Negroponte advocates learning by doing. We learn best by “playing with information” which is an activity that computers are uniquely suited for (199). This is a response to an older method of teaching, in which teachers impart facts to students who passively absorb them and consequently don’t know what to do with them (besides regurgitate them for tests). Often, students don’t struggle against this type of teaching. It’s the educational experience many of us grew up with. I didn’t wonder what to do with the 200 technical terms I had to memorize for that high school biology final. I knew exactly what I would do with them: I would memorize them, write them down on the answer sheet, and then forget them. In my small town, biology class was just another site where I could demonstrate my proficiency at memorization. Isn’t getting a good grade the goal of all learning anyway? That’s what I thought. Why think otherwise if you aren’t doing what you’re learning? I would have been better off in a computer class, where they could teach me how to Google what the difference between “phylum” and “genus” is.
Learning by doing (and thus learning to do) is becoming more and more crucial. As Kemp notes, our transition to the digital has caused a similar transition in our learning needs. We no longer need to focus on accumulating knowledge; we now need to learn how to “judge and use” the vast world of knowledge we have access to. If you don’t teach a kid to swim, he will drown if thrown into the deep end of the pool. If we don’t get students to become active and adept users of knowledge, they will drown in the ever-growing sea of information.
I couldn't agree more. To reflect a bit about what I've posted on my blog, sometimes I wonder that teachers' resistance to this kind of knowledge reflects their own fear of drowning. Of course, this isn't one of those things you can prove because people can either take it or leave it.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, knowledge is changing. The way we access it and the way it's developed is changing. Not changing to understand it means we won't change to offer it. If we're not offering access to knowledge, then who needs teachers?
I really enjoyed this post. I definitely agree about there needing to be a shift to showing students how to do things. You brought something up at the end of your post that I hadn't really thought about. I guess maybe I was just slow on Thursday, haha. Because there is such an overflow of knowledge, the students do need to know how to navigate it. I just worry about becoming dependent on the tools where we get the knowledge. I think I'm channeling some type of sci-fi movie here or something, lol. What would happen if the internet died? Oh, it's just too horrible to even consider. I think one way that we've responded to the technology age (as far as teaching goes) is trying to give students the knowledge on how to tell if something is scholarly or not. Meaning, we teach them the difference between a personal webpage and a site where they can get articles that have been peer-reviewed. Negroponte brings up the idea of systems that can think for you. They can get all of the articles that you want for you without you having to dig through the masses of articles. It's interesting the things that have been coded into the programs that we use. Ah, the glory of the revolution of tag words and key words. Anyways, I think what he talks about is kind of what we need to be teaching the students. Also, kids like technology. It's something that they can connect with and relate to. I got so excited with TEI coding in research methods because it was something I knew how to do.
ReplyDeleteI'm not entirely sure what I started off to talk about in this comment, but I say that technology in the classrooms is good. There does need to be more of a movement in that direction.
Learning by doing is cool. I think that computers simply extend Piaget's model of constructivism. Piaget said that students learn best by interacting with their environment, putting their ideas into action and seeing the results. Piaget's model states that playing often is learning.
ReplyDeleteComputers work with this model. Negroponte's examples fit perfectly in with the constructivist paradigm. The boy who built the Lego robot that could follow a black line started out by simply playing with Legos.
Since students are working with virtual tools, the resources are inexhaustible, which adds a new dimension to constructivism. If someone makes something that doesn't work, the materials are very forgiving and they will allow for deconstruction and do-overs. Computers are a great medium for students to interact with their environment. As things become increasingly computerized, computers are also BECOMING a student's environment. I don't think we should ignore computers in education any longer.