![The Hunting of the Snark ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Último
Último (20)
Destaque
Destaque (20)
Digital Natives and the Snark Syndrome
- 3. Digital Natives and the Snark Syndrome Simon Lorimer
- 7. OECD. (2008). New millennium learners. Initial findings on the effects of digital technologies on school-age learners. Learning in the 21st Century: Research, Innovation and Policy. Paris: OECD/CERI.
- 8. OECD. (2008). New millennium learners. Initial findings on the effects of digital technologies on school-age learners. Learning in the 21st Century: Research, Innovation and Policy. Paris: OECD/CERI.
Notas do Editor
- This item is a video – just for an introduction – Mike Batt and Billy Connely – remember them? – performing part of ‘The Hunting of the Snark’
- Snark poem - discuss women suggesting that many of the commonly accepted ideas about the things that effected women’s progress in science were taken to be true simply because they were repeated often enough (e.g. single sex schools and female role models don’t help) Mark Bullen resurrecting the term to apply to digital native debate
- Jikoshoukai – tech background including labs designed around computers to develop collaborative tool model in the mid 90’s. Adoption of range of technologies, my classes have wikis, there is social bookmarking, use of professional social networks, online learning, self blogging. Met the Native/Immigrant divide with Jukes and was uncomfortable with how it fit with the curriculum studies that had formed part of my recently complete masters degree. Having followed criticism for a while, but not developed the thought fully, the email inviting contributors came in the same batch of mail as one of the regular technology in education writers I follow on the subject. This seemed like a good opportunity for me to challenge my understanding of what was going on by trying to organise the sources I was looking at into a presentation where I could quickly get multiple perspectives – coz my problem is I haven’t really changed my perspective very much and that leads me to believe it is not well examined.
- This slide is a video of a collection of cartoons as a prompt while participants discuss what the understand by the terms What do you think a digital native is? What are the characteristics of the net generation?
- NYT article and discuss potential problems Are all the kids like this? How could a dinosaur like me possibly even talk to them? Are the statements in the first section justified – is there evidence? And does it lead us where we want to go? And where they want to go? What about borders?
- Processing preferences in social setting and education setting – not the same and not static – What borders exist and when and how should we cross them Gender disparities – use for girls and boys differs. Boy’s use usually considered the norm Disempowerment – taking the first hit from google
- Cart shows gains measured from PISA data Criticism of original evidence include that much of the evidence is anecdotal, then cited uncritically. Where there is more empirical data it is not always from balance of SES and e.g. qualitative data – discussion – gathered in online chat rooms. Slide shows the Matthew effect. Overall there can be gains but these are disproportionate for High SES. Home use more significant for gains than school use – and how the computer is used at home
- This gives a bit more detail than lumping students into a single generation. This is from an Italian study of (?college) students. The numbers who are inter-activated – the content producers – are relatively small. The mass are more passive users of technology and a significant number are resistant or disinterested. Is this reflected in your classroom?
- This slide shows has a video scrolling round a few terms – Lazy, ineffective, out of touch in denial, resistant to change Moral panic – These terms come from one of the original and authoratative papers on this (Prensky (sp?)) to describe teachers who were not embracing his ideas – this gives some idea of the tone – with us or against us. ‘such divisive language does not support constructive debate. ‘Neither dismissive skepticism or uncritical advocacy enable understanding’
- This slide is a possible discussion prompt. The conclusions are based on university findings and would go with the question – to what extent do we think these apply to us
- I think these are important things to finish on – the consequences can be left hanging Digital inclusion – access and: use, empowerment, participation Democratic – the education of the future should not create an underprivileged group, Gender SES, preference, whatever Effortful – The image covers over a lot of complexity and students and teachers will not find spontaneous innovation – change must recognize this at a policy level Messy – a classroom is a complex place – Allan Luke used an image of teaching as weaving: Systematic shifts, shunts, weaves between kinds and levels of knowledge within lessons, across units of work, and across projects/rich tasks basic/higher order; skill automaticity/reflection; reproduction/critique; design/redesign; known/new ; commonsense/technical; everyday/scientific; concrete/abstract; local/global
- Discussion questions These questions would better be replaced with ones generated by participants. Maybe of parents are involved it would be useful to include a focus on what parents expect from the school – this would work best with the borders question – (should be less jargon based) Alternative – could interact with the sources
- Some of these could be followed by individuals instead of questions – adding comments on the blog would be one way to go