Mitch, Wow I can't believe how much you wrote. But I am glad we had today's class before I responded. The issue of whether information is good or not is an interesting one. The truth is that we are often fed information that is inaccurate or outright false by sources we are supposed to trust. Here is a link to an article on a raid in Afghanistan and the way in which it was covered by the American media.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/05/afghanistan/index.html
One of the things to notice is that the information was reported by gatekeepers who were supposed to offer good information like CNN and the NYTimes so we automatically believed them. If it had not been for the internet and the ability to communicate and transfer information quickly there would be no way to know what really went on or have a good idea of what is going on in Afghanistan. This level of information and transparency offers us an enormous amount of freedom in our decision making process. Without the internet Glenn Greenwald who wrote the article would have been at a tremendous disadvantage. He was able to go beyond the information offered by gatekeepers and this is critical. I am not sure how well gatekeepers are reacting to this, suggesting that this is somehow dangerous - but the question we need to ask is freedom dangerous? Freedom is certainly something we fear. I think it is possible to put this in the context of Foucault.
A second source mentioned in this article is Wikileaks which is a site where peope can send primary information and when it is verified it is released to through this site to the public. Wikileaks always demands primary sources. What is interesting about Wikileaks is that nobody really knows where they are of who they are, with the belief that it would be too dangerous for people running the site if people did know. And this is an issue that I don't think Sen touches on very much but which is quite important which is that because the internet makes information so fluid it enables individuals to post and access information without social blowback. Now many people say there is a down side to this because it allows for instance minors to access information that perhaps parents don't won't available to them. Will the internet eventually change the meaning of parenting.
Let's return to the project Maggies was discussing today. Why do we think that hitting links will increase comprehension and reading abilities. It is not actually the hitting of links that causes this but something else. Is it the ability of individuals to have some level of control over their own lives in a way that education usually doesn't afford. Is it because the reason or rationale behind their journey is transparent? Is it because learning happens better in the context of personal freedom? Is this why for instance people learn better in an upper middle class environment than in a poverty environment?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While I cannot speak to an experience of increased reading abilities as a result of this blog and 'hitting links' I can say that as I read this post last night I clicked on the article about Afghanistan, and then I googled the Wikileaks website. I watched a good deal of the video of US troops attacking civilians before I simply needed to stop. Later last night I brought it up with some buddies as we briefly talked about world events and I was able to gain insight from a buddy who has spent time overseas as a member of the US army. (content irrelevant, remember the process)
ReplyDeleteI think that Maggie's study, providing it is not simply reduced to a quantitative measurement of how many clicks there are (and even if it does get reduced to that), could provide evidence that children respond to the provision of possible knowledge which will increase reading comp and ability. Though not exactly the same process, last night I read, clicked (which I didn’t have to do), considered (new data which I would not have access to if the link and ability to google didn’t exist), and then, and I think this is crucial, I dialogued with others, thereby creating an environ where I could connect my understanding/experience to what data I was taking in.
I suppose where I am taking this in a disorganized manner is this: When I returned home last night I started reading Pedagogy of the Oppressed. I was not surprised to see the influence of Dewey in his writing (what with Michael having cited the book in a lecture)... Freire says that "if students are not able to transform their lived experiences into knowledge and to use the already acquired knowledge as a process to unveil new knowledge, they will never be able to participate rigorously in a dialogue as a process of learning and knowing."
Freire also states that "dialogue characterizes an epistemological relationship. Thus, in this sense, dialogue is a way of knowing and should never be viewed as a mere tactic to involve students in a particular task."
… So I suppose that I am saying I would expect children to increase their reading comprehension and ability when provided with access (no gatekeeper) to data that will enrich their reading experience. I think the study could be furthered in tackling an issue Freire brings up: connecting that new knowledge with experience through the act of dialogue. Perhaps a blog could be set up which allows each of the children (not sure how old?) to type up a few sentences about what they learned from the texts. This would provide an experience where they are exposed to the ideas of others and possibly in the ‘teacher-led environ’ these posts could be used to create dialogue about understanding the texts being read? Did any of that make sense? Does it matter at all to connect the child's reading to dialogue with others? I think that this act of dialogue has furthered my own understanding of what I read and experienced yesterday...
Travis, what really comes through in your comment is what drives us and motivates us is interest and the search for new information. We have a model in this country where we believe that we should teach skills so individuals will be able to go out and access new information and new experiences. I don't think anything is more like that than the teaching of mathematics, where we say we are teaching you this now because we want you to be able to use it later. But when I do this not only am I assuming that you will be able to engage in activities without immediate positive reinforcement, but that the skills I am teaching you - and important, that you incorporate into your thinking schemes - are the same ones that are going to be valuable to you in accessing the information you want. This educational model has had very little success, nd the fact that we are now teaching reading this way scares me a little bit I think.
ReplyDeleteFriere is talking about adult literacy but he is offering a very different model (and yes based on Dewey). Friere is saying that individuals best develop skills that they need through their interest, through their experiences. That is you are interested in something and you start to develop the skills that you need to master it. Not only does the learning of these skills come much easier because there is an intrinsic motivation and they are tied to the everyday experience of the learner, but this "freedom of search" I guess I would call it, combining Google and Sen, allows the learner to begin making connections neither the learner or the teacher even thought of. Travis clicked through on hyperlinks to the Wikileaks site - okay we might have considered this a possibility. But then he took that information and used it to make a connection to a buddy with an information source he wouldn't have even thought about before. What this type of learning does is it incorporates the whole idea of imagination and discovery into learning.