I just finished reading Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. It's mind boggling and very inciteful.
Postman talked about Television's effect on many things such as politics, commerce, and religion, but I think the most significant effects were the ones put on education. Many children during present day grow up watching educational shows like Sesame Street which are beneficial for learning content, but distort children's idea of what learning should be like. In the educational television shows there is no social interaction, so when students get to classroom learning they do not know how to learn and work in groups. Also, they do not know how to approach asking a teacher a question. In my own classes teachers will ask if there are any questions and no one will respond, yet when we start the activity some students are confused and end up asking their peers what to do or do it wrong.
A lot of students are visual learners which probably is connected to the fact many kids grow up watching lots of TV. Therefore, once they get to class they struggle with understanding what their teachers and peers are saying because they are used to the visual displays on telsvision. Also, the educational shows kids grow up watching are exciting and entertaining making them expect learning in the classroom to be the same way. When students find out it is not entertaining they lose interest producing many recurring problems in education like talkative and distracted students. Lastly, the shows kids watch in general are fast paced bringing lots of excitement and information rapidly so when some students enter the slow, long school days they become bored, frustrated, or uninterested.
Teachers are adapting to the way television culture changed students which slowly is destroying the print cultured society. I noticed teachers walk around when students start an activity to help students who did not know how to approach asking a question when the teacher asked "if there are any questions." In addition, teachers are starting to use YouTube videos like John Green's crash courses to cater to the rising amount of visual learners. In order to spice up learning and make it more exciting teachers make songs or sayings to engage the large amount of students who expect entertainment at school. Finally, Mayfair's periods are only a hour long to cater to the shortened attention span of students. Americans in the 19th century used to be able to process 3 hour speeches.
I believe as the changes to education become more widespread we will lose our print cultured learning process. Do you think it's an improvement to learn in the way produced due to the prominence television or do you think the traditional print based method is better?
Mark Young
Personally I believe the traditional print based method of education is a lot better. I do enjoy technology in school but many students misuse it by looking up answers on another tab while class is in session. I am a visual learner when it comes to projects dealing with art mediums, that's where You Tube comes to the rescue. However, I am not one who would watch a video on how to write a rhetorical precis, or solve some sort of mathematical equation. I am more of a hands on learner, and it is the best way to learn. If we lived in a society with videos the minute we walk into a classroom, then whats the point in having a teacher? I believe we learn better with a pen and paper in class, rather than the keys on the computer. Once in awhile a documentary is fine, but listening to the teacher speak their opinion afterwards, questioning us on what we think, is when we comprehend together. We understand more when we have someone who knows the subject, we also trust that person. Today you can't believe everything on the media, unless it ends with a ".org" apparently. The educational update is neat, but crucial.
ReplyDeleteI think that the print cultured learning process has to be lost eventually. We're not there yet but when more advanced learning technology would make class room learning more dynamic. On top of that it'd be saving us a lot of paper and money. Then you rely on your teacher less and your technology more. That sounds bad but then again you don't ever have to worry about having a terrible teacher. When I ask my peers for answers instead of the teacher it's either because the teacher usually gives you a terrible response that just make you more confused, or it's just easier to ask your peers because their sitting next to you. Entertainment isn't even the issue here it's just that we need better learning environments that adapt with students individually and somehow meshes them perfectly well in groups. It tells them how they learn and what their potential with other people are. The easiest way for this to be achieved is with technology. The hours of education in high school are also not very important considering you get most of the learning of your field in colleges and university. elementary to high school is just a little preparation for that.
ReplyDeleteI think that technology based learning is definitely an improvement, however, it is not the ultimate solution. Incorporating technology with learning is truly innovative and gives teachers a lot more teaching options. It also allows students to practice their typing skills which is a crucial skill for college since most papers/essays are typed out rather than written. Currently, there are interactive boards or iPads at students fingertips to facilitate student's learning. However completely getting rid of traditional text based learning would not be an improvement. Good old fashioned text books give students eyes rest and creates less distraction since they can't switch over to a different tab to read their favorite book or switch to another app to play Candy Crush. It also creates a more controlled environment allowing teachers to be able to see and know exactly what students are reading rather than having an iPad and hoping they are on the right app or website. In conclusion I believe that technology based learning is an improvement, but it's not a system that we should adopt completely.
ReplyDelete