makerspaces; it follows consumerism since the individuals buy the materials and they do not repair or repurpose items; there is no innovation and everyone creates the same thing. Another example of this are 3D printers. These are controversial as there is no making or learning; the object is being produced by the printer and not them. However, I do argue that these ‘crafts’ allow students to scaffold, in a sense, until they are ready to tackle the challenge of starting from scratch. Meaningful crafting, that is crafting that provides a purpose of sorts and not just a mundane arts and crafts task, can be useful for students to learn how to get to the final product in a less frustrating way. As the grade level goes up, or perhaps looking strictly at experience level, more critical making can be executed. Critical making lets us go back to the roots of the making process between maker and the making. We can create new knowledge based on engagement, which helps promote deeper learning as opposed to ‘crafting’, and can even promote social and environmental sustainability. However, the maker must participate and not just receive info passively. You ‘figure it out’ through meaningful dialogue, and not through already provided solutions. Matt Ratto of UofT discusses critical making and constructionism Instructionist learning is where learners get ‘pre-packaged’ knowledge. “Learning is most effective when people are active in making tangible objects in the real world, and through this process construct new relationships”.
Articles in Reference:
Readings:
1. Ratto, M. (2011). Critical making: Conceptual and material studies in technology and social life. The Information Society, 27(4), 252-260.
2. Wark, M. (2013). A more lovingly made world. Cultural Studies Review, 19(1), 296-304.
3. Pinto., L. ( 2016). Putting the Critical Back into Maker Spaces. Short Article
Readings:
1. Ratto, M. (2011). Critical making: Conceptual and material studies in technology and social life. The Information Society, 27(4), 252-260.
2. Wark, M. (2013). A more lovingly made world. Cultural Studies Review, 19(1), 296-304.
3. Pinto., L. ( 2016). Putting the Critical Back into Maker Spaces. Short Article
Week Nine:
Monday, March 6th, 2017
"It doesn't much matter what line of argument you take as a woman. If you venture into traditional male territory, the abuse comes anyway. It's not what you say that prompts it--it's the fact that you are saying it." (Beard, 2014)
I was not at all surprised to read the initial research findings stated in Jenson and de Castell’s article. Gamer Hate and the “Problem” of Women, in my opinion, highlights the importance of integrating gender equality within education from an early age. The more women are marginalized in the technology industry, the more likely that they will continue to be underrepresented in the field. As it is, we are faced with the information that although big names in the tech industry such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and Apple have pledged money to support diverse workforces and encourage equality within their companies, it does not change the fact that computer science and engineering remain predominately male fields. In the games industry, there are only 11% of women, 3% of which are programmers. It is even less in the UK with numbers at 6%. The reason for this can be due to the gender divide in the games industry as it is “actively hostile and misogynistic”. As quoted by de Castell and Jenson, “women working in the industry…have been subject to intense and vitriolic harassment”. Some examples include having their addresses posted online, harassing phone calls, and death and rape threats. Although upsetting, it is no wonder that 58% of women leave the industry after 5 years, leaving very, very few women in positions of power.
One quote that I find to be of utmost importance, and really highlights the essence of the issues we face is from Francesca Bray’s article. She states:
“In modern societies gender is constitutive of what is recognized as technology, determining whether skills are categorized as important or trivial. An electric iron is not technology when a woman is pressing clothes, but it becomes technology when her husband mends it. A woman engineer who tests microwave ovens is told by her male colleagues that her job is really just cooking. In the 1970s computers were thought of as “information technologies” and coded male; it was widely assumed that women would have problems with them. By the 1990s computers had also become “communication technologies”; now it was presumed that women would engage with them enthusiastically…New technologies spur processes of boundary work and renegotiations of what is to be considered masculine and feminine”.
This quote explains the mindset that has formed overtime—the domestication of women and the advancement of men in the technological field. While domesticating and feminizing the task done with the technology when it is used by a female, it is automatically assumed that she does not have the capacity to understand the tool in a technological manner. I find that this mindset has carried over to the day we live in today—the computer is great for a woman to use to look at or enjoy, but not for her to actually carry out meaningful and productive tasks.
In order to find equal footing in a field that should not be gendered, FiG, feminists in Games, was created. This is a feminists project that brought makers, players, and researchers to work on the very troubling gender challenges of digital games industry and culture. “Gender trouble” should not be viewed as a new concept. Western technology has become a male affiliated space as women were pushed into the domestic space, as noted by Francesca Bray. Jenson and de Castell reiterate this view as they acknowledge that this problem has “deep historical roots”, dating back to pre-literacy where women were expected not to have a voice in public. There are countless literary examples where women are punished or ‘silenced’ by murder, rape or violence. In comparison to the ‘gender trouble’ we face today, consider the responses by males after females revealed the discomfort and the harassment they face at their workplaces. There were disgusting reactions from males stating they should “get over it” and if they were good in their field they would not be misrepresented. It is appalling to think that these same males are fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, and husbands to women. I particularly worry for those young girls who are exposed to this type of behaviour from men in their workplace, school, etc. It is already a fact that women are less likely to choose education that leads to careers in tech industry—if we want to fix this problem, we need to catch it early on. An excellent response to the misogyny women face in the workplace was through a twitter hashtag--#1reasonwhy. FiG is one way to speak up against the misogyny and create diversity. It is scary to believe that it is “not what you say…it’s the fact that you are saying it”.
While FiG is a great initiative to combat the ‘gender trouble’, I believe it is also inherently the responsibility of the curriculum/education system to implement the foundation that is required to erase the gender divide faced in the technology industry. Ladies Learning Code is another leading organization that should be brought into schools—not only to encourage young girls to enter the tech industry, but also so that young boys respect and understand that the computer science and engineering field is not a gendered one. We should also consider Jennifer Jenson’s previous study about 21st century learning, Exploring Media Literacy and Computational Thinking: A Game Maker Curriculum Study. Based on the study, educators need to challenge the issue of smaller demographic of girls and marginalized youth within these areas. There is this assumption that students of today naturally possess the skill to successfully operate digital software, while ignoring gender, race and class. Jenson created a study that had Grade 6 students in Ontario 15 hours of Game Maker. Both sexes believed that the other was lacking in skills, although girls had mixed attitudes. Girls went in with lower confidence but gained confidence. Boys went in with high confidence and gained additional skills, but also gained respect and appreciation for girls’ abilities. Bray discovered that men are often viewed as having the natural skill with technology whereas women are afraid or dislike it.
Therefore, we can conclude that there is an inherent need for educators to bring this practice into classrooms beforehand in order to create the space for women in the games industry. We need to understand and change the conditions, and ask “How can education provide women and girls more equal foundations to participate in game production?” Feminist approaches can help bring about changes for females in the gaming world and creating opportunities for them to advance.
Articles in Reference:
Readings
Readings
- Bray, F. (2007). Gender and Technology. Annual Review of Anthropology. 07 / Issue 36. (pp.37–53)
- Jenson, J. & de Castell, S. (2014). Gamer-hate and the ‘problem of women’: Feminsim in Games, in Diversifying Barbie and Mortal Kombat: Intersectional Perspectives and Inclusive Designs in Gaming. (Chapter 13)
Week Eight:
Monday, February 27th, 2017
We have continuously come across the hesitancy that educators face when trying to integrate digital education within schools. It appears almost as if they are afraid to venture into the new digital age. However, this is not the case. The readings for this week discuss the issues that educators and educational institutes face when trying to integrate digital education in their classrooms. In Kellner and Share’s article, Critical Media Literacy, Democracy, and the Reconstruction of Education, they state that “critical media literacy aims to expand the notion of literacy to include different forms of media culture, information and communication technologies, and new media…deepen the potential of literacy education to critically analyze relationships between media and audiences, information and power”. Educators need to stop arguing and hesitating about teaching new media technology and start using their resources on actually implementing it. 21st century education helps create a public pedagogy.
The purpose of critical media literacy is to help students engage, understand, and learn media messages, and actively engage in producing them too. Despite the enormity of the media and the role it plays in our lives, it has yet to hold any importance in our children’s education. Media culture needs to be considered as a type of pedagogy as it saturates the world we live in (this includes the internet and the age of social media). It teaches us about gender roles, values, general knowledge, and “proper and improper” behaviour (again, these are all socially constructed notions). This means that we need to be able to deconstruct the information provided to us so that we are not rendered helpless; they need to be able to criticize stereotypes and other socially constructed ideologies. It is critical that students learn the relationship information and power hold together. “Literacy involves gaining skills and knowledge to read, interpret, produce texts and artifacts, and gain intellectual tools and capacities to fully participate in one’s culture and society”. There are “multiple literacies” that need to be learned or understood—we do not forget literacy of reading and writing as we still need these even while engaging with other literacies, so teachers should not be concerned about losing.
There are four different approaches that Kellner and Share discuss—the protectionist approach, media arts education approach, media literacy movement approach, and the critical media literacy approach. The protectionist approach is the notion/ideology that media is to blame for negative choices people make i.e. drugs, teen pregnancies etc. and some blame it for consumerism and materialism. While these may be true to a certain extent, it does not leave room for deconstruction, as we simply write it off. The media arts education approach gives students the chance to appreciate the aesthetics and the art of the media, which encourages self-expression and creativity. The media literacy movement approach focuses on multiple literacies. Lastly, the one that Kellner and Share find to be the most important literacy, and I agree, is the critical media literacy approach. It includes parts of all three approaches and looks at all representations through social context, control and pleasure. This approach criticizes and analyses the representations in the media of gender, race, class, and sexuality. It allows us to learn how power, media and information are related and allows marginalized communities to speak up and speak out and be empowered. Those that are in majority are able to view different perspectives and ideologies to expand their social realities. Critical media literacy allows students to take a perspective that is not socially constructed and understand why there is a gendered ideology in regards to many realities. Who is creating/producing these medias? How does that affect society and sexuality?
Media does not represent reality accurately—exposing these realities is fundamental to critical inquiry because it presents the truth that media is bias and not a neutral source of info, i.e. representations of ‘subordinate’ groups such as women, and people of colour/minorities are represented vs. bosses or rich people which are usually represented as white men. We need to teach them that the audience is not powerless.Tthey need to empower themselves by looking at the meanings: why was the message sent and from where? What power does this hold and what affect will it have on audiences? Students and teachers are both learning from each other. Critical reflection requires action in order to evoke change and media education needs to have critical analysis and student media production. Kellner and Share state that, “critical media literacy not only teaches students to learn from media, to resist media manipulation, and to use media materials in constructive ways, but it is also concerned with developing skills that will help create good citizens and that will make individuals more motivated and competent participants in social life.” We need to think about the day today; how does media portray people of colour/minorities to the people? A perfect example in the media today would be the politics in America. Take a look at Trump and the government; Trump consistently presents false facts and ‘fake news’. Communicative ethics are basically the ‘master’ script that is used to help understand the other ethics. Everything gets reported now that we have the ability and do not need to rely on media outlets to do the reporting—but much of it gets reported without verification, validation or investigation.
Allan Luke, discusses the Three Foundational Claims of digital technology in Digital Ethics, Politcal Economy and the Curriculum: This Changes Everything. They are as followed:
Three Foundational Claims:
So this brings us to the question of what needs to be done? Educational institutes are wary of dealing with the ethical challenges that come with digital education. There are many community based projects for “intergenerational and intercultural exchange” which focuses on ‘rich tasks’ for students. Digital literacies are ‘ethical, political and cultural practices’ they are not just skills and they must be viewed as such. We need to teach students to be independent, critical thinkers who do not rely on the media for for the representations of society. Students need to express their views and ideas through media and technology, so that they can be a part of the ‘critical solidarity’. To do this, we need better funding, especially for inner cities etc. and train more teachers in critical pedagogy. “Living in what Marshall McLuhan (1964/1997) coined the global village, it is not enough to merely understand media, students need to be empowered to critically negotiate meanings, engage with the problems of misrepresentations and under-representations, and produce their own alternative media. Addressing issues of inequality and injustice in media representations can be a powerful starting place for problem-posing transformative Reading education. Critical media literacy offers the tools and framework to help students become subjects in the process of deconstructing injustices, expressing their own voices, and struggling to create a better society.”
Teaching and learning of communication should maintain ethical and ideological limits. The reason that educational institutions are hesitant to incorporate digital education is due to the challenges faced ethically. Teachers are also overwhelmed with the influx of technology that they are constantly expected to adapt to, whether it is online classroom resources, tests, assessment tools, new digital teaching technology etc.. A lot of focus around digital approaches for students is on bullying or being exposed to pornographic images and their “digital footprint”. In reality, the issues kids deal with are how they can differentiate from what is real and what is not and what the consequences to their online action means in the real world. There are many restrictions placed digitally on students, but they are backed by real concerns (pedophilia, bullying, suicide, lack of physical activity etc.); home restrictions as well; even the police are ‘policing’ online while they look out for drug dealing, sex rings, terrorism, frauds etc. Ethics isn’t just what they can and cant do—digital actions are social actions because they have consequences. Digital ethics involves the ethics of what it is to be human and live proper and manageable lives in this technological eraà this should be the focus of curriculum for school.
The purpose of critical media literacy is to help students engage, understand, and learn media messages, and actively engage in producing them too. Despite the enormity of the media and the role it plays in our lives, it has yet to hold any importance in our children’s education. Media culture needs to be considered as a type of pedagogy as it saturates the world we live in (this includes the internet and the age of social media). It teaches us about gender roles, values, general knowledge, and “proper and improper” behaviour (again, these are all socially constructed notions). This means that we need to be able to deconstruct the information provided to us so that we are not rendered helpless; they need to be able to criticize stereotypes and other socially constructed ideologies. It is critical that students learn the relationship information and power hold together. “Literacy involves gaining skills and knowledge to read, interpret, produce texts and artifacts, and gain intellectual tools and capacities to fully participate in one’s culture and society”. There are “multiple literacies” that need to be learned or understood—we do not forget literacy of reading and writing as we still need these even while engaging with other literacies, so teachers should not be concerned about losing.
There are four different approaches that Kellner and Share discuss—the protectionist approach, media arts education approach, media literacy movement approach, and the critical media literacy approach. The protectionist approach is the notion/ideology that media is to blame for negative choices people make i.e. drugs, teen pregnancies etc. and some blame it for consumerism and materialism. While these may be true to a certain extent, it does not leave room for deconstruction, as we simply write it off. The media arts education approach gives students the chance to appreciate the aesthetics and the art of the media, which encourages self-expression and creativity. The media literacy movement approach focuses on multiple literacies. Lastly, the one that Kellner and Share find to be the most important literacy, and I agree, is the critical media literacy approach. It includes parts of all three approaches and looks at all representations through social context, control and pleasure. This approach criticizes and analyses the representations in the media of gender, race, class, and sexuality. It allows us to learn how power, media and information are related and allows marginalized communities to speak up and speak out and be empowered. Those that are in majority are able to view different perspectives and ideologies to expand their social realities. Critical media literacy allows students to take a perspective that is not socially constructed and understand why there is a gendered ideology in regards to many realities. Who is creating/producing these medias? How does that affect society and sexuality?
Media does not represent reality accurately—exposing these realities is fundamental to critical inquiry because it presents the truth that media is bias and not a neutral source of info, i.e. representations of ‘subordinate’ groups such as women, and people of colour/minorities are represented vs. bosses or rich people which are usually represented as white men. We need to teach them that the audience is not powerless.Tthey need to empower themselves by looking at the meanings: why was the message sent and from where? What power does this hold and what affect will it have on audiences? Students and teachers are both learning from each other. Critical reflection requires action in order to evoke change and media education needs to have critical analysis and student media production. Kellner and Share state that, “critical media literacy not only teaches students to learn from media, to resist media manipulation, and to use media materials in constructive ways, but it is also concerned with developing skills that will help create good citizens and that will make individuals more motivated and competent participants in social life.” We need to think about the day today; how does media portray people of colour/minorities to the people? A perfect example in the media today would be the politics in America. Take a look at Trump and the government; Trump consistently presents false facts and ‘fake news’. Communicative ethics are basically the ‘master’ script that is used to help understand the other ethics. Everything gets reported now that we have the ability and do not need to rely on media outlets to do the reporting—but much of it gets reported without verification, validation or investigation.
Allan Luke, discusses the Three Foundational Claims of digital technology in Digital Ethics, Politcal Economy and the Curriculum: This Changes Everything. They are as followed:
Three Foundational Claims:
- On ideology and social relations—digital ethics must question the values, beliefs, ideas, images, narratives, truths etc. that are found online
- On political economy of communications—we need to help our students understand that media is controlled by capitalistic ideologies. We need to be able to sift through these in order to realize the biases of the media
- On normative model of digital culture—we should not just impose restrictions on our students; they need to learn how to be actively engage and participate in a healthy and informed manner within the digital world so we need to be able to teach them how to be upstanding moral and ethical digital citizens
So this brings us to the question of what needs to be done? Educational institutes are wary of dealing with the ethical challenges that come with digital education. There are many community based projects for “intergenerational and intercultural exchange” which focuses on ‘rich tasks’ for students. Digital literacies are ‘ethical, political and cultural practices’ they are not just skills and they must be viewed as such. We need to teach students to be independent, critical thinkers who do not rely on the media for for the representations of society. Students need to express their views and ideas through media and technology, so that they can be a part of the ‘critical solidarity’. To do this, we need better funding, especially for inner cities etc. and train more teachers in critical pedagogy. “Living in what Marshall McLuhan (1964/1997) coined the global village, it is not enough to merely understand media, students need to be empowered to critically negotiate meanings, engage with the problems of misrepresentations and under-representations, and produce their own alternative media. Addressing issues of inequality and injustice in media representations can be a powerful starting place for problem-posing transformative Reading education. Critical media literacy offers the tools and framework to help students become subjects in the process of deconstructing injustices, expressing their own voices, and struggling to create a better society.”
Teaching and learning of communication should maintain ethical and ideological limits. The reason that educational institutions are hesitant to incorporate digital education is due to the challenges faced ethically. Teachers are also overwhelmed with the influx of technology that they are constantly expected to adapt to, whether it is online classroom resources, tests, assessment tools, new digital teaching technology etc.. A lot of focus around digital approaches for students is on bullying or being exposed to pornographic images and their “digital footprint”. In reality, the issues kids deal with are how they can differentiate from what is real and what is not and what the consequences to their online action means in the real world. There are many restrictions placed digitally on students, but they are backed by real concerns (pedophilia, bullying, suicide, lack of physical activity etc.); home restrictions as well; even the police are ‘policing’ online while they look out for drug dealing, sex rings, terrorism, frauds etc. Ethics isn’t just what they can and cant do—digital actions are social actions because they have consequences. Digital ethics involves the ethics of what it is to be human and live proper and manageable lives in this technological eraà this should be the focus of curriculum for school.
Articles in Reference:
- Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2007). Critical media literacy, democracy, and the reconstruction of education. In D. Macedo & S.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Media literacy: A reader (pp. 3-23). New York: Peter Lang Publishing
- Luke, A. et al. (2017) Digital ethics, political economy and the curriculum: This changes everything. In Handbook of Writing, Literacies and Education in Digital Culture. Routledge, New York. (In Press)
Week Six:
Monday, February 13th, 2017
“Computers have become our favourite idols”.
Do you ever wonder how your computer just seems to know which advertisements or products you’re interested in? You’re browsing the web at 2 am and the Nike shoes that you’ve been raring to buy just happen to pop up as an ad on Facebook? Well, Big Brother is watching you. Just kidding! (Maybe). According to Ian Bogost, we are currently living in an “algorithmic culture”. Algorithms determine what information is available for us, how we socialize, what advertisements/media is presented to us. In the 21st century, software is now as crucial to society as electricity was in the 20th century. Bogost notes that “science and technology have become so pervasive and distorted, the have turned into a new type of theology”. Science was introduced, or meant, to provide an alternative mode of thinking for the theological/religious thinkers—instead we have allowed it to become a new type of religion. Adapting to new “intellectual technologies” is presented to us through metaphors. For example, when clocks were manufactured, we began to use phrases such as “like clockwork” in regards to our minds. Similarly, we now refer to our minds as if they were computers. There will always be something new—another metaphor, another crucial “intellectual” technology that we will have to adapt to.
When implementing digital technology education, or computational learning, it is important to keep in mind that there are gendered attitudes towards computational knowledge. Based on Jennifer Jenson’s study, educators need to challenge the issue of smaller demographic of girls and marginalized youth within these areas. There is this assumption that students of today naturally possess the skill to successfully operate digital software, while ignoring gender, race and class. Jenson created a study that had Grade 6 students in Ontario 15 hours of Game Maker (4-5 hours of direct instruction and scaffolded peer support). After students designed and coded their projects with little facilitation, knowledge of computational terminology, and domain knowledge improved from 6.7 to a 9.3 Knowledge about math and computer programming does not mean confidence or ability to do well in computational instruction. Both sexes believed that the other was lacking in skills, although girls had mixed attitudes. Girls were more likely to value collaboration, learning from experiences, and other ‘traditionally feminized’ qualities. Girls went in with lower confidence but gained confidence. Boys went in with high confidence and gained additional skills, but also gained respect and appreciation for girls abilities whereas girls came out with losing some confidence in their own abilities.
The study was designed as followed: Direct instruction-->individual work-->facilitation. However, it is important to note that facilitators thought they should just fix the problem, instead of helping the student come to the conclusion on the own, or helping them work through it. This is a practise that educators need to move away from, and instead encourage students to explore and discover their own answers, It is clear that not all students are “digitally native”, and this can be seen through the gender differences in attitude and confidence with computers.
Douglas Rushkoff shares thoughts that intersect with week five’s reading reflection, wherein Seymour Papert states “children should be programming a computer rather than being programmed by it.” As I mentioned last week, students are just passive players in the digital world, rather than unlocking their intellectual potential and becoming makers of the digital world. When you learn a language you don’t just learn how to speak but also to listen--similarly, we need to learn how to program, just as well as we know how to use the computer. Children need to understand the difference between limitations put in place by the creators of the software versus a technological requirement. This is where the importance of code literacy comes into play. Code literacy helps kids look at software/websites at “face value” and analyze and engage in a critical manner. Instead of just observing, they need to actively participate. In the discussion of “21st century learning” education, we are still trying to figure out exactly what this means—most often, they are referred to playing digital games (regardless of whether they are “educational” or not). There should be more research and focus on the design and development of games to support creative problem solving, collaboration, and programming skills. ‘Computational thinking’ and algorithmic logic is considered as ‘core literacy’. Learning code in a social context helps learners understand the digital society—the commons, collaboration and sharing. Initiatives such as Codeacademy help learners engage and partake in purposeful pedagogy and inquiry based learning. They are learning by doing, have a stake in the outcome, and there are benefits of interaction.
But what is 21st century learning, and what implications does this have on our educators? (Click here to view a YouTube video about it, or go to my homepage to access it). 21st century learning follows the 6 C's : communication, creativity, collaboration, connectivity, and critical thinking. In her video, Jenson notes that “we teach kids how to use software to write, but not how to write software”. Learners have access to skills, but not the power to determine the value and creating experiences for themselves. According to Alvin Toffler, those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn will be the ‘illiterate’ of the 21st century. The current ‘growth sectors’ involve computers and technology, yet there is no curriculum in Ontario in regards to programming for k-12. This learning provides more computational opportunities, and game making is one way to support learners to participate in 21st century schooling and occupations. One excellent way that it is being incorporated in schools is through STEAM, which stands for science, technology, engineering, arts, mathematics, is core literacy that needs to in the curriculum—required skill. According to Jenson, “supporting the acquisition of digital literacies and computational thinking and bridge gaps between those who are digitally skilled and those who aren’t”.
Based on all this information, I found Bogost’s quote to be most relatable, as he states:
“…let’s keep the computer around without fetishizing it, without bowing down to it or shrugging away its inevitable power over us, without melting everything down into it as a new name for fate. I don’t want…a corporate, computational theocracy. But a culture with computers in it? That might be all right.”
Do you ever wonder how your computer just seems to know which advertisements or products you’re interested in? You’re browsing the web at 2 am and the Nike shoes that you’ve been raring to buy just happen to pop up as an ad on Facebook? Well, Big Brother is watching you. Just kidding! (Maybe). According to Ian Bogost, we are currently living in an “algorithmic culture”. Algorithms determine what information is available for us, how we socialize, what advertisements/media is presented to us. In the 21st century, software is now as crucial to society as electricity was in the 20th century. Bogost notes that “science and technology have become so pervasive and distorted, the have turned into a new type of theology”. Science was introduced, or meant, to provide an alternative mode of thinking for the theological/religious thinkers—instead we have allowed it to become a new type of religion. Adapting to new “intellectual technologies” is presented to us through metaphors. For example, when clocks were manufactured, we began to use phrases such as “like clockwork” in regards to our minds. Similarly, we now refer to our minds as if they were computers. There will always be something new—another metaphor, another crucial “intellectual” technology that we will have to adapt to.
When implementing digital technology education, or computational learning, it is important to keep in mind that there are gendered attitudes towards computational knowledge. Based on Jennifer Jenson’s study, educators need to challenge the issue of smaller demographic of girls and marginalized youth within these areas. There is this assumption that students of today naturally possess the skill to successfully operate digital software, while ignoring gender, race and class. Jenson created a study that had Grade 6 students in Ontario 15 hours of Game Maker (4-5 hours of direct instruction and scaffolded peer support). After students designed and coded their projects with little facilitation, knowledge of computational terminology, and domain knowledge improved from 6.7 to a 9.3 Knowledge about math and computer programming does not mean confidence or ability to do well in computational instruction. Both sexes believed that the other was lacking in skills, although girls had mixed attitudes. Girls were more likely to value collaboration, learning from experiences, and other ‘traditionally feminized’ qualities. Girls went in with lower confidence but gained confidence. Boys went in with high confidence and gained additional skills, but also gained respect and appreciation for girls abilities whereas girls came out with losing some confidence in their own abilities.
The study was designed as followed: Direct instruction-->individual work-->facilitation. However, it is important to note that facilitators thought they should just fix the problem, instead of helping the student come to the conclusion on the own, or helping them work through it. This is a practise that educators need to move away from, and instead encourage students to explore and discover their own answers, It is clear that not all students are “digitally native”, and this can be seen through the gender differences in attitude and confidence with computers.
Douglas Rushkoff shares thoughts that intersect with week five’s reading reflection, wherein Seymour Papert states “children should be programming a computer rather than being programmed by it.” As I mentioned last week, students are just passive players in the digital world, rather than unlocking their intellectual potential and becoming makers of the digital world. When you learn a language you don’t just learn how to speak but also to listen--similarly, we need to learn how to program, just as well as we know how to use the computer. Children need to understand the difference between limitations put in place by the creators of the software versus a technological requirement. This is where the importance of code literacy comes into play. Code literacy helps kids look at software/websites at “face value” and analyze and engage in a critical manner. Instead of just observing, they need to actively participate. In the discussion of “21st century learning” education, we are still trying to figure out exactly what this means—most often, they are referred to playing digital games (regardless of whether they are “educational” or not). There should be more research and focus on the design and development of games to support creative problem solving, collaboration, and programming skills. ‘Computational thinking’ and algorithmic logic is considered as ‘core literacy’. Learning code in a social context helps learners understand the digital society—the commons, collaboration and sharing. Initiatives such as Codeacademy help learners engage and partake in purposeful pedagogy and inquiry based learning. They are learning by doing, have a stake in the outcome, and there are benefits of interaction.
But what is 21st century learning, and what implications does this have on our educators? (Click here to view a YouTube video about it, or go to my homepage to access it). 21st century learning follows the 6 C's : communication, creativity, collaboration, connectivity, and critical thinking. In her video, Jenson notes that “we teach kids how to use software to write, but not how to write software”. Learners have access to skills, but not the power to determine the value and creating experiences for themselves. According to Alvin Toffler, those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn will be the ‘illiterate’ of the 21st century. The current ‘growth sectors’ involve computers and technology, yet there is no curriculum in Ontario in regards to programming for k-12. This learning provides more computational opportunities, and game making is one way to support learners to participate in 21st century schooling and occupations. One excellent way that it is being incorporated in schools is through STEAM, which stands for science, technology, engineering, arts, mathematics, is core literacy that needs to in the curriculum—required skill. According to Jenson, “supporting the acquisition of digital literacies and computational thinking and bridge gaps between those who are digitally skilled and those who aren’t”.
Based on all this information, I found Bogost’s quote to be most relatable, as he states:
“…let’s keep the computer around without fetishizing it, without bowing down to it or shrugging away its inevitable power over us, without melting everything down into it as a new name for fate. I don’t want…a corporate, computational theocracy. But a culture with computers in it? That might be all right.”
Articles in Reference:
Readings
1. The Cathedral of Computation: Living in an Algorithmic Culture (Short Online Doc).
2. Rushkoff, D. (2012). Code Literacy: A 21st-Century Requirement. Edutopia. (Short Online Doc).
3. Jenson, J. & Droumeva, M. (2016). Exploring Media Literacy and Computational Thinking: A Game Maker Curriculum Study. The Electronic Journal of E-Learning.
Watch: Jennifer Jenson: Learning through Game Design
Readings
1. The Cathedral of Computation: Living in an Algorithmic Culture (Short Online Doc).
2. Rushkoff, D. (2012). Code Literacy: A 21st-Century Requirement. Edutopia. (Short Online Doc).
3. Jenson, J. & Droumeva, M. (2016). Exploring Media Literacy and Computational Thinking: A Game Maker Curriculum Study. The Electronic Journal of E-Learning.
Watch: Jennifer Jenson: Learning through Game Design
Week Five:
Monday, February 6th, 2017
“Children should be programming a computer rather than being programmed by it.” This statement, made by Syemour Papert, a student of Piaget, is incredibly accurate of the day today. More often than not, students are just passive players in the digital world, rather than unlocking their intellectual potential and becoming makers of the digital world. Papert was known for his ideas on child development, artificial intelligence, and computational technologies for education. He was inspired by Piaget’s notion that children are not mini-adults or ‘empty vessels’ but “active agents interacting with the world and building ever-evolving theories.” His research led to an understanding that children learned more “efficiently” if there was a result for their efforts (a tangible result) that they could see. This outcome can be best produced through digital learning. Once they are able to produce or be the maker of something, they are more likely to be encouraged to continue in their efforts, even if there are mistakes made. With computers and digital technology, students’ fears of being wrong lessens—children are often taught that they have either “got it” or “got it wrong”, but with computers/digital technology you have to become skilled and gain the talent to fix your mistakes or deal with the ”bugs”. It is no longer about being, right or wrong but about whether or not you can find a way to fix the issue. In Thinking About Learning and Learning About Thinking, it is noted, “the essence of Piaget was how much learning occurs without being planned or organized by teachers or schools. His whole point was that children develop intellectually without being taught!” This ideology is also reflected in Kurt Thumlert’s article, Affordance of Equality. Thumlert uses the example of 19th century educator Jacotot, who conducted an experiment with students where he had them essentially teach themselves by translating a text on their own. It was not necessary for him to guide them step by step, as they were able to achieve the learning goal on their own Thumlert states that “…educational methods, when presupposing students incapacity as the educative starting point and making the teacher’s knowledge and know-how the objective to be ultimately reproduced, delimited what learning bodies might do and narrowly restricted what talents might be enacted.”
When reflecting back on my own experiences playing around with ScribJab (please see http://digitalmondays.weebly.com/resources.html for more information), a bilingual digital story making website, for my Media Tools assignment, (notice I use the word ‘playing’ around), I felt that trial and error was the most ideal and comfortable manner in which I could achieve my best work. To be quite honest, I did not really even look at any tutorials or explantion on how I needed to create my own digital story—I simply started experimenting, and editing based on the mistakes I made. I was able to walk away with a completed digital story that I had produced and created myself—a tangible result. I was the maker, and therefore, I was in charge of my own learning. I did not require an 'instructionist' approach to creating the end result. I was an amateur learner, and it was a truly enjoyable experience.
Educators must be aware of explication—intellectual equality. There is a traditional pedagogical notion that students cannot “imagine, think or do” without the guidance or instruction of a teacher but this just creates a circle of dependence. Teachers are constantly guiding students to a learning goal and students are not the makers of their own learning. This brings us back to de Castelle’s Paying Attention to Attention—we need to get students to be apart of their own learning. Thumlert also uses the Tenori-on device example. Tenori-on device allowed the obscure music theory to become tactile and a “mode of serious play.” This allowed students to try again and re/play, and go above and beyond their limits and experiment. It becomes a “learning adventure” as it is meaningful to the student, and allows trial and error, just as Papert believed to be of significance.
Play allows the removable of the obscure, and places learning actors in maker roles. Knowledge/information should not be ‘forced’ onto children as children think differently than adults do. Students may never see themselves in the role of the maker—they occupy positions of “relative lack.” Thumlert also mentions the ‘new amateur’—they hold creative agency and challenge boundaries between specialists and non-experts. In the case of the classroom, the educator would be the authority or hold credentialed status, and the student would be ‘impersonating’ the educator. He also discusses genuine competence versus impersonation—the idea that these are not the skills or talents of the impersonator, nor is it their place. Jacotot allowed ‘amateur’ learners to create and utilize the same resources that educators or those with authority would typically engage with and they were able to recreate the same outcomes. I believe this is parallel to the fears or hesitancy that some educators may have today. While the student is able to play around and essentially fill the role of the educator—or impersonate the educator—the teacher may feel that they are not helping students achieve their goal. There may also be a sense of ‘dis-identification’—declassifying oneself from an imposed identity/status/place etc.
In Suzanne de Castelle’s video, New Media Modules, she discusses new ways of teaching and learning. There are 3 new environments: digital story telling, critical making, game design. It focuses on learning through purposeful making- pedagogy. Educators need to consider constructionism and not instructionism. Constructionism is not as simple as “learning by making”. It is much “richer and multifaceted, deeper in its implication”. Students should be able to design and construct things that can be public and shown to a critical audience, which is reflective of Papert’s belief. Also, similar to Thumlert, Castelle believes this can be done through play. It is important to break down barriers from what you need to what you can do. However, this notion that intellectual knowledge holds more value than ‘serious play’ runs much deeper than the classroom. Karl Marx believed that when profits are enjoyed NOT by the maker, nor are the conditions they work in, then they are alienated from their own labour. Take for example, the use versus exchange value. When carrots are traded for money, which are to eat, it is converted into the exchange of how much you get for selling—it becomes a commodity. Value is placed on the use of what is produced, and thus, alienated labour is created. This is similar to classrooms. There are two streams within education—academic and vocational which leads to white-collar vs. blue-collar employment. It has always been the main belief that brainwork has more value than body work. Even vocational learning was still academically influenced through exams, written assignments, etc. instead of designing, making and sharing what the maker finds valuable. Students, then, can be alienated from their own learning when curriculum and teaching is disconnected from their own lives. There is a commodification or learning/education. Purposeful pedagogy is about USE value and NOT market value. Dewey, the father of progressive education, believed that projects must be purposeful and the learners own their own work. This is what distinguishes purposeful pedagogy from other forms of hands on instruction. Production of things and the production of ideas—control of one enables the control of the other and play is integral to deep learning.
It is clear that Thumlert, Papert, and Castelle share intersectional ideas and work with each other to encourage the student as the maker who reproduces or creates through play, and is ultimately the teacher and the student. It is critical that development psychology be looked at again in order to correctly aid students in “new media technology” and digital education, and get the most benefit out of their learning today. Allowing students to be the maker, and moving away from instructionism, can unlock students’ potential in the classroom. By alienating students from their own learning, it is quite obvious that we are holding them back from becoming the best that they can be.
When reflecting back on my own experiences playing around with ScribJab (please see http://digitalmondays.weebly.com/resources.html for more information), a bilingual digital story making website, for my Media Tools assignment, (notice I use the word ‘playing’ around), I felt that trial and error was the most ideal and comfortable manner in which I could achieve my best work. To be quite honest, I did not really even look at any tutorials or explantion on how I needed to create my own digital story—I simply started experimenting, and editing based on the mistakes I made. I was able to walk away with a completed digital story that I had produced and created myself—a tangible result. I was the maker, and therefore, I was in charge of my own learning. I did not require an 'instructionist' approach to creating the end result. I was an amateur learner, and it was a truly enjoyable experience.
Educators must be aware of explication—intellectual equality. There is a traditional pedagogical notion that students cannot “imagine, think or do” without the guidance or instruction of a teacher but this just creates a circle of dependence. Teachers are constantly guiding students to a learning goal and students are not the makers of their own learning. This brings us back to de Castelle’s Paying Attention to Attention—we need to get students to be apart of their own learning. Thumlert also uses the Tenori-on device example. Tenori-on device allowed the obscure music theory to become tactile and a “mode of serious play.” This allowed students to try again and re/play, and go above and beyond their limits and experiment. It becomes a “learning adventure” as it is meaningful to the student, and allows trial and error, just as Papert believed to be of significance.
Play allows the removable of the obscure, and places learning actors in maker roles. Knowledge/information should not be ‘forced’ onto children as children think differently than adults do. Students may never see themselves in the role of the maker—they occupy positions of “relative lack.” Thumlert also mentions the ‘new amateur’—they hold creative agency and challenge boundaries between specialists and non-experts. In the case of the classroom, the educator would be the authority or hold credentialed status, and the student would be ‘impersonating’ the educator. He also discusses genuine competence versus impersonation—the idea that these are not the skills or talents of the impersonator, nor is it their place. Jacotot allowed ‘amateur’ learners to create and utilize the same resources that educators or those with authority would typically engage with and they were able to recreate the same outcomes. I believe this is parallel to the fears or hesitancy that some educators may have today. While the student is able to play around and essentially fill the role of the educator—or impersonate the educator—the teacher may feel that they are not helping students achieve their goal. There may also be a sense of ‘dis-identification’—declassifying oneself from an imposed identity/status/place etc.
In Suzanne de Castelle’s video, New Media Modules, she discusses new ways of teaching and learning. There are 3 new environments: digital story telling, critical making, game design. It focuses on learning through purposeful making- pedagogy. Educators need to consider constructionism and not instructionism. Constructionism is not as simple as “learning by making”. It is much “richer and multifaceted, deeper in its implication”. Students should be able to design and construct things that can be public and shown to a critical audience, which is reflective of Papert’s belief. Also, similar to Thumlert, Castelle believes this can be done through play. It is important to break down barriers from what you need to what you can do. However, this notion that intellectual knowledge holds more value than ‘serious play’ runs much deeper than the classroom. Karl Marx believed that when profits are enjoyed NOT by the maker, nor are the conditions they work in, then they are alienated from their own labour. Take for example, the use versus exchange value. When carrots are traded for money, which are to eat, it is converted into the exchange of how much you get for selling—it becomes a commodity. Value is placed on the use of what is produced, and thus, alienated labour is created. This is similar to classrooms. There are two streams within education—academic and vocational which leads to white-collar vs. blue-collar employment. It has always been the main belief that brainwork has more value than body work. Even vocational learning was still academically influenced through exams, written assignments, etc. instead of designing, making and sharing what the maker finds valuable. Students, then, can be alienated from their own learning when curriculum and teaching is disconnected from their own lives. There is a commodification or learning/education. Purposeful pedagogy is about USE value and NOT market value. Dewey, the father of progressive education, believed that projects must be purposeful and the learners own their own work. This is what distinguishes purposeful pedagogy from other forms of hands on instruction. Production of things and the production of ideas—control of one enables the control of the other and play is integral to deep learning.
It is clear that Thumlert, Papert, and Castelle share intersectional ideas and work with each other to encourage the student as the maker who reproduces or creates through play, and is ultimately the teacher and the student. It is critical that development psychology be looked at again in order to correctly aid students in “new media technology” and digital education, and get the most benefit out of their learning today. Allowing students to be the maker, and moving away from instructionism, can unlock students’ potential in the classroom. By alienating students from their own learning, it is quite obvious that we are holding them back from becoming the best that they can be.
Articles in Reference:
Watch: Suzanne de Castelle (Video): The Pedagogies of Production
1. Blikstein, P. (2016). Seymour Papert Legacy: Thinking about Learning; Learning about Thinking (Short Online Article)
2. Thumlert, K. (2015). Affordances of Equality: Ranciere, Emerging Media, and ‘The New Amateurs’, Studies in Art Education, Winter 2015.
Watch: Suzanne de Castelle (Video): The Pedagogies of Production
1. Blikstein, P. (2016). Seymour Papert Legacy: Thinking about Learning; Learning about Thinking (Short Online Article)
2. Thumlert, K. (2015). Affordances of Equality: Ranciere, Emerging Media, and ‘The New Amateurs’, Studies in Art Education, Winter 2015.
Week Four:
Monday, January 30th, 2017
Virtual reality technology appears to have the extra edge that is lost on the multiple Facebook posts, videos, and other social media awareness tactics, which are not as powerful as they once were in inciting empathy and humanity amongst individuals. Supporters of the VR technology see this as “a path towards empathy for the victims and as an immersive recreation of a pivotal historical event”. We live in the era where citizens of the world’s most powerful nation elected a celebrity as President, who encourages bigoted, homophobic, and sexist (among many, many others) thinking and incites hateful actions for those who are not as privileged as the typical white male. If PETA, through VR technology, can help individuals empathize with chickens, then it is crucial that our children and the younger generation are able to empathize and be emotionally intelligent when facing the political realities of today. While VR promotes Social Emotional Learning, such as empathizing, it also helps students with anxiety and stage fright, through public speaking simulators. It’s been known to help with autism, financial management, PTSD, pain management etc. Some programs have the potential to ‘[transcend] language and ability, and [have] no restrictions with regards to insecurity or ability” (Tim Neal, teacher in Orangeville District Secondary School) digital.
However, there are also many ethical aspects to consider before unleashing this technology onto children and teens. While the long term side affects have not been studied to its full extent (it has not been around long enough to see what long term affects can include), addiction, manipulation of agency, and psychological and mental illness are potential hazards. What must also be remembered is that young minds are more susceptible to harmful affects of technology etc., particularly because their minds and bodies are still developing. There is a concern for “commercial exploitation” political, religious views can be affected –think they are in full control but they’re not—particularly for children
VR can also impact environment on agency and behaviour, aggravate pre-existing psychological or emotional issues, diminish real world interactions, and can be a cause of concern for privacy. While geographically isolated, anti-social, disabled or disfigured individuals can use VR as a tool to reconnect and interact, it can also cause the illusion of embodiment—this the body’s response to the virtual as if it were real. It can also cause social hallucination--the notion of false friends and realities that take away from our realities and lives. VR technology will eventually change not only our general image of humanity but also our understanding of deeply entrenched notions, such as “conscious experience,” “selfhood,” “authenticity,” or “realness.” (Michael Madary and Thomas Metzinger).
If schools and educational institutions are serious about promoting education and success for ALL students, and help all students develop ‘ambition’ and ‘mastery’ of skills, then they need an overhaul of their traditional teaching methods. As students use of media changes outside of school, it cannot be possible to implement deeper learning opportunities without new technology. While keeping in time with IBL and TLE, technology allows learning to DO versus learning ABOUT. It is still possible to teach deeper learning without technology, but the quality and effectiveness will be affected without the proper digital support. There are two new designs for learning: Digital Teaching Platforms, and Immersive Authentic Simulations.
DTP is meant to function as a primary instructional environment and NOT meant to replace teacher or control their work. DTP empowers teachers to teach in 4 ways that can lead to deeper learning:
- Case based learning
- Multiple, varied representations
- Collaborative learning
- Diagnostic assessments (p7/13)
Immersive Authentic Simulations allows you to “be there”. There are multiuser virtual environments/virtual worlds. Augmented reality includes examples such as old pictures overlaid new one, or text assisting images etc.
James Gee’s article on the features and aspects of video gaming and the VR world appear to share similarities that can be beneficial for the classroom. For example, VR promotes DTP through collaborative learning, similar to video games feature of cross-functional teamwork. Experience and preparedness as a learning feature of video games, can be reflected in case based learning offered through VR technology. de Castell stated that “intelligence is always adverbial to attentive action”—meaning everyone can be considered intelligent based on the amount of time and interest they have at the subject at hand. Take video games for example, individuals are able to understand and achieve goals in the game simply based on the level of instruction provided and time spent practicing those skills. Gee believes that a feature of video games is intelligence via smart tools—hands on activities allow for individuals to practice before being competent in the task. Similarly, AR (augmented realities) and prior VW (virtual world) can help students navigate real life situation and experience hands on what certain implications, conditions, variations etc. can cause (i.e. the EcoMUVE pond module), and gain skills to apply these in the real world.
While VR is great to promote deeper learning in the classroom, there are many digital divides within the classroom that can occur. Although VR has become more affordable and available, and more widely available for schools and public since more companies are engineering VR technology, more affluent children will have their hands on tech first. It is important for educators to remember that while these technological advances are occurring, and it is highly encouraged that teachers bring in these advanced teaching methods into the classroom to promote deeper learning, educators themselves are NOT being eliminated. There is still a great need and necessity for the teacher to be present, whether it is to ensure that ethical methods are practiced or to ensure that students are being correctly guided towards the learning task/goal. Instead of moving away from these technological tools, I am even more firm in my belief that educators wholeheartedly accept the positivity and support that they offer in order to create a more efficient and effective experience.
Articles in Reference:
1. Darvasi, P. Mindshift (2016) VR and 5 Ethical Considerations
2. Dede, C. (2014). The Role of Digital Technologies in Deeper Learning. Harvard Education: White Paper.
3. Bailenson et al (2008). The Use of Immersive Virtual Reality in the Learning Sciences: Digital Transformations of Teachers, Students, and Social Context, The Journal of Learning Science. 17: 102–141, 2008.
4. Villanueva, G. (2016) Up close and personal: Virtual reality can be an instrument for social change . The conversation.com (April 2016). Short Online Article
1. Darvasi, P. Mindshift (2016) VR and 5 Ethical Considerations
2. Dede, C. (2014). The Role of Digital Technologies in Deeper Learning. Harvard Education: White Paper.
3. Bailenson et al (2008). The Use of Immersive Virtual Reality in the Learning Sciences: Digital Transformations of Teachers, Students, and Social Context, The Journal of Learning Science. 17: 102–141, 2008.
4. Villanueva, G. (2016) Up close and personal: Virtual reality can be an instrument for social change . The conversation.com (April 2016). Short Online Article
Week Three:
Monday, January 23rd, 2017
This weeks reading was posted on WikiMedia. To view the post, click on the link below:
https://www.ludicmedia.ca/mediawiki/index.php?title=Shaheena’s_Reflection
https://www.ludicmedia.ca/mediawiki/index.php?title=Shaheena’s_Reflection
Week Two:
Monday, January 16th, 2017
When examining Suzanne de Castell’s and James Gee’s articles on the features and aspects of video gaming and education, the reader cannot help but only perceive it to be a positive addition to education. As de Castell mentions, engaging children and maintaining their academic interest is proving to be harder than it was in the past. Now, children and adults alike are exposed to the multifaceted world of technology, which allows them to engage in multimodal mediums, encouraging multitasking and emerging themselves in a world that is constantly moving. Both de Castell and Gee argue that video games are good for learning and I agree that it should be incorporated within the curriculum. One of the key points that de Castell brings up is the measurement of children’s intelligence within academia. As Gee notes, some students may do well in the classroom, by paper and pen standards, but when faced with problems in a real life situation, they are less likely to be able to overcome it. In order to gain experience, it is imperative that students are able to experience a more hands on approach, another benefit that video games offer, according to Gee—there is an opportunity for individuals to gain competency and intelligence via smart tools. Gee also points out situated meanings—these words are used in a complex manner within school, and while students are eventually able to understand and apply them academically, they are unable to reproduce that knowledge when faced with a hands on task, unlike in video games. It is important to first have dialogue, then experience, and then action—a series of skills that are not necessarily being applied in schools. Students are held to a socially constructed standard of what is construed as being intelligent. As de Castell states, “intelligence is always adverbial to attentive action” – everyone can be considered intelligent based on the amount of time and interest they have at the subject at hand—take video games for example, individuals are able to understand and achieve goals in the game simply based on the level of instruction provided and time spent practicing those skills; whereas in school, there are many interruptions, ‘wait’ times, or external factors that can affect the socially constructed definition of ‘intelligence’ and pre determined standards. While teachers beginning to recognize that they are having difficulty engaging children, why not venture into the world that does interest them, and create an enriching and informative teaching environment for both the student and the teacher? Many teachers, myself included, are nervous and hesitant to enter into the more complex world of technology, and this can significantly impede the amount of learning that can take place within a school day. Teachers are no longer the be all and end all as a resource for information—information and knowledge can be accessed at the tip of our fingers, and students have begun to realize this as well. Regardless of what is occurring in the “real world” education is strictly text based, whereas some texts/popular literature can communicate through different mediums as well, not just the original text for example, through spin off toys, games, apps, songs, etc. Games provide pleasure, while still maintaining and integrating the ability to learn new skill sets and unique ways of processing information, whereas in classrooms, pleasure is not an important aspect. When John Fallon went above and beyond the typical unimodal medium of learning, he managed to create a new way of learning Homer’s, The Odyssey. This allowed Fallon to unlock the potential in students learning by moving away from the age old, tried and true methods. By allowing students to be their own authoritative figure, and ‘customize’ the game based on their skills, and not through what they are expected to do, they were able to complete the task at hand at a higher degree. It is vital that teachers begin to apply the information they have gained through research and study. Through professional development, additional qualifications, and simply by opening their minds to new and exciting technological arenas, educators can create an environment for students to thrive, and return to school wanting to learn, rather than seeing school as a place for them to ‘wait’ and learn in a unimodal manner. Educators need to pay attention to attention, and move synchronously with the technological times, before students learn to become their own teachers, and we are left behind.
Articles in Reference:
1. de Castell, S. & Jenson, J. (2006). Paying Attention to Attention: New Economies for Learning. Educational Theory,54, 381-97.
2. Gee, J.P. (2007). Are Video Games Good for Learning? In Worlds in Play: International Perspectives on Digital Game Research. New York (Short)
3. Darvasi, P. (2014). Mindshift How to Transform The Odyssey into an Epic Game in Alternate Reality (Short)
1. de Castell, S. & Jenson, J. (2006). Paying Attention to Attention: New Economies for Learning. Educational Theory,54, 381-97.
2. Gee, J.P. (2007). Are Video Games Good for Learning? In Worlds in Play: International Perspectives on Digital Game Research. New York (Short)
3. Darvasi, P. (2014). Mindshift How to Transform The Odyssey into an Epic Game in Alternate Reality (Short)