I was thinking about the hygiene video we watched part-of: Shy Guy. (Any relationship with the Nintendo character?). While we were watching that, I found myself thinking about Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer, the old Rankin and Bass Classic. Remember how Rudolph sang, "Why am I such a mis-fit, I am not just a nit wit," etc.? I was wondering during class, and thought I would explore a bit now, whether that whole film was kind of a stop-motion, Christmas, hygiene film. If I do this right, below is a clip in which Rudolph and Herbie (the misfit elf who doesn't like to make toys) team up together and set off on a dangerous journey. (Please watch clip now.)
Did you notice the ominous portents? The log that fell in the crevasse, and the ornaments that fell off the tree and broke? Foreshadowing?
For those of you who remember this Christmas special, in it, Santa, Rudolph's coach, and Rudolph's best friend Fireball, are all kind of jerks. Each of them, in their own way, make it clear that reindeer who are different should be outcasts.
In the end, even though, by their absence, the misfits put loved ones in danger, it seems to me that they wind up being the heroes of the film, and it's not by emulating the popular (Fireball) and powerful (Santa and coach). In fact, I think that the popular and powerful are transformed by the misfits. Santa comes to see that Rudolph's nose is his savior in getting through the fog, and it is Rudolph, not Rudolph's Dad (who was ashamed of him), who helps save his mother and girlfriend. Plus, Yukon Cornelius (the ultimate loner) and Herbie end up humbling the Abominable (a.k.a. the Humble Bumble), taming him, and he is the one who puts the star on the top of the North Pole Christmas tree!
I think maybe the developers of children's programming during the late 60's and early 70's were rethinking the hygiene message of "fitting in." Maybe being "in-de-PEN-dent" wasn't so horrible after all...
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
My Reaction to Readings for July 9
Regarding “Dewey: Significant Contributor to the Field of Educational Technology”
I’m not sure that the piece really puts it all together. Dewey died well before the personal technology explosion (Pong, IBM PC, Mac, right on up to the Internet, Kindle, IPods, etc.). Yes, he promoted a “linking science,” but is this what he would have imagined? It could be, I suppose, but I’m not sure how well the article makes the case. One thing is for sure, however, and that is that Dewey would have taken great exception to what has happened in some classrooms in the last couple of decades, where the computers got plopped down in front of the kids and they were told “okay, now use ‘em.” I’m sure that is somewhat of an exaggeration, but in some instances, it probably is not to far off. Rightly, Dewey required the presence and well-timed instruction of the teacher. I agree with him that there is a balance to be struck between the freedom of the student to explore and the guidance of the instructor. All in all, I am not sure I am totally comfortable with the degree to which this piece reveres the man. I think I need more information about him, especially regarding the Humanist Manifesto.
Regarding Dewey’s Pedagogic Creed
There is enough here for one to write several books to cover it all. In sum, I find Dewey somewhat inscrutable. I agree with him strongly, at times, such as when he speaks of interest being an indicator of growing power within the student, and that the instructor must watch that interest in an ongoing way in order to understand the student’s capacities. I know exactly what he means. My overarching feelings with regard to him, however, are an unease with the degree to which he deemphasizes the individual and promotes the social, going as far as saying that any attempt at education away from the social sphere is pretty much useless. I wonder what he made of Isaac Newton, who, as I understand it, basically devised Newtonian calculus on his own and kept it secret for years. How did he learn it in the first place, if all real learning is social?
I think I am most uncomfortable when he indicates that the schools are our only hope for real social reform and reorganization: "I believe it is the business of every one interested in education to insist upon the school as the primary and most effective instrument of social progress and reform in order that society may be awakened to realize what the school stands for, and aroused to the necessity of endowing the educator with sufficient equipment properly to perform his task” (Article Five).
Our schools are now controlled largely by government, and increasingly by the Federal government (NCLB, Race to the Top). Most teachers are government employees. Do we want government being the instrument of change that reforms itself, and worse yet, the people, or do we want the people to reform the government, meaning both school and traditional forms of government?
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America" (Preamble, U.S. Constitution).
It looks to me like “We the People” are supposed to be in the driver’s seat. How do we do all of the things the preamble says we do? We elect legislators to pass law. What does Dewey think about law?
"I believe that all reforms which rest simply upon the enactment of law, or the
threatening of certain penalties, or upon changes in mechanical or outward
arrangements, are transitory and futile" (Article Five).
"I believe that the community's duty to education is, therefore, its paramount
moral duty. By law and punishment, by social agitation and discussion, society
can regulate and form itself in a more or less haphazard and chance way. But
through education society can formulate its own purposes, can organize its own
means and resources, and thus shape itself with definiteness and economy in the
direction in which it wishes to move" (Article Five).
I think I will stick with the Constitution here, and, well, pretty much everywhere else, too.
Regarding “Google and Wikipedia: Friends or Foes”
Great chapter of Teaching Generation M. I thought it was particularly interesting that Gen M, because of its socially networked learning style, is naturally drawn to Google and Wikipedia (see pages 171-2), which they can easily access and share with their social networks. Talk about social learning! I guess Dewey would have to embrace this, eh?
Bottom line: as article points out on page 173, “…Google and Wikipedia are not going away anytime soon…” I have long felt that we must “place them in the proper context”, as the article argues in the next section. The cautions and recommendations at the end sort well with my thinking. We cannot demonize these resources; there is too much of use in them. We must acknowledge them, but with reservation.
I’m not sure that the piece really puts it all together. Dewey died well before the personal technology explosion (Pong, IBM PC, Mac, right on up to the Internet, Kindle, IPods, etc.). Yes, he promoted a “linking science,” but is this what he would have imagined? It could be, I suppose, but I’m not sure how well the article makes the case. One thing is for sure, however, and that is that Dewey would have taken great exception to what has happened in some classrooms in the last couple of decades, where the computers got plopped down in front of the kids and they were told “okay, now use ‘em.” I’m sure that is somewhat of an exaggeration, but in some instances, it probably is not to far off. Rightly, Dewey required the presence and well-timed instruction of the teacher. I agree with him that there is a balance to be struck between the freedom of the student to explore and the guidance of the instructor. All in all, I am not sure I am totally comfortable with the degree to which this piece reveres the man. I think I need more information about him, especially regarding the Humanist Manifesto.
Regarding Dewey’s Pedagogic Creed
There is enough here for one to write several books to cover it all. In sum, I find Dewey somewhat inscrutable. I agree with him strongly, at times, such as when he speaks of interest being an indicator of growing power within the student, and that the instructor must watch that interest in an ongoing way in order to understand the student’s capacities. I know exactly what he means. My overarching feelings with regard to him, however, are an unease with the degree to which he deemphasizes the individual and promotes the social, going as far as saying that any attempt at education away from the social sphere is pretty much useless. I wonder what he made of Isaac Newton, who, as I understand it, basically devised Newtonian calculus on his own and kept it secret for years. How did he learn it in the first place, if all real learning is social?
I think I am most uncomfortable when he indicates that the schools are our only hope for real social reform and reorganization: "I believe it is the business of every one interested in education to insist upon the school as the primary and most effective instrument of social progress and reform in order that society may be awakened to realize what the school stands for, and aroused to the necessity of endowing the educator with sufficient equipment properly to perform his task” (Article Five).
Our schools are now controlled largely by government, and increasingly by the Federal government (NCLB, Race to the Top). Most teachers are government employees. Do we want government being the instrument of change that reforms itself, and worse yet, the people, or do we want the people to reform the government, meaning both school and traditional forms of government?
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America" (Preamble, U.S. Constitution).
It looks to me like “We the People” are supposed to be in the driver’s seat. How do we do all of the things the preamble says we do? We elect legislators to pass law. What does Dewey think about law?
"I believe that all reforms which rest simply upon the enactment of law, or the
threatening of certain penalties, or upon changes in mechanical or outward
arrangements, are transitory and futile" (Article Five).
"I believe that the community's duty to education is, therefore, its paramount
moral duty. By law and punishment, by social agitation and discussion, society
can regulate and form itself in a more or less haphazard and chance way. But
through education society can formulate its own purposes, can organize its own
means and resources, and thus shape itself with definiteness and economy in the
direction in which it wishes to move" (Article Five).
I think I will stick with the Constitution here, and, well, pretty much everywhere else, too.
Regarding “Google and Wikipedia: Friends or Foes”
Great chapter of Teaching Generation M. I thought it was particularly interesting that Gen M, because of its socially networked learning style, is naturally drawn to Google and Wikipedia (see pages 171-2), which they can easily access and share with their social networks. Talk about social learning! I guess Dewey would have to embrace this, eh?
Bottom line: as article points out on page 173, “…Google and Wikipedia are not going away anytime soon…” I have long felt that we must “place them in the proper context”, as the article argues in the next section. The cautions and recommendations at the end sort well with my thinking. We cannot demonize these resources; there is too much of use in them. We must acknowledge them, but with reservation.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
My take-away from our first class.
I have always been a ready adapter of technology for my own purposes; ever since the proliferation of personal technology (i.e. personal computers) first burst onto the scene, it has always been a pretty big factor for me. Therefore, this class holds a lot of interest. I believe that most secondary students do, or could, find technology to be similarly, if not more, useful for them. They will have to use it in their jobs, that is for sure. I am glad to see the standards that we saw today, but I think I need more time with them to warm up to them. They appear to be written in nebulous, overly complicated language, but my unfamiliarity with the terminology that permeates them is no doubt playing a role in that perception. I am also glad to see the enthusiasm of our instructors, and the attitude that I sense of their open-mindedness about how tech can be useful in teaching. I think there is no option in whether tech should be made to be useful in technology; it must be made to be useful, because very few students will not be required to make it useful in their work later. That was a complicated way of saying that we must enable them to learn via tech, because they will almost all be forced to do so later in order to make a living. I believe that it can be an engaging experience as well as a necessary one, and that is definitely something I saw stressed today, and was glad to see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)