When Enough is Never Enough

by Matthew Joachim
 

Reading through the first two chapters of our text, I was heartened by the renewed push for the active inclusion and implementation of new technologies into classrooms across the country.  The possibilities for enhancing and modifying instruction for the benefit of learners are limitless.  This is especially welcome news as we strive to differentiate instruction to meet the learning styles and needs of all students in order to provide the most effective instruction.
 

However, I was somewhat unnerved by the collusion of constructivism, particularly its assertion that "there is no reality except as constructed by the individual," and the new efforts to revolutionize education with new technologies.  Attempting to create our own truths and realities is a dangerous concept because it leaves society vulnerable to the most powerful factions imposing their own beliefs without any reference point to refute false information or room for opposing views.  For example, while we can debate whether the American colonists were heroes or rebels, or both, we cannot deny the historical fact that a revolution did occur in which the 13 Colonies broke away from England and formed a new republic based upon the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

This development, combined with the authors' citation of "a persistent pattern of boredom and alienation (Maloy, Verock O'Loughlin, Edwards & Woolf, 2011, p. 10)" among students were identified as the motivations for overturning established educational practices and principles and seem more like an effort to dumb down the populace by encouraging attention deficient behaviors rather than helping them acquire new knowledge by striving through concentration, focus and self-control.  Let me explain.
 

  

 All generations think and act differently than their predecessors.  Our parents' beliefs and ideas are surely not the same as ours, just as our children's will be different as well.  Every generation is also accompanied by new and different technology.  Those of us born in the late 1980s and early 1990s were privileged to enjoy many of the innovations cited in this book for transforming education such as television, computers, cell phones, etc. yet our traditional instruction with chalkboards, worksheets and tests did not detract or inhibit our learning.  Additionally, we arrived when many of these inventions were already a few decades old and still learned just as well as our parents and grandparents.  In fact, my own elementary and high school education was defined by these so-called "failed practices" cited by the textbook such as desks arranged in rows, students mostly listening, taking notes or completing worksheets, etc. and yet here I sit blogging before you in the last semester of a master's degree just two years after the completion of a bachelor's.
 

My point is not to brag, but to understand why this current generation of students is so special as to warrant a complete overhaul of principles and practices that have stood the test of time and been utilized for hundreds if not thousands of years.  They are already bombarded and distracted by a never-ending flow of texts, advertisements, shows, movies, games, etc. and require a refuge from the informational overflow.  As illustrated by the PBS documentary, although browsing Google stimulated more brain activity, reading a book was considered healthier due to the "less is more" idea of being able to focus more clearly and thoroughly on a single matter rather than diluting our attention with many matters at once, more commonly known as "multi-tasking."  School should be a place where students come to slow down, refocus and realize that life in the real world is much different than the digital one they are exposed to for hours on end each day.  We should not water down our approach because they need our experience in order to learn and grow to prepare for life in the real world.  Rather, we should set the bar higher to help them achieve their best and overcome the negative tendencies such as laziness that plague all adolescents.

 

 
 

Working in Coney Island and elsewhere, I have seen firsthand the problem of allowing technology to control the classroom as Prensky and the text seem to advocate.  All of my classes are classified as “low-functioning” and I learned early on that all the technology in the world will not focus certain classes without a strong teacher to monitor, refocus and control the situation with a well-prepared lesson.  When you are dealing with a society that is already attention deficient, it seems counterproductive and even irresponsible to encourage and reinforce those behaviors that cause such distractions.  Why would you pour more oil on an already raging fire?  It is completely puzzling to me why the text would cite students' boredom as the proof that education needs a revolution.  Forgive me, but who are the experts and professionals that have studied and practiced for years to become effective educators and who are the young, malleable and immature minds requiring structure, order and consistency?  That in no way means that we ignore our students' suggestions and preferences when designing instruction, but I would ask anyone my age or older to imagine what school would be like if their adolescent self had been able to control it and what our own feelings were at the time.  They were most likely not too different from those of our students today.  
 

What we need is a fusion of the “legacy” and “future” contents cited by Prensky in which the best practices of the teacher-and student-centered approaches are included.  At the same time, we should retain the simplicity and calmness of the natural world as called for by Lang to help us appreciate the beauty and wonder of the real world without all of its electronics, networks and digitization.  This balanced approach is the surest way to ensuring that effective and appropriate instruction takes place for the benefit of all learners while also incorporating technology as a central component of learning.
 

Three Questions:

1) Why is there such a push to gratify student wishes in the classroom through technology when

     they are already inundated with numerous distractions throughout the day?

 

2) How will technology provide superior instruction if our students do not even have the basic

     concepts of reading, writing and arithmetic?

3) Do traditional methods still have a place in the classroom of the future or will they be

     completely eliminated?

 

 

 

 

The Best of Both Worlds?
by Matthew Joachim

 

New teachers always have a tremendous opportunity to finally put into practice the various strategies and techniques they have spent years internalizing and testing. Consequently, a plethora of possiblities can now be employed and explored in order to ascertain the best practices for learning and instruction.  

 

Having been in education for over 10 years, I've seen the best of both worlds with regards to technology in education.  Some classrooms were technologically advanced with the regular use of SmartBoards, mini laptops, etc. while others were completely devoid of even the basic overhead projector.  However, in both environments technology did not make or break the success of student learning.  Rather, its utilization by the teacher and employment among students were key to whether it made any difference at all.  Too often, YouTube videos and laptops would be used as time killers and babysitters for students, eliminating any sort of learning about either the content or technology.  Additionally, for many students classified as "low functioning," the new tools were used to provide distractions for them while teachers attempted to conduct lessons for the rest of the class.  We already have a major problem maintaining students' attention regardless of what motivations are used and sometimes technology only exacerbates the problem.

 

 

As a result, my experiences place me firmly in the camp of "casual observers" as described by our text (Maloy, Verock-O'Loughlin, Edwards & Woolf, 2011).  I am more than willing to consider new tools and innovations, but will only move to employ them once their educational value has been clearly demonstrated.  Additionally, if I should ever invent any new forms of digital learning, my first move would be to repeatedly test the new strategies, techniques or programs in order to ascertain their effectiveness with student thinking and learning.

 

In Coney Island, I am in the unique position of having classrooms lacking any sort of electronic or digital technology.  Honestly, it has been difficult re-adapting to such traditional modes of teaching after having had the benefit of SmartBoards, PowerPoints, online videos, etc. for so long.  Having taught in both types of classrooms, I will be the first to acknowledge that online notes, such as PowerPoint presentations, are vastly superior to those written in chalk on a blackboard.  The visual and interactive supplements, time saved and greater clarity are huge benefits for covering a lesson in 40 minutes.  As a result, when the new SmartBoards begin to arrive either at the end of the year or next year, I know that I will be a leader in adapting them for use and assisting other educators in learning to use them.  However, their purpose will still remain conveying new knowledge to the young, inquiring minds that inhabit the classrooms each day.

 

In the fast-paced, interconnected and digitized world of 2013, all this is done in order to preserve the proven methods of the past while integrating the promising ones of the future. This is how I plan to begin incorporating the best of both worlds into learning and instruction.