Discussion

View Message
Chaos

By Stuart Norrington - 6 March 2008 11:16:52 AM EST

Chaos, is a fact of life. Marsh accepts that this is a part of todays students who may be referred to as the Dot Com
generation. Is this a bad thing? I think not. To enable students to think laterally can become a powerful tool if the student is
trained to filter the information he/she is reading. Wallis and Steptoe confirm this when they identify the need for students
to become savy to abstract problems, of which I conclude Chaos on the internet is but one of these issues. So how do we
sort the gems from the junk? Easy! From the beginning students need to be taught and exposed to the junk while they
learn to apply the questioning skills discussed by McKenzie. Qood questioning like reciprocal reading strategies encourages
the student to reflect and search for supporting facts before accepting at face value what is being thrown at them. Secondly
students need to be taught how to recognise gems on the web.

Stuart

Reply

Re:Chaos

By Valentina wondracz - 6 March 2008 07:12:59 PM EST

Like a computer game the internet takes on the role as player 2 and challenges us player 1 every time we click on connect.
students as a player are challenged to look for information amoungst the chaos of the internet and make a decision as to
what is or isnt considered a gem. However despite the constant challenge faced as player 1 students will always return over
and over again and well why not? March is right why would students go stright to the 'dated textbooks', ' filtered
encyclopediaa' and ' middle - of - the - road magazines' when they have the internet so easily accesible at just the click of
the mouse.This is why studnets are referred to a the 'dot com generation'.
I agree with you stuart with good training from teachers and the ability to filter through the junk the students will indeed
find gems. It is this training by the traditional teacher that will aid students and it is the endless options for information
which will help to persuade the teachers to encourage use of the internet as a learning resource. Besdies Prenksy's title
'Engage Me or Enrage Me' is so true. Even through out his article he tries to explain and even convince us that the use of
this resource - the internet is needed to keep the kids engaged and wanting to learn so why not use it to the advantage of
the traditional teacher and challenge the students. Get them to sort through the opinions and facts and find the gems
themselves while learning at the same time.Give the students the opportunity to acquire this suble intelligence of sorting
through the chaos.

Reply

Re:Chaos

By Stuart Norrington - 8 March 2008 06:59:47 PM EST

Hi Valentina,

I waited for the others to post their thoughts but alas after two days of silence I have decided that its up to us to carry the
flag.

Although I agree with Prensky in principal I do have some reservations. Knowledge is a fluid source that changes direction
as quickly as conceptual ideas change. Should we accept this as I think we should we should recognize that the internet in
Prensky's article is nothing more than the latest change in direction. If we use the analogy of a river then we can see that
there are many changes and tributaries of knowledge. Should students go with the current flow then they miss out of the
infinite other possibilities of acquiring knowledge. Thus based on this I reject the notion that computer technology is the
only way to engage students. Those students who believe so and I believe many do are victims rather than conquerer of
the new technologies. How then do we strike a balance to this apparent discord? For me it all lies in the focus of rich open
self guided activities that rely on many different sources (remember Gardeners theory of multiple intelligences)that provide
learning opportunities rich in diversity using multiple technologies skills and formats. Perhaps I am being a little one sided.
Perhaps Presnsky is only referring to traditional forms of knowledge transfer that became outdated many years ago (we
hope) but I believe this form of communication still has a place (confirming your thoughts) as does direct instruction if it is
focused in an appropriate way. That is linked to other learning styles, rather than the dominant form. Thus I agree with
your thoughts that traditional teachers can use this new information highway. However to clarify that the chaos and junk
are nothing more than a new direction for information transfer, that must be mastered by teacher and student alike before
it becomes the gem it proposes / promises to be!
Stuart

Reply

Re:Chaos

By Valentina wondracz - 11 March 2008 10:38:08 AM EST

i agree, agree and agree that knowledge is a fluid resource, that the internet is the new direction and it is not the only way
to engage students. i however believe that in a classroom situation that the engaging of the students is up to th teacher. i
think that Prensky is offering his view and opinion on the effects of this new direction - the internet. It is so easy for
students especially of such a young age to be consumed by what new and whats in. i therefore now refer to McKenzie's
article in that yes schools are wasting their money on these electronic resources that arent able to be used at their full
capability. By this i mean as i mentioned in my earlier post that it is up to the teacher to teach these skills. Teacher would
of course be required but time and money spent on doing so would ne be a waste as they will learn to guide the students
through the junk and chaos of the internet. i also agree with McKenzie that the questions asked by teachers need to
become questions that allow the students to think for themselves. No more spoon feeding like we had. the ability of a
student to think for themsleves is of great value and thus would be a great accomplishment if viewed through the eyes of
traditional education. independant thinking equals the ability to sort the gems from the junk and use resources other then
the internet and therefore hope that in a classroom students will not be so consumed by the internet as a resource.

Reply

Re:Chaos

By Valentina wondracz - 11 March 2008 10:40:20 AM EST

sorry in the 11th line i meant to write teacher training would be required.....

Reply

Re:Chaos

By Stuart Norrington - 11 March 2008 10:15:32 PM EST

Hi,

I like your comments however as stated Prensky's idea is not as valid as it first seems. We have discussed already some of
the reasons but I now want to draw your thoughts to the implication of what will happen if students are allowed to be
engages in the way Prensky has suggested. The result as I think you would agree would be a disaster. These students
would be forever locked within the construct of the digital world unable to willingly participate in the real world preferring as
Buckingham and Scanlon (ch9 Cyberlines 2.0 Languages and Culture of the Internet) prefer to call 'edu-tainment' where
they search for cyber gems (see the game Croc , (crystals))rather than a literacy that benefits their physical existence.
Perhaps I am again too critical and just attempting to force a point but in support of this I refer again to that gem
Cyberlines 2 Todd. Negotiating the web: critical literacies and learning. Ch5. Here we see the classic example of reality
where students accessing the internet are clearly not the bastions of computer 'IT' they claim to be. Alas her we see the
reality of self empowerment crashing to the ground as they are exposed as followers of trivia and amusement. So back to
Prensky, whom I have a rather distaste for at least in this article. So where to from here. I like your comments on McKenzie
they are in accord to my comments above. However I feel we need to look a little deeper to see the strength behind Mc
Kenzie's article. Here is the gem for ALL to see. Not only he suggesting training for ALL but the engagement of rich
questions with high order thinking that will above all else provide us with the scaffold to reach and grasp the Gems of the
net

Reply

Re:Chaos

By Valentina wondracz - 12 March 2008 03:26:09 PM EST

ok so when u say 'locked' in the digital world and refer to the ongoing use of electronic programs opposed to the physical
activity of literacy then yes i do agree with you however i stillmaintain that prensky's idea of engagement is important. i
only mean to engage the students and not to lock them into thinking that the internet or any other electronic programs
filled with chaos should be used abouve journals, encyclopedias etc. as this may be i do not want to hold the child back
saying that no internet is to be used at all.
i can understad the distaste you may have in Prnsky's article and yes i do agree to a certain point with you. in fact i also
definatley agree with you on McKenzie's article. McKenzies higway of questioning reasoning anf learning is a great tool for
students. it also helps to support a comment in the Wallis and Steptoe article. the communication, teamwork, cultural and
people skills that an individual should posses in life will be aided my McKenzies highway as i believe it allows for greater
learning and understanding inside and outside the classroom. i believe that the continual world of chaos we are often faced
with is not the only way but can be a very useful tool for education in many ways. again the findings of Willis and Steptoe
from one of their research questions taken on a school say that the number one thing for learning would be technology. we
cannot avoid chande but instead students and teachers together can accept, adapt and use it to their advantage. i
therefores till argue that intraditional education thisa world of chaos and junk should be used.

Reply

Re:Chaos

By Stuart Norrington - 12 March 2008 10:00:26 PM EST

Hi Valentina,

Thanks for the reply. I think we are of like minds in many ways. Although I tend to argue a counter point from time to time
just to provoke. I do agree whole heartedly that we must close the digital divide so that all can engage in the new
technology being afforded to us. The reality is that like many I see wonderful opportunities for using technology so that the
students can find and effectively assimilate their value into their own construct. Such opportunities like these we are
currently being exposed to in our tutorials with Pam are good examples, there are of course many others. I accept that we
are stuck with the junk and realise it it is part of the new learning environment inside and outside the class. To be able to
filter this effectively as we have both discussed is and will remain the main focus of instructing children to use the web
effectively, purposely and literally. This will unfortunately be my last posting as I am swamped to the gallows with my
lessons plans at school. I will have a look on Sunday just to see if there are any replies from you or the others. See you on
Monday

Stuart

Reply

Re:Chaos

By mordechai tenenboim - 13 March 2008 08:01:06 AM EST

Hi all.
Sorry for the late reply, but I have been having lots of problems logging into LAMS. I only just sorted it out, so my replies
might be a bit late.

I agree with what Stuart and Valentina said about filtering the gems from the junk. However, students also need to be
taught how to identify trust-worthy and reliable information on those websites. A lot of students would trust the majority of
information from websites such as Wikipedia. (I was the same, until I found out, that almost anyone can add, edit or
publish new items on the site, without it having to be verified.) Therefore, you can mislead a whole lot of unsuspecting
people.
One of the ways out of this problem, would be to teach them about website evaluation. One example is the site from Kathy
Schrock.

You both mentioned that the teachers should be the ones to train the students in sorting the gems from the junk. However,
with today's generation, teachers are finding it hard to keep up with the level of technology that their students are at. So
there would also need to be training for the teachers as well. Possibly some sort of teacher's in-service, which would allow
the government to train teachers with all the new technology etc.

Prensky has a valid point in the beginning about the "engage me or enrage me" type students. I have dealt with students
like that. They were a younger age, so they were distracted by little things, such as a new watch that plays games.
However, soon enough, these students will be distracted by the newer technology.

Sometimes it is hard to engage students in a class without using technology. But they also have to learn how to use books
for research etc. So we need to make it interesting and attractive to them.
Maybe with a little preparation, a teacher can design a lesson, that would have one group of children sifting through the
world wide web of information on a particular topic, while another group uses textbooks for the same topic. Then see who
can find the more accurate information and which is quicker. (Sorting through the internet junk takes a long time).
Motty

Reply

Re:Chaos

By mordechai tenenboim - 13 March 2008 08:33:45 AM EST

I actually like Prenksy's article and agree with the majority of it. However, there is a solution out there. We just need to find
it. We should create something that both engages the students as well as teaching them. There's no point in them playing a
game that doesn't teach anything. Maybe the educational games can be a reward for those children that do the work the
"old fashioned way". Maybe that's one way of motivating them?

Stuart, I agree with what you said, that it seems like Prensky is focused mainly on the computer technology side of things.
But maybe he is just trying to prove a point with this one example. I am sure there are other ways to engage students.
Like you said with your analogy of the river. There are plenty of things that they might miss out on, if they were to take
that one direct path.

What about things like e-books? They are basically books that have become electronic. (Similar to the articles and journals
we can find online in our university's library). These are also ways of engaging students. They might think they are using
the internet for research, however, if you show them where to search, e.g. Macquarie’s online library, then they will just be
using the "outdated" texts, which have been published online. They see themselves using technology for their research, and
the teacher can later on explain what an e-book, e-journal etc. is, and tell them that there are other ways of doing research
besides for just the internet.

Valentina, it is easy to say "no more spoon feeding", however, if the students aren't shown how to decipher information or
how to filter it, then we would have all sorts of extra information that we never wanted in the first place. How often did you
look up something in a book and find out something totally irrelevant to the actual item you were researching?
With the internet, you can put tags on websites, that will make them come up in search engines when that tag word is
typed. For example, if you typed "mail" into a search engine, you could come up with "Australia post", "email", "mail
ordering" etc. Or if I had my own private blog and had the word "mail" as a tag, then that would also come up in the
search.

The internet isn't the solution. It is more of a help. It is more like scaffolding. The information is the primary thing, while
the internet, which is just a tool, is the secondary thing.

Students have to be taught, that the internet is NOT the solution to all their problems. However, by using the internet as
scaffolding, those children that have trouble doing research, can possibly improve their work. But is shouldn't be the main
focus of their research.
Just a quick quote from the article scaffolding for success:
"the student may use these sites as a starting point, extending further out into Cyberspace in search of something unusual.
The scaffolding serves as an introduction, not as a corral."
That is what should be taught to the students. The internet is okay to use, but it should not be their only source of
information.

Reply

Re:Chaos

By deeni kay - 14 March 2008 12:25:29 AM EST

The process of honing the ‘subtle intelligence to sort the gems from the junk’ is a skill students will use their entire lives. As
you mentioned Valentina, Stuart and Motty teachers should be encouraging students to critically analyse texts, and even
providing many other offline opportunities to make decisions and form opinions regarding the sources they interact with.
Yet the difference between teaching this skill through the internet rather than a text book is that students feel more
compelled to be interested in this device they use at home in their leisure time. As Prensky states, many a contemporary
student’s attitude is “Engage or Enrage Me!” suggesting that they are expecting the teachers (like the interactive
video/cyber games) to spark their interest, keep up to date with what is relevant and generally give them a good time. As
Motty suggested substituting a text book (a learning device the student associates with boredom and obligatory work
because they would never interact with one in their leisure time) with the internet (which is associated with challenging
activities, independent learning and fun), the teacher is bringing the students’ expertise and leisure into the classroom-
they might not necessarily think they are doing ‘work’.
In fact this notion spans right across all KLAs (as suggested in TEP290). The idea is to have students engaged in fun
activities that encourage practise of certain skills. If a student is participating in reading an e-book, exploring a web-quest
or completing a LAMS sequence they are constantly coming into contact with valuable technology, information acquiring
and critically evaluating skills, while having fun! Two birds with one stone!! I do agree however, that what we are talking
about is not the magical ‘solution’- just put them on and watch them fly. Like any other learning resource, I believe it is the
quality of the teacher’s questions and assessment of the situation that will determine how successful utilising the internet
is. It is just another means to an educationally gratifying end.

Edit Reply

Re:Chaos

By deeni kay - 14 March 2008 12:26:55 AM EST

This point has been ‘touched’ on, however I don’t think it has yet been ‘nailed’. (Bad joke I know, but I smiled thinking it
up!) The crux of March’s comment, as I have taken it, is that the internet’s prime downfall is that it is as clear as mud when
‘viewed through the eyes of traditional education’. When any education system starts believing that ANY learning resource
in its pure form (text books, worksheets, primary sources etc.) is transparent, then I believe there is a big problem.

All learning resources are ‘chaos’ until a teacher gives some purpose to them. A child could be faced with what traditional
education could see as a well-sourced and well edited text book and still have great difficulty attempting to gain any useful
information from it. As suggested by McKenzie, it is really the “Art of Questioning” that makes all the difference. To
elaborate, the world is embedded with ‘opinions’ rather than facts (not to mention that the ‘fact’ of today is the out-dated
‘opinion’ of tomorrow). This attitude should really be our approach to all learning resources. Once such a mind set is
established, we can then focus on what really must be taught: critical evaluation of ALL material. This ‘subtle intelligence’
aka higher order thinking should be encouraged where ever possible. Not only does the notoriously untrustworthy internet
present the perfect opportunity to use these skills, but the teacher can model how a student should be reading any source
(scaffolding as Mckenzie puts it). It was suggested earlier that time and money could be potentially wasted in endeavouring
to show teachers how to deconstruct websites and databases, but I believe this is something they should already be doing
regardless of the text type! It is necessary to question the legitimacy, bias and relevance of any given text. I believe it
foolish to think that the internet is the only learning resource that is full of ‘junk’.

Edit Reply

Re:Chaos

By deeni kay - 14 March 2008 12:27:27 AM EST

There were also some comments regarding the potential for students to become ‘locked in’ by the internet if it was relied
on to any great extent. Prensky, I think, tends to go out of his way to present the ‘child’s perspective’, envisioning this
wonderful utopia of awesome 1337 (LEET) cyber/video games that teach everything while the children are role playing and
scaling the plat-formed multi-verse. I agree with Stuart, this vision is far fetched and unrealistic, not to mention the
potential of a generation boxed away behind their computer leading a ‘Second Life’ (you should all look up this very
disturbing internet ‘game’). More over students, especially during early stage 1, stage 1 and even stage 2, need constant,
explicit instruction. A computer has not the capabilities to assess a student as efficiently as a teacher which suggests that
their progress may deteriorate or might even come to a complete halt. The computer in this case doesn’t engage them any
longer as they cannot understand how to complete the task. The computer cannot change its methodology. The teacher
can. Edu-tainment to even a moderately high degree, in this light, is doomed for failure- that is until it is capable of regular
assessment of the student upon which it can alter its activities to suit the situation. The teacher should still be a
compulsory learning resource in the classroom. Yet in defence of Prensky, it is always very important to give a voice to
those not in a position to have a say.

Edit Reply

Re:Chaos

By deeni kay - 14 March 2008 01:23:23 AM EST

An interesting point arose when Stuart began mentioning that the internet could be but a passing phase, the new fad on
the block that has swept unsuspecting students into its fickle tide. Valentina then mentioned that this is something we can
capitalise on; if they are interested then why not engage them through this link?? Yet, as Stuart highlighted, we might be
unintentionally closing them off from other sources of information by exposing them too readily and regularly to this cyber,
intangible thing so that their experience of the ‘real world’ is limited. At this point I would like to suggest a theory that I
have heard in tutorials: the internet is not a database of information (although it could be perceived as such). Rather it is
the result of a lot of people sharing a lot of stuff. It is very important to leave behind the idea that the internet is ‘an
encyclopaedia’ simply because that was not originally (nor is currently) its sole purpose. The World Wide Web is merely a
means to connect people and what they have to give (embracing this idea should help discourage internet information
naivety). What this notion also allows for, if perceived with an innovative mind, is another way to encourage living. Yes, the
type of outdoors, run around, remain social and engaged in life ‘living’.

Blogs. Although personally I only really became engaged with them at the onset of this particular course, blogs have been
present on the internet for years (maybe even decades). Myspace, Blogger, Facebook (I’m not sure if that last one is a
‘blog’…) are all online journals/scrapbooks of sorts. Consider what compels people to use these: another way to assert their
identity (or alter-identity), they enjoy becoming connected to people they would not otherwise know (bands, people from
overseas), they keep in contact with people whom they would not otherwise communicate with (past school friends or work
colleagues). All these people sharing experiences… but what experiences are they sharing? Experiences This
communication medium encourages people to attend events in orderϑof LIFE to discuss them after, take photographs to
have them shared and commented on, learn new skills and interests to reflect on their progress with like-minded people,
live life first to display their day’s experiences when they’ve reached home. No, I do not believe that opening the www.
window of the internet shuts and locks the door of your study/bedroom/office. In contrast, it encourages you to go and look
for the keys to your life so that you may enrich yourself and your online personality.

How does this relate to schools? Education is also, to an extent about ‘sharing’ experiences. Why else do we teach students
to compose the myriad of text types mentioned in the syllabus, or encourage individual expression in art, music or drama?
More over the material that the students are engaging with, the ‘information’ that is handed down and ‘fed’ to them;
history, maths and science, are all basically experiences of other people that are ‘shared’ to enrich others’ lives. It would be
almost against what appears to be natural human mentality to withhold another, very effective means of ‘sharing’ life.

Our last tutorial was lead by a very inventive woman (I looked for her name but unfortunately it doesn’t seem to be
mentioned on Blackboard) who discussed fine art and music in the classroom. Prior to this tutorial I considered both these
topics to be almost the antithesis of internet or technology usage. I was mind-blown. Including digital cameras, programs
such as photoshop and garageband, downloadable video clips as well as the presentation medium powerpoint, this woman
reconstructed my beliefs about the ‘traditional’ arts in less than two hours. They were not video/cyber games but the
lessons encouraged the attitude of ‘experiencing and sharing’, and my goodness it sounded engaging! Students would
create their own art (be it fine art or music), record it and then share it via the internet. Also to turn the equation around,
the students might engage with someone else’s experience (another recording) and then evaluate it as such. The same
approach could very well be taken with the internet as a whole. Use it as a motivation for students to experience life/school
then share their gained knowledge. Alternatively they could engage in someone else’s shared experience, whether it is art
or an article, and in turn share their reflections on it. In keeping this attitude, students will be simultaneously encouraged
to live their own lives in hope of communicating their experiences later, as well as viewing others’ communications as
subjective works for evaluation and reflection.

Edit Reply

Re:Chaos

By mordechai tenenboim - 14 March 2008 04:11:00 PM EST

I agree with Deeni about our last tutorial. Personally, i didn't think that creative arts could be used so well in conjunction
with technology.
I think we all enjoyed learning about garageband and other programs that we might use when we become teachers.
It gives a fun twist on education. The students are learning as well as having fun at the same time. If someone was to walk
into our tutorial class while we were working on garageband (with our headphones on), they would probably assume we are
a bunch of anti-social students, playing games. However, we were actually doing productive work, and enjoying it too.

Learning CAN be fun. It is up to the teacher to make it interesting for their students. Reading a book and answering
questions isn't as much fun as meeting the author, writing your own novel, or other activities.

I'm not saying we should give up on the pen and paper, textbooks etc. However, there are also ways to insert bits of
technology and other activities into the lesson to make it different.

I had a look at that atomic learning website, and i think it will be very useful to both teachers and students. I could spend
hours, if not days, just sitting and sorting through that site.
That is a site i would reccommend to other teachers. As time goes on, and technology becomes more advanced, we will
need to keep up to date with it.

There are soo many different issues. Another issue, is privacy. (One reason why people might want to create an avatar).

So is there a solution to this whole chaos that we are discussing?

Is using the internet the answer? If not, then what is?
Will this ever be solved??

Reply

Re:Chaos
By deeni kay - 15 March 2008 12:05:46 AM EST

As dramatic as it is ending the discussion with erotesis, I felt compelled to ‘solve’ the rhetorical.
The teacher is the key. It is we who must take the plunge and learn the strokes in order to successfully swim to the right
port, scaffolding the way for the students to come. We must make an effort to keep updated about the changing
technology, the new programs available and seek to be trained in such things (Atomic Learning website:
http://movies.atomiclearning.com/uk/home/ ). We must also make it our duty to relentlessly pursue the latest trends,
interests and talents of our students so that we are offering subject matter and methods relevant to their lives. It is
through this medium that they will learn the skills to extract and convey information, taking an educated critical approach
to all texts they encounter.
Actually the word ‘solve’ suggests there is a single answer. I do not believe there will ever be one but many answers to
engaging students, keeping up with the constant evolution of technology as well as harnessing the power of the internet.
Perhaps ending with a rhetorical question was most appropriate after all; we must continue to unceasingly reassess our
approach to the transference of knowledge, finding more exciting and efficient ways to teach our students.

Edit Reply

Refresh