- Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach.
- It is now clear that as a result of this ubiquitous environment and the sheer volume of their interaction with [technology], today‟s students think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors.
- [T]he single biggest problem facing education today is that our Digital Immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language.
- One of the most interesting challenges and opportunities in teaching Digital Natives is to figure out and invent ways to include reflection and critical thinking in the learning (either built into the instruction or through a process of instructor-led debriefing) but still do it in the Digital Native language.
http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf
I graze the sample bullet-points and remember my time at Lawrencville, when I fell in love with computers, and spent all the time I should have been out being athletic instead inside the Science Building, beating on the old pdp 11/40, and dreaming dreams of legitimacy, and everyone in the world understanding the machine, and grasping what could be done.
ReplyDeleteI would be real then, once that happened.
And I look at now. And I look at slightly-simplistic and mildly patronizing texts such as these.
"Digital Natives?" Digital has nothing to do with it. Digital technology gives us exposure to more information than we can understand, forgetting that a part of education is forming the ability to construct an understanding - however internally faulty - that can be adjusted or torn down. Digital technology lets us say things (like, say, this comment, or the hundreds that precede it in other places, at other times) and collectively remember that.
Digital technology should bend us to be more careful with our speech. It should make us take time to consider critically, the ideas that we can hoover up in a moment's Google.
I was a terrible student because my attention span was short and intense and Lawrenceville really couldn't speak to me.
I fit in to this new world because I didn't fit into the old one. And yet, I understand the difference. And I understand the need for mastery of a subject and careful consideration of a point of view, and that neither of these are things we shop for.
At least we didn't. I think there's always room for understanding. How we reach that - that's what has changed. The speed has changed. And the length has changed. We say things that matter because they last a long time. Or maybe things we say DON'T matter for precisely the same reason, and persistence does not replace profundity.
I can't say yet. I'm 30 years out of Lawrenceville, and I have been making a living with computers ever since. I can so far only say that Lawrenceville taught me that I know nothing. A stint in silicon valley finished off any illusions. Best education I could have had, both of them. And both involved other people and had little to do with technology.
Let's not get too far away from that truth, shall we?
Interesting comments, Rob. Though I was a few years after you, I too spent more time with the old PDP (though it was in the new Corby building for me, and it was an 11/44 model) than all but a handful of my classmates. While I certainly missed some elements of Lawrenceville due to my passion/consumption inside Corby, I also gained a lot by being that focused in one area. I would not trade my experience for any other, looking back.
ReplyDeleteI have spent some time talking with Bill Freitas about the opportunity presented to me back in the day, and how we might present the same kind of opportunity to today's students (time on a DEC PDP-11 not being what it used to be!) The Robotics Club and some other efforts have tried to mimic those opportunities that you and I enjoyed, Rob.
But I think your point about what Lawrenceville provides to it's students, in terms of value both short and long term, needs to remain the focus of this discussion. The "digital" (technological perhaps being a better term) elements of life and learning today are very different than what you and I experienced in our time. Technology for us was a field of study (and play), while technology today (as we are discussing it here, in any case) is woven into the fabric of life. It is not it's own isolated field the way we experienced it.
My view of this blog and this group discussion centers on how the current generation interacts with information and their environment. I think in part you were pursuing the same view, Rob - "speed has changed".
Very simplistically, I see the difference between "then" and "now" as this: "then" the school taught static material, and the school environment was static (like the "Ivory Tower" of old); the questions and answers did not change much, if at all, from year to year, let alone day to day. There was a concept of "Outside the Gates" that really no longer applies. "Now" the world intrudes effortlessly, for good or ill. Academically, both the subject matter and the questions posed will shift constantly - sometimes subtly, sometimes drastically. The ability to question, collaborate and research instantly across the globe forces a different approach to both teaching and learning. The ability to constantly interact with, affect, and be affected by the world "Outside the Gates" makes the old view of our environment as a protected bubble of controllable elements a modern falsehood.
The "Important Questions" section delves into these issues in a more granular fashion.
Rob, if you want to discuss the technological offerings as a field of study these days, I'd be glad to engage in that discussion on email. Bill Freitas would likely enjoy that discussion as well. I think there are opportunities to expand our offerings to today's Lawrentians.
Lawrenceville could improve in terms of technology by adding a computer sciences curriculum and a new designated department with its own expert faculty. This new department should have faculty not just trained in this field but also have members from all the other departments as computer use is essential in every aspect of our education in Lawrenceville. The curriculum should last an entire four years. It should also be a graded and credited course, so that students take it seriously and realize the importance of learning this subject in depth. In my opinion, understanding the use of technology will better prepare us for any challenge the real world will throw at us. For example, if you are an astrophysicist at N.A.S.A. or a stock broker on Wall Street, or a beautician who needs to keep track of her employees’ pay roll, knowledge and competence in computers and technology will be essential to ensure success in each field. This course should cover basics like using excel and powerpoint effectively and correctly to more advanced topics like computer programing. It could also cover more important concepts like internet safety especially on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter which have changed the way we communicate and interact with each other. After this four year course, we should be able to use computers in a variety of situations. Even though we may not know where our destiny will take us, this course should have prepared us to face any occupation. I know that this is adding more to our extremely busy schedule and heavy course load, but in the long run, this course will serve us well. This course should not only teach us how to use computers effectively, but should make using a computer second nature. Another reason to study computer sciences is to be able to make educated decisions and to be able to accept or reject new technology that will undoubtedly be coming out in the future. All of these suggestions would definitely make Lawrenceville an even better school that would prepare its students for the future.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! As a CS major, your idea really speaks to me. However, as you note and like our peer schools, we have very complicated core curriculum that we probably wouldn't be able to take four courses for this. However, there have been some interesting developments in the area of "algorithmic thinking" (http://www.ucalgary.ca/aslcle/nctm/Q2A.html) that might provide a good basis for all Lawrentians.
ReplyDelete