I don't know. Has it?
" . . . truth is something you assemble yourself on your own screen": how true it is.
I've been thinking about this question for a while now, and I still come back to my original thought: "I don't know." Is there some sort of evidence or research out there that indicates whether web-based video has changed the "learning landscape"? And frankly, I'm not sure what "learning landscape" means, and perhaps it's a bit presumptuous to think that the few of us connected to the internet are really in touch with what teaching and learning is world-wide. So I guess I'll refocus myself by thinking, "How has web-based video changed classrooms that live a world were such things can be accessed." But again, I'm left with, "I don't know." I'm sure many teachers use web-based videos extensively, but I'm not sure how that might actually change what students LEARN. Perhaps if students are given the option of creating some sort of video it will give them more choices regarding demonstrating WHAT they've learned, but I've not seen much that shows the students are actually learning at a deeper level. I keep thinking of the PowerPoint days when parents and more than a few teachers were astounded by flying graphics and dancing fonts. We're not making commercials here. It's fine if you're trying to get students to create a video that will keep the audience's attention, but quite another if you're trying to get those students to demonstrate a high level of learning, let alone the use of video somehow taking that learning to another level.
So, all of the tech tools we've been learning in class are a part of our privileged world, and teaching students to use those tools and to consume the end result is significant, but I am weary of the potential impact on what we might actually call learning. I hope somebody has the initiative to do meaningful research about learning with technology. The "if it feels good do it" doesn't cut it, in my opinion, when it comes to the teaching and learning landscape.
Some thoughts about this New York Times article by Kevin Kelly. The article is certainly impressive in scope, covering topics from the invention of the printing press to the future of Hollywood cinima all under the rubric of "becoming screen literate." A few notes and quotes of interest:
"The overthrow of the book would have happened long ago but for the great user asymmetry inherent in all media. It is easier to read a book than to write one." It never really did become clear to me what this was supposed to mean. I can't tell if Kelly is intending that the only reason everybody isn't an author is because the actual act of physically producing a book is much harder than reading one, or is he trying to get at the obvious point that is significantly missing from the entire article: constructing meaning is more difficult that physically producing a book.
Another thought-provoking passage from the article: "After all, this is how authors work. We dip into a finite set of established words, called a dictionary, and reassemble these found words into articles, novels and poems that no one has ever seen before. The joy is recombining them. Indeed it is a rare author who is forced to invent new words. Even the greatest writers do their magic primarily by rearranging formerly used, commonly shared ones. What we do now with words, we’ll soon do with images." This is certainly true to the extent that the amount of images, both still and moving, is exploding rapidly. I just can't in my mind make the connection between how words are used to convey a thought and how images are. A picture might be worth a thousand words, but are a thousand words worth a picture?
The Horizon Report: Tales of a Future Past
4 weeks ago
Can you share your thoughts on the article? Maybe your personal experience with media over time?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughtful reflection here!
ReplyDeleteA few ideas came to mind when reading your post:
Perhaps if students are given the option of creating some sort of video it will give them more choices regarding demonstrating WHAT they've learned, but I've not seen much that shows the students are actually learning at a deeper level.
Is this something we, as teachers, need to change in the construction of our assignments/assessments? Are you saying that only writing (or traditional forms of assessment) is the only way to demonstrate higher order or deeper thinking? Can it be that now that we have the shiny tools that it's up to us to use them in a way that does promote deeper learning?
From my reading of Kelly's article, I think the statement about the inherent asymmetry in all media is about the difficulty in physically producing and distributing a book. That the form of media (in this case, a book) required so many physical processes to get from the mind of the author to the hands of a global audience that only a few people are actually able to successfully go from the first step to the last.
I think his point is that now that we have both the power to produce and distribute our media without additional "interference" or economic impact (the publisher or the cost of production) it is much easier to be the producer of content to a global audience than in Gutenberg's times. Does this change the way we need to teach now that content/meaning/understanding/learning can be shared and consumed in so many new ways that are not filtered by editors or publishers?