Okay, I love twitter. I think it should be used in the classroom, not only by teachers but by students as well. Why? Because people who are not in your classroom are going to have no idea what your students are tweeting about if they aren't there. So what does that mean? Comments on twitter during your class are either directed at other students or you (the teacher) or they are not. You might be thinking that this makes no sense but I like my chances here. I aim to engage my students, so with any luck, their comments are going to be about whatever we are discussing in class. The people who are likely banning social networks in their class likely can't compete. That's okay, that's one style/need. It's just not mine. Furthermore, useful things get said on twitter. Things that would otherwise go unheard. Students are talking to each other without interrupting the rest of the class and, just as important, they are engaging their teachers with questions and comments too. For some twitter looks a lot more appealing than speaking up in class.
Not only do I welcome twitter into my classroom but I think it is a sign of healthy, happy brains. People who are happy and occupied are likely to get their work done. That is part of staying happy and occupied. If you flip it around the other way, cutting students off from social networks during your class is not going to keep them riveted on you anyway. Furthermore, there are no twitter cops out in the real world and students are going to need to balance their use of social networks with their other work demands. Why shouldn't they learn how to do that in school? Do you really think this is not going to be a workplace issue in the future? It seems to me that it is already one now.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Multiple Intelligences, Yea or Nay?
Alright, I am just going to dive in here and say that I have a lot of reservations about the idea that we are addressing 'kinaesthetic learners' with fancy websites like Prezi. I know, I know ... I get a rap on the knuckles and and I get to wear the dunce cap in the corner (my heart goes out to you Mr. Scotus).
First of all, what are kinaesthetic learners anyway? Well, we need to back up the truck.
I could put a link in here for Howard Gardner but you will do your own searching anyway (as any critical reader should). In a nutshell, Howard Gardner was a guy who mistrusted the concept of IQ. It was a revelation to educators and researchers alike that school typically focused its attention on a few different kinds of learning that Gardner posited as linguistic and logico-mathematical. One of the other six learners that Gardner posited was that of bodily/kinaesthetic learners.
The great news here is that for the past 20 years educators have revised the way they teach to include more of the intelligences that Gardner proposed. This absolutely has to be an improvement because education really was (and in some cases still is) being delivered in only a relatively few modes.
The bad news is that I think the model itself is limiting and not well understood or characterized. For example, why eight kinds of learners? Wikipedia says that Gardner has been considering a ninth called existential learners for some time and I have certainly witnessed other instructors add a bracketed 'spiritual learner.' Not only that but Gardner has also fallen victim to his own sort of oppositional privilege in his own selection of categories. He has been criticized on Marxist grounds concerning the socializing roles of education, feminist grounds, and more than a few others. Please see this link for one summary: http://hss.fullerton.edu/linguistics/cln/Sew-Kincheloe.pdf
Lastly, assuming that we agree that kinaesthetic learning is a distinct category, how is a web page kinaesthetic? A game is kinaesthetic if you get up and swing a controller around - though your input with the controller does not necessarily closely approximate the actions you would need to take if you were performing any given task with your body. I am not so sure that clicking with a mouse is kinaesthetic to any greater degree than turning the pages of a book. Sure, I could modify some things on some pages like wikispaces but I can and do modify real texts when I have them too - I write on them, diagram, circle, underline, paraphrase, object, occasionally swear ... But I don't consider that truly kinaesthetic. I could go on to do a direct activity after having absorbed material from a web site but I could do that just as well after having flipped through a repair manual.
In the end, I think that the use of digital media can revolutionize the presentation of materials. But make no mistake, we are talking about presentation here. Even with the technology advances we have made, we are not talking about a lot of digital developments that involve productive work on the part of students. The doing part is still very much tied to manipulable objects that may or may not have been printed off from digital resources. And this all assumes that we are treating the idea of multiple intelligences in a, well, intelligent way. I can buy that using as many modes and senses possible facilitates better rates of learning but I am pretty concerned that we are using a fairly rough tool here (and I say tool in the sense that the model of learning influences the practice of teaching). And we may not be using that tool well when we describe mouse-clicking as kinaesthetic.
First of all, what are kinaesthetic learners anyway? Well, we need to back up the truck.
I could put a link in here for Howard Gardner but you will do your own searching anyway (as any critical reader should). In a nutshell, Howard Gardner was a guy who mistrusted the concept of IQ. It was a revelation to educators and researchers alike that school typically focused its attention on a few different kinds of learning that Gardner posited as linguistic and logico-mathematical. One of the other six learners that Gardner posited was that of bodily/kinaesthetic learners.
The great news here is that for the past 20 years educators have revised the way they teach to include more of the intelligences that Gardner proposed. This absolutely has to be an improvement because education really was (and in some cases still is) being delivered in only a relatively few modes.
The bad news is that I think the model itself is limiting and not well understood or characterized. For example, why eight kinds of learners? Wikipedia says that Gardner has been considering a ninth called existential learners for some time and I have certainly witnessed other instructors add a bracketed 'spiritual learner.' Not only that but Gardner has also fallen victim to his own sort of oppositional privilege in his own selection of categories. He has been criticized on Marxist grounds concerning the socializing roles of education, feminist grounds, and more than a few others. Please see this link for one summary: http://hss.fullerton.edu/linguistics/cln/Sew-Kincheloe.pdf
Lastly, assuming that we agree that kinaesthetic learning is a distinct category, how is a web page kinaesthetic? A game is kinaesthetic if you get up and swing a controller around - though your input with the controller does not necessarily closely approximate the actions you would need to take if you were performing any given task with your body. I am not so sure that clicking with a mouse is kinaesthetic to any greater degree than turning the pages of a book. Sure, I could modify some things on some pages like wikispaces but I can and do modify real texts when I have them too - I write on them, diagram, circle, underline, paraphrase, object, occasionally swear ... But I don't consider that truly kinaesthetic. I could go on to do a direct activity after having absorbed material from a web site but I could do that just as well after having flipped through a repair manual.
In the end, I think that the use of digital media can revolutionize the presentation of materials. But make no mistake, we are talking about presentation here. Even with the technology advances we have made, we are not talking about a lot of digital developments that involve productive work on the part of students. The doing part is still very much tied to manipulable objects that may or may not have been printed off from digital resources. And this all assumes that we are treating the idea of multiple intelligences in a, well, intelligent way. I can buy that using as many modes and senses possible facilitates better rates of learning but I am pretty concerned that we are using a fairly rough tool here (and I say tool in the sense that the model of learning influences the practice of teaching). And we may not be using that tool well when we describe mouse-clicking as kinaesthetic.
My power hat
So ... hats (amongst other things). I have a hard time with hats. Not students wearing them. Not the fact that they exist. Just that so many teachers are hung up on them.
The problem is really one of power. I am not going to deny that power exists or that it should even be used in the classroom (I'm going to go with Foucault on this one) but hats are not the particular hill I want to die on. Put into context, every student represents a whole bunch of hills. Some will let you die on a bunch of them without really impeding their learning but some will only give you one. That's it; all learning stops. You can watch those students withdraw or have them jump up and spit on you but the end result is the same.
I don't want to die on some foreign hill over a hat. I want my students to learn. I want to have good relationships with them. I like hats. Especially after bad haircuts.
How about we don't draw arbitrary lines in the classroom that will then become exemplary of the respect we (teachers) feel we deserve for having drawn such an artificial boundary in the linoleum. I use my first name too - exclusively! Piercings, dyes, loud clothing, loud ipods, laptops, social media and hats: none of these things bother me too much. It's supposed to be about learning after all. Are these things really impeding learning? No. I would be if they become the new guideposts that I need respected in order to allow a learning environment to form. That would be me not my students. Freedom to learn and freedom to express are powers that I want expressed in my classroom. Period.
The problem is really one of power. I am not going to deny that power exists or that it should even be used in the classroom (I'm going to go with Foucault on this one) but hats are not the particular hill I want to die on. Put into context, every student represents a whole bunch of hills. Some will let you die on a bunch of them without really impeding their learning but some will only give you one. That's it; all learning stops. You can watch those students withdraw or have them jump up and spit on you but the end result is the same.
I don't want to die on some foreign hill over a hat. I want my students to learn. I want to have good relationships with them. I like hats. Especially after bad haircuts.
How about we don't draw arbitrary lines in the classroom that will then become exemplary of the respect we (teachers) feel we deserve for having drawn such an artificial boundary in the linoleum. I use my first name too - exclusively! Piercings, dyes, loud clothing, loud ipods, laptops, social media and hats: none of these things bother me too much. It's supposed to be about learning after all. Are these things really impeding learning? No. I would be if they become the new guideposts that I need respected in order to allow a learning environment to form. That would be me not my students. Freedom to learn and freedom to express are powers that I want expressed in my classroom. Period.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)