READING REFLECTIONS |
Week 11 - Reading Reflections
Ratto, M. (2011). Critical making: Conceptual and material studies in technology and social life. The Information Society, 27(4), 252-260. Ratto’s article on critically making is one reflective of our class. The term critical making is used to describe “a desire to theoretically and pragmatically connect two modes of engagement with the world that are often held separate—critical thinking, typically understood as conceptually and linguistically based, and physical “making,” goal-based material work” (253). In our past lectures, this is a concept that has been explored on numerous occasions and one that I believe to be a core theme of the course. “Critical making emphasizes the shared acts of making rather than the evocative object.” (253). In having a shared construction of meaning, students are able to move away from ‘displaying’ their knowledge alone and move into a territory where they are able to “achieve value though the act of shared construction, joint conversation, and reflection” (253). One of the statements from the article that stuck with me was how “although constructivism as pedagogy has a long tradition within the social and humanities education, constructionism has been less applied outside of the fields of math, engineering, and the sciences” ( 255). I think in traditional classrooms, reading is viewed as decoding written symbols and translating these symbols into sounds. The traditional teacher places importance on the mechanics of text deciphering, starting with recognizing isolated letters and then identifying the sound those letters make. In creating these static moments of learning, removed from daily practice, the teacher is limiting the learning and confining it. A way in which the teacher can include more constructionism in the classroom, especially through the medium of language arts is by allowing students to create their own stories or their own plays (Reader’s theater), have a pen pal, have journal entries for reflection on field trips, or even has a class newsletter. In presenting greater opportunities for learning and constructionism in language arts, students will be able to apply it in other subjects as well, as language arts is often cross-curricular. Wark, M. (2013). A more lovingly made world. Cultural Studies Review, 19(1), 296-304. This reflection like piece by Wark begins with introducing a sentence that connects to last week’s articles. He states, “One of the good things about this version of maker culture is that it puts traditionally male and female kinds of amateur hobby stuff side by side. My son can try knitting; my daughter can play with Lego robots” (296-297). We learned last week how females are often neglected and dismissed in the field of technology – but in these ‘makerspace’ girls are welcomed to explore new means of technology and also bend it normal conventions. This is the future. I think that in offering general maker space cultures, boys and girls are exposed to the same experiences that remove stigma. “The Brooklyn maker culture really wants to get its hands dirty making things rather than just playing with things already made. But it doesn’t scale. It makes a fetish of the artisanal quality of the labour as another way of avoiding the question of labour…What if we made ‘making’—the process of labour on a resistant world—the central category of a certain kind of materialism? This would no longer be a contemplative materialism” 298). This was one the key points of this article that made me think of how labour is seen as a secondary product. In shifting the meaning of making to a more central category of materialism, there is a greater focus on constructive labour, and in the realm of education, it is seen as a shift away from bourgeois academia. As well, the article states how “a contemporary of André Breton, Aratov's relation to the Marxist tradition could not be more different. Rather than extract from the everyday a marvellous poetics, Arvatov was more interested in how the things of the everyday are produced” (299). This reminds me once again of the role of makerspaces in presenting a collaborative studio space for creative endeavors, where the informal combination of business and labour form to create an argument for learning through hands-on exploration. In a world where many of us are laden with many manufactured items and substances; we are moving farther and farther away from the processes that create them. This interest of Arvatov, in how things of the everyday are produced, is one that can begin to be explored by learners through hands-on interaction, coupled with the tools and raw materials that support invention – ultimately, providing the ultimate workshop and the perfect educational space for students. Pinto., L. (2016). Putting the Critical Back into Maker Spaces. Pinto’s story on returning the ‘critical component’ back to Maker Spaces is one that discusses how the “maker movement shared the subversive ethos of DIY. For example, its “hacktivism” component arose from concern about labour exploitation and digital monopolies “(36). In connection with the previous article, Pinto states how “rather than a stance against consumerism, making has emerged with a new purpose articulated by the Maker Education Initiative: “a strategy to engage youth in science, technology, engineering, math, arts, and learning as a whole” (36). I think this is an important feature, in making student gain different purpose and find more meaningful connections to their work. They are working with their materials on a new dimension, and this leads to more than a consumer stance. The article mentions how sites like Hackforge, Hacklab, and Repair Café are hosts of the making movement and “embodies the ethics of a sharing economy where people with repair skills are valued. [In addition,] various events outside of the makerspace also provide recognition for these skills, to showcase the fruits of makers’ labours” (36). As mentioned in Wark’s article, these events, like Maker Faire, introduce young children to this form of learning environment and acts as a starting point in their own maker movement experience. A central statement of this article reveals that “the critical makerspace must engage the learner as a whole person who fully participates, not a passive receiver of official knowledge held by the “teacher” …Learning in this way becomes far more than a mere how-to demonstration … Within maker communities, learning must involve a meaningful dialogue and “figuring out,” to arrive at unique and creative solutions to problems identified by individual members of the maker community (38). To me, this statement is powerful as it captures the essence of makerspaces and the articles for this week. A maker movement is building, and finding ways to integrate learning seamlessly into it is a beneficial factor to increase the productivity and level of education.
0 Comments
Week 9 - Reading Reflections Bray, F. (2007). Gender and Technology. Annual Review of Anthropology. 07 / Issue 36. (pp.37–53)
The “Gender and Technology” article by Frances Bray is one that focuses on the contrast that exists between men and women and their link with technology and the approach of the Feminist Technology Study. As the article states “men are viewed as having a natural affinity with technology, whereas women supposedly fear or dislike it” (37), but the theory of the FTS suggests and argues otherwise. The article then defines Feminist Technology Studies and reveals how it has “played a central part in overturning grand narratives and developing new analytical models” (9). I have never been introduced nor have I heard of FTS, so this article certainly was an interesting one. I agree with the overall contest that the article makes of stating how women have a place with technology as well, as they are users of it. As well, the FTS’ move to “broaden the scope of technology studies to include such assemblages as the brassiere, the closet and the white collar (40) helps to expand the term and include women in it from some perspectives. One of the statements in the article that really grabbed my attention and made me think is how “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” (42). I think that this viewpoint primarily stems from education where women did not get the exposure necessary to explore technology and digital tools. In having missed out on that opportunity, the number of female in the field decreases significantly, and results in harsh comments like these. As a teacher of the future, who is aware of such statistics and circumstances, I believe I can take on a more engaging role with technology in the classroom to generate greater knowledge. These statements made me consider how women are underrepresented and shown to be inferior with technology usage. This is definitely something that can be changed starting at the school level. In having and encouraging more female students to actively participate in technology focused courses; the future can be changed to involve more female leads and female perspectives. As well, in a class, teachers can actively use technology to better familiarize all students, and especially females, to give them an introduction to the world of technology available. 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) Jenson and De Castell’s article on Gamergate and how it inspired the feminist project of Feminists in Games is a rejuvenating one. The article describes how makers, players and researchers were able to attack the “gender troubles of digital games industry and culture” (187). Some examples of criticism mentioned in the article include how “over the past 30 years, the technology industry has been notoriously unsuccessful at attracting and sustaining female employees…women remain significantly under-represented in the design and development of mainstream games, [and] it is an actively hostile and misogynistic space for female game designers and programmers” (187/188). Gamergate opposes what they view as the increasing influence of feminism on video game culture but it is more than just feminism, it now astonishes me how the pushback against women speaking up about sexism in gaming is taken, because, despite assumptions, they do make up a large part of the gaming community. This pushback is definitely hindering the growth of the number of women in the field and possibly, female students interested in the field. These students will only become deterred from the field as they see it laced with sexism. Although, women make up half of US gamers, the gaming culture doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge them. Over the years, gender disparity within the gaming industry has grown exponentially and this has only resulted in the game developer teams being male dominated. One of the questions addressed in the article that speaks to me is “how can education provide women and girls more equal foundations and entry-points to participate in game-focused production, whether as players, scholars or as developers” (189/190). This is something I began to tackle in the previous question, but something I think is a very key component of changing the current dynamic. I think education can provide women more equal foundations as it will allow them the same opportunities to explore technology. As a teacher, this can be done very early, and in introducing and working with the technology as a class; both boys and girls attain the same exposure. Another way in which education can help create entry-points to participate in game-focused production is to actively engage and encourage female students to follow pursuit in these courses at higher levels. In attaining female students, they will become more engaged aware of the materials. I think that this course acts as an exemplar of some kind. As a teaching course, many of the students are females and chose to take a course focused on technology. I can say that many of us have never explored with technology in the way that we have during the course. I have even tried coding games, although very basic, this is something that I would have never imagined doing, but feel an interest towards now that I have attempted and become aware and engaged with it. It has definitely pushed me past my comfort zone on multiple occasions, but it has also made me much more comfortable using and exploring these tools in a classroom setting. Week 8- Reading Reflections
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 Keller and Share’s article titled “Critical media literacy, democracy, and the reconstruction of education” focuses on the emergence of new media literacy and how much of it is still centered and growing from previous standards. One of the key arguments of the article is how “alternative media production can help engage students to challenge media texts and narratives that appear natural and transparent” (4). This is important in the classroom context as the need to understand increasingly complex texts, of all varieties, are a challenged faced by many students. Often times, the lack of this comprehension skill impose difficulty upon the student once they are in Grade 10 and facing the Literacy Test. In having alternative media production, a greater chance of student comprehension presents itself and offers way to greater success rates. Another aspect touched upon is how students believe writing and learning the tools of better writing has become obsolete; however, in the article, the argument is presented that “for instance, Internet discussion groups, chat rooms, e-mail, text-messaging, blogs, wikis, and various Internet forums require writing skills in which a new emphasis on the importance of clarity and precision is emerging” (5). This helps to assert that writing skills are useful and needed to be taught – spellcheck alone does not help to deliver accuracy of meaning and intention. An email being sent to a professor requires a degree of formality- one which certainly does not exist in text messages. In having schools teach these subtleties of writing, while welcoming the help of new media literacy tools, students become reinforced with the necessary skills for all forms of writing. Another point of interest for me in the article was the argument made on the subject of critical media literacy. “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”(16). I think that this really touches upon the belief that teachers need to teach with media and not just about it. In doing so, I think it is important to find ways of integrating media literacy into curriculum, and here I identify a possible three different ways of achieving this. It is important to exploit upon teachable moments – this means participating in students’ discussion as it usually focuses on popular media culture and their own interests such as television shows. This can be used as starter discussion points right away or for a later activity as minds on builder. As mentioned before, I think that it is not enough for students to analyze media, but rather they must create it or immerse in in to fully understand the complexity of it. While of course this is not the only way, it does help students to see how editing or storyboards play a role in the world. The third idea is that media literacy should not only be taken with a negative approach – students are plugged into the popular media culture and they enjoy it. In teaching kids the difference between critiquing and criticizing, students can address problems without foregoing their interest in it. 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) In this article, Luke et al. explore the crossover between digital, ethics, and politics. This new overlap in curriculum certainly brings forth new issues that were probably never raised in the classroom. I can confidently say that learning about how “some regimes burn[t] books …” (8) was not ever introduced in elementary or high school. As well, learning about how other political regimes “ wr[o]te, print[ed] and mandate [texts]; [while] some governments censor the internet, [or how they] all use it and monitor it” (8) are vague concepts that are quite prevalent but hardly brought to light. Students hardly have discussions on how there are “disputes over hate speech, libel and what can and cannot be said in the media-based civic sphere… [but these] are now daily news” (8). Media literacy should expand past the intentions of advertisement giants and the appropriation of advertisements, and extend into the ethicality and political nature of it. One of the other points that was touched upon is how the “Brexit referendum and the U.S. presidential election are test cases for digital citizenship and communicative ethics: with interweaving questions about what might count as truth, how to ascertain the truth, what is real and what is imagined, about control, privacy and transparency of the information archive, an archive packed with trivia, state and corporate secrets, personal actions and images, official and unofficial communications, metadata on human behaviors, wants, needs and actions, communications of all orders – and this is proliferating at a breathtaking rate, even as it is being hacked and mined” (8). This also brings into question the notion of fake news, such as those of Hillary Clinton using a body double or that Pope Francis endorsed Donald Trump. The ever growing prevalence in the media is focused on fake news and it is constantly growing and being immersed in the popular media culture through various outlets. The “fake news,” in which fiction masquerades as non-fiction, continues to grow and seemingly tries to blur lines between news and commercialized lies. This thin line between fake news and reality must be addressed in classrooms to help students identify the differences as although “the deliberate making up of news stories to fool or entertain is nothing new… the arrival of social media has meant real and fictional stories are now presented in such a similar way that it can sometimes be difficult to tell the two apart” (BBC article) http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-37846860. Week 6 - Reading Reflections
Rushkoff, D. (2012, November 13). Code Literacy: A 21st-Century Requirement. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/code-literacy-21st-century-requirement-douglas-rushkoff Rushkoff’s article, “Code Literacy: A 21st-Century Requirement”, addresses the need for code teaching in classrooms and how students will benefit in learning by doing, having an understanding of the outcome, and ultimately, benefitting from interaction. Rushkoff starts by questioning the use of Facebook to make friends, and how rather than being consumers of a product, users of social media platforms are products of it. This is certainly a developing and growing presence – as although users considered it an awe-struck tool at the beginning stages, many of those same users are questioning its (Facebook’s) validity of keeping information private and what exactly the social media giant is giving away (i.e. sensitive information). The article highlights the need to become code literate as “being familiar with how code works would help [students and all users] navigate this terrain, understand its limitations and determine whether those limits are there because the technology demands it -- or simply because some company wants it that way”. I agree with this idea, as I definitely think that in being code literate students will gain an understanding of the different software or platforms available to them and how they differ. A student will be able to create projects on a much deeper level and be able to argue the validity of different resources he or she comes across that fit into the idea of coding. Personally, I think that if I had been taught coding at some point, it would have certainly been something that I would introduce in the classroom and push for; however, my ideas of coding a very small (if at all there) and any perception of it stress and frighten me. This is a fear that Rushkoff addresses in the article, as he states how too often teachers avoid a concept when they are unfamiliar or not masters at it. As a future teacher, this is certainly an obstacle I must overcome to benefit my students. In hiding away from new topics and being afraid to explore the realm of coding, I realize I am limiting myself and my future students to an entire spectrum of technology possibilities in education. I will definitely attempt to create a Twine story as that seems like a good first start, especially with other resources and tutorials. In exploring my own deficiencies, I am preparing to better educate other students (and perhaps even other teachers at my school). Bogost,I. (2015, January 15).The Cathedral of Computation. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/the-cathedral-of-computation/384300/ Bogost’s article, “The Cathedral of Computation”, highlights the perverse nature of social media algorithms that has taken course in the past decade. This was an article that had me confused at first read and required a second overview to fully begin to comprehend what the topic matter. One statement in the article reads that stood out reads that many have a “zealous devotion towards algorithms”, suggesting a need, crave or dependence upon them. I think that this fits the current society as we are often too quick to simply Google search everything. In a world of wanting immediate gratification and answers, Google and its algorithms dominate in mastering and monitoring us. The article goes on to articulate how “like metaphors, algorithms are simplifications, or distortions. They are caricatures. They take a complex system from the world and abstract it into processes that capture some of that system’s logic and discard others. And they couple to other processes, machines, and materials that carry out the extra-computational part of their work”. This reminds me of Rushkoff’s article on coding – are algorithms simple enough to begin teaching or introducing to students? Or is it far more complicated and better left to post-secondary institutions? I think there may be a middle ground in which those who are skilled may introduce the concept to interested students and help them to see how the world of algorithms works. Of course, the role of an everyday teacher now comes into question… what will be my purpose? If I don’t know anything about algorithms, should I teach myself and then students or let professionals, who do it for a living, teach it to students? Jenson, J. & Droumeva, M. (2016). Exploring Media Literacy and Computational Thinking: A Game Maker Curriculum Study. The Electronic Journal of E-Learning. Seymour Papert’s constructionist learning model is the focus of Jenson and Droumeva’s article “Exploring Media Literacy and Computational Thinking: A Game Maker Curriculum Study”, as it explores game construction pedagogy and the need for it in classrooms. One assertion made by Jenson and Droumeva is that “one of the main motivations for bringing game design and development into the fold of STEM curriculum planning concerns the need to introduce and familiarize youth to the principles of computation, design thinking and procedural logic, from an earlier age than is currently practiced” (112). This ties in with my belief, which have only solidified with class discussion, that students must be involved in making something to fully understand all aspects of it. The concepts of computation and design are certainly foreign to me, but slowly, with the help of this course, I am beginning to better understand different programs which I can definitely work into the classroom. In game construction or construction of digital resources, there becomes a merge of understanding a concept but also becoming immersed into the content on a much deeper level. Students who explore and discover computation will certainly have an upper hand in the upcoming global knowledge economy. As Jenson and Droumeva state in quoting Livingstone “just being familiar with digital technologies and using them in one’s everyday life does not necessarily translate into skillfully using them for learning” (113). In this new contemporary digital society, there are more demands on students to become more responsive to their digital tools, and in being able to design and comprehending some of the steps taken towards computation, students are better equipped to succeed. Week 5 Reading Reflections
Thumlert, K. (2015). Affordances of Equality: Ranciere, Emerging Media and ‘The New Amateurs’. Studies in Art Education. Winter 2015. In Thumlert’s article, Affordances of Equality: Ranciere, Emerging Media, and the New Amateur, the author explores the new role of the amateur and how under production pedagogy, the role of the amateur is evolving. Thumlert argues that the ‘new amateur’ offers insight to more theory, as they are engaged in “emerging media … production literacies” (114). This new identity of the amateur rejects previous notions of being underqualified and the questionable comfort in new media, but rather adopts an innovative role where the amateur learns and creates through practice and exploration. I think this approach really works well in the classroom as students are no longer restricted from exploring new media tools. I remember when I was in high school and our classroom got a SMART board – the teacher only used it and primarily as an alternative to the projector. Thinking back, I think we, as students could have benefitted greatly had we also explored the different dimensions of the SMARTboard; but because we were perceived to be the amateur, that opportunity was lost. This reminds of the quotation in the article where Thumlert references to what Jacotot called explication. “The method of explication, by first placing the student in unequal relation to the teacher, instantiates what Rancière called an “imaginary distance” between the place of the capable (those who know) and the place of the incapable (those who do not)” (116). As Thumlert puts it, the “stultification” and the hurried nature of teachers to cover curriculum unfortunately neglects students and does not present them opportunities to explore. “The perceived incapacity of the student and the presumed knowledge or know-how of the teacher/specialist” (Thumlert, 2015, p. 116) come into conflict and place the student at the low-end. Ultimately, the goal and lesson here is that teachers need to create space for students to explore and experiment, even as amateurs; allowing them to learn for themselves. Blikstein, P. (2016). Seymour Papert Legacy: Thinking about Learning; Learning about Thinking. Seymour Papert’s ideologies are seen to connect Piaget’s developmental psychology to current education technologies. The three ‘revolutions’ in which Papert was involved includes child development, artificial intelligence and computational technologies for education. Papert states how the “three revolutions influenced by Piaget’s work on how children make sense of their world – not as “miniature adults” or empty vessels, but as active agents interacting with the world and building ever-evolving theories”. These ‘active agents’ is what production pedagogy and constructionism defines itself on. “Constructionism shares constructivism’s connotation of learning as ‘building knowledge structures’ irrespective of the circumstances of the learning” – I think that in many of the classes in which I have been, there has been very minimal knowledge structures that were built by the students for the students. The Logo program that is mentioned seems really fascinating and makes me wonder why more classes do not use this approach – is it lack of tools or teacher hesitation? I personally feel that both play a role; however, if teacher comfort is low, the amount of technology present in the class makes no difference. “Papert’s constructionism has, at its heart, a desire not to revise, but to invert the world of curriculum-driven instruction”, and I think that this reinvention is certainly a move in the right direction. Especially when students are becoming increasingly distracted from the written word in which their lessons are presented – a new method of having them involved in the creating process places new learning challenges but also develops a sense of ownership towards the content being taught and learned. Week 4 – Reading Reflections
This week’s readings focus on virtual reality worlds and their dynamic role in education. This of course, brings in more complications in teaching curriculum and the ethical limits of VR. The articles explore what VR has to offer in the world of education and how students and teachers can use them in an effective manner to constitute learning. Darvasi, P. Mindshift (2016) VR and 5 Ethical Considerations In this article, Darvasi suggest how “VR may have unprecedented value to education, but that very same power must be managed responsibly.” This highlights how entering VR is often unchartered territory, and teachers must be mindful of the content and activity they are going to emerge their students in. The scope of VR is becoming quite extensive, thus, making the need to be prudent that much more necessary. As well, Darvasi writes, “technology is advancing faster than legal systems and legislation can keep up, and pervasive VR use will only widen the gap” – so how might that change laws in education? How will the diversity of students and families impact the role of VR and the simulations it has to offer? I think that as Darvasi examples the various forms, a sense of awe and exciting arises, but is paralleled with a notion of concern. The world of virtual reality is definitely innovative and immersive classroom practice, but a teacher now takes a new role – one that is constantly being redefined and calls into question the teacher’s own understanding of VR. Personally, I think the VR in the classroom is an incredible tool to have, allowing students and teachers, as co-learners to explore and examine curriculum from a completely new and intimate perspective. Dede, C. (2014). The Role of Digital Technologies in Deeper Learning. Harvard Education: White Paper. Dede’s work focuses on how deeper learning is attainable by means of digital teaching platforms (DTP). These platforms enable multiple discourses on classroom learning and can be imbedded into curriculum in a much more innovative manner. As Dede asserts, this is essential to achieve deeper learning such as “case-based instruction, the use of multiple representations, collaborative learning, and the use of diagnostic assessments” (p. 13). These are currently applicable in a classroom, but with DTP they become much more multi-dimensional and offer students new methods of learning and expressing understanding. In addition, Dede (2014) states that “applying academic insights to the real world—and translating real-world experience into academic insights—is an essential feature of deeper learning” (p. 16). This is an aim for all teachers, finding ways to connect curriculum to real life applications and helping students to see the true practicality of their learning. With MUVES, this becomes a greater possibility and allows students to experience ‘first hand’ what their learning will lead to. Dede reveals how “MUVEs and AR also can provide rich interdisciplinary and experiential types of learning, which are unusual in traditional education”. Dede has a quotation that states how technology “empowers teachers to make better use of [deep learning] instructional strategies such as: case-based learning, collaborative learning, self-directed learning, the use of multiple representations and the use of diagnostic assessments” (p. 2). A question that arises for me is how the real-world experiences will be monitored. Will students be given access to all VR modes or will they have constraint based on age and understanding – decided by the teacher? Does a teacher have the liberty to involve students in higher level simulation modes if he or she feels the class is ready or will this be something regulated under education laws? 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. Bailenson’s article delves in to the use and capabilities of virtual reality environments. The transformative practices that are the outcome of VR worlds can be seen and described to “improve learning” (103). In transforming learning and communicating the understanding of concepts, teacher and students enter a new dimension of learning through experiential forms. Of course, it is important to notice and remember that this advanced form of technology is not readily available to all, making it a luxury in some cases and ultimately, disadvantages other students’ learning due to absence of VR. The article explains how when students are in a “one-on-one tutorial” context (p. 128), they have much more opportunities to learn and critically think about their curriculum. This raises the question of peer feedback for me. How does less interaction in group and pair settings impact student learning in VR context? The one-on-one learning may offer more time for reflection on learning, but reduces social skill and learning skills development (etc. collaboration). The overarching benefits of it are incredible, but I believe that the individualist aspect of VR in this article is something to be remodeled.
Week 3 Reading Reflections
https://www.ludicmedia.ca/mediawiki/index.php?title=Sharmishtha%27s_Reflection
Week 2 – Reading Reflections
de Castell, S. & Jenson, J. (2006). Paying Attention to Attention: New Economies for Learning. Educational Theory, 54, 381-97. This was a very interesting read as it really touched on the multiple conventions that technology has offered and changed. I found particularly fascinating the bit about multitasking, as I often pride myself on the ability to do so. The culture of information excess and time scarcity that plagues the lives of today, especially those of young children, has definitely led to a need to multitask in order to achieve all possible. This of course, becomes manageable and achievable with the use of technology in its entire medium. The article mentions how young people and students “have developed information management capabilities that often amaze incredulous parents and teachers” (de Castell & Jenson 388). The ability to do homework while watching a show, listening to music, and using other social media platforms is something that is only being done by the children and students of today – ultimately, displaying their ability to be “highly efficient and effective deployments of partial, subsidiary, and intermittent attention strategies” (de Castell & Jenson 388). The students who deploy the tactic of multitasking learn quickly how to maneuver in a world of many cues. The ability and forte of multitasking is one that increases as a result of technology but also one that enables the full strength of technology to be modelled. In accessing many different platforms at the same time, new apps and websites are designed to better manage and thus, the use of technology and digital applications increases. Gee, J.P. (2007). Are Video Games Good for Learning? In Worlds in Play: International Perspectives on Digital Game Research. New York (Short) The impact, both positive and negative of video games has long been a debated one; and now in the realm of education and learning, its value is contested further. Between problem games and world games the motivation and the open-endedness of these platforms allows for a lot of learning taking place. The features of high learning potential games mentioned in the article certainly highlight the different dimensions and express the positive aspects of incorporating these into a curriculum. Some of the benefits include distributed intelligence via the creation of smart tools, the melding the personal and the social, collaboration and competition, and overall design. Video games are essentially left pertinent to learning based on the focus it offers and the topic it covers. Teachers can always find an adaptable ways to incorporate a videogame into any curriculum. Darvasi, P. (2014). Mindshift How to Transform The Odyssey into an Epic Game in Alternate Reality (Short) John Fallon's game based learning to the Odyssey was an interesting piece to read. It truly captured the extensiveness and creativeness a teacher can accomplish with the use of technology and digital applications. Starting with a fake BBC article, Fallon was able to develop a multidisciplinary game that effectively engaged students on multiple levels. The game not only helped them to better understand the epic of Odyssey, but also become immersed in it. The alternate reality game certainly has huge potential to simulate invigorating learning environments and ultimately, becomes a new platform for learning – outside the classroom and online world. As mentioned in the writing, “three ingredients whose benefits are supported by a growing body of research: game-based learning, embodied learning and the use of transmedia in education” (Darvasi) are all valued components of 21st century learning. The ARG not only helps to develop critical thinking skills, but also promotes self-sustaining thinking to students as evident in the cross-curriculum approach with the History teacher and the freemason lapel. Being an English Major, and someday an English teacher, I think this approach is amazing! It really does take away from the dullness that comes with a long epic full of detailed descriptions and places students right in the middle of the plot. In a time where students’ attention span towards reading text only material is slowly diminishing, ARG acts as a catalyst towards greater epic reading and awareness, especially in classical literature. |