After reading the two articles on Technology issues in the classroom, I think that the use of technology is absolutely dependent on the community in which you teach. I agree that students need a knowledge of technology in order to succeed in our current world, and I think teachers have to do the best they can with the resources they have. If outside connectivity is a problem for students, teachers have to do their best to schedule time in the computer labs, and to offer students the knowledge even if they can't provide the application. For example, most classrooms have at least a teacher's computer with internet. It is possible for a teacher to hook this computer up to a projector and to provide tutorials on different programs. It may not always be possible to allow every student to master every program, but at least teachers can give students some idea of how these programs work.
The truth is, I don't know what the solution is for schools with problems with outside access. It seems that teachers would be forced, like or not, to assign a limited amount of technological projects. What teacher can provide, regardless of their students' access, is information about technological resources that students can use to expand their technological fluency. For example, many community colleges and vocational schools offer computer workshops that students can attend either for free or for a small sign-up fee. By connecting students with resources outside of schools, teachers are also showing students the importance of advocating for themselves and doing what's necessary to reach their full potential.
I don't think technological assignments should be completely forgone because a few students do not have the access necessary. I would encourage those students to complete their projects using school technology, and would do my best to provide them with in-class time to do so. However, if the work had to be done at home, I undoubtedly believe that an alternate assignment would need to be provided. Does this suck? Yes. But, I don't think that these students should be more inconvenienced and stressed than their peers just because they do not have the same access to technology. Unfortunately, technology is still very expensive in our society, and requiring students to complete online work when they don't have the same resources, in my mind, is absolutely an inequality. If a student came to me with this problem, and we couldn't find a reasonable solution, I would provide an alternate, but beneficial, assignment.
I don't think there is a lot that teachers can do to increase access for students who are disadvantaged other than connect them to local resources that may be able to provide them with the technology they need. Connecting students with local libraries, internet cafes, etc. may be helpful if students don't have the resources at home. Teachers can also make the community aware of the shortage that schools are experiecing and create funds to provide low income students with the technology they need. This of course would have to be a community effort, but it is teachers who are in the position to spearhead these projects.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Cell Phones in Class?
To me, these two points of view were not exactly on the same topic. Josh Allen seemed to be writing about why schools should not provide cell phones for student use, and Liz Kolb wrote about how the cell phones students already own can be used for educational purposes. In my mind, these are not exactly the same topic. That said, I found things to agree with in both of these writings. I agree with Josh Allen that schools have better things to spend money on than providing cell phones to their students. However, I also do not know of any schools that are even considering this option. I agree with Liz Kolb that there is a possibility that cell phones could be used for educational purposes but to me, it seems that this would have to be the student's choice, not something I assigned to them. For example, while I might assign them to create a podcast, whether or not they used their cell phones to do so would be their choice. I do not think it would be smart to assign a task that could only be completed using a cell phone. Even today, some students do not have cell phones, whether for financial or other reasons. I don't think teachers have the right to require them, or to necessitate their use.
In my own classroom, I would absolutely allow students to use cell phones for certain assignments if they chose to do so. It will not be a requirement and other options will be offered for assignment completion. However, I would not allow students to use their phones except during designated times. The availability of phones means that students can text during class, and also makes cheating much easier. I plan to have a strict "one warning, and then I take your phone" rule during everyday lessons. Just as texting is not appropriate in a business meeting, nor is it appropriate in my class.
In my own classroom, I would absolutely allow students to use cell phones for certain assignments if they chose to do so. It will not be a requirement and other options will be offered for assignment completion. However, I would not allow students to use their phones except during designated times. The availability of phones means that students can text during class, and also makes cheating much easier. I plan to have a strict "one warning, and then I take your phone" rule during everyday lessons. Just as texting is not appropriate in a business meeting, nor is it appropriate in my class.
Chatspeak...
After reading the Point-Counterpoint article on chatspeak, I have to say that I agree with Mr. Monfils. Kids - and numerous other cliques, nationalities, interest groups, etc. - have had their own ways of speaking for hundreds of years. There was a time when the way we speak was considered distasteful, slang. This is the way language works; it evolves, and it always will. One of the unique aspects of language is that, unlike math or science, nothing is ever absolute. What was correct one day may be deemed incorrect in the future, or even just by a different teacher.
Greg Monfils noted that children "codeswitch" between chatspeak and standard English, and he is absolutely correct. What he failed to mention is that we all codeswitch all the time. The way we speak to our significant other is not the same as the way we address the class during a presentation, the way we speak to our best friends is different than when we speak to a co-worker. Codeswitching is not only common but necessary in our world. And the truth, kids know the difference between chatspeak and standardized English. They may not always choose to acknowledge that difference, but they know there is one. Chatspeak is not hindering students' ability to grasp traditional English. Instead, it is allowing them to communicate effectively and quickly with their peers.
I did question the logic of Ms. Howard. In her writing she states, "We may have different sets of
linguistic conventions according to our ethnicity, family, friends, and our work and school communities, but at some point it is time to realize that the English language must be used effectively to understand and to be understood." This quote states that English language must be used effectively. What it fails to recognize is that kids are using chatspeak to communicate effectively. Their point is being heard, understood, and they are recognizing the words of others. This is effective communication. Ms. Howard doesn't seem to understand that effective communication comes in a variety of forms, many that she wouldn't even recognize or understand. She doesn't seem to acknowledge that those who communicate differently from what she thinks is right are often just as effective, if not more so.
Greg Monfils noted that children "codeswitch" between chatspeak and standard English, and he is absolutely correct. What he failed to mention is that we all codeswitch all the time. The way we speak to our significant other is not the same as the way we address the class during a presentation, the way we speak to our best friends is different than when we speak to a co-worker. Codeswitching is not only common but necessary in our world. And the truth, kids know the difference between chatspeak and standardized English. They may not always choose to acknowledge that difference, but they know there is one. Chatspeak is not hindering students' ability to grasp traditional English. Instead, it is allowing them to communicate effectively and quickly with their peers.
I did question the logic of Ms. Howard. In her writing she states, "We may have different sets of
linguistic conventions according to our ethnicity, family, friends, and our work and school communities, but at some point it is time to realize that the English language must be used effectively to understand and to be understood." This quote states that English language must be used effectively. What it fails to recognize is that kids are using chatspeak to communicate effectively. Their point is being heard, understood, and they are recognizing the words of others. This is effective communication. Ms. Howard doesn't seem to understand that effective communication comes in a variety of forms, many that she wouldn't even recognize or understand. She doesn't seem to acknowledge that those who communicate differently from what she thinks is right are often just as effective, if not more so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
