You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Ryan Campbell’ tag.
A few weeks ago, Stephanie gave a presentation on the use of photography with/by young children. As I indicated during the class discussion, I appreciate the way that this particular piece of technology provides adults with invaluable opportunities to see through the eyes of children. In other words, the topics/themes children choose to capture in the photographs they take reveals a great deal about what is important to them. As an educator committed to the basic tenets of emergent curriculum (an educational philosophy that uses children’s interests to drive programming), this is especially important.
Today, I encountered a childcare program that takes this one step further by providing children with cameras to document their own learning. In this regard, children are encouraged to take photographs of structures they’ve created or moments that are important to their learning to add to their personal portfolios. In addition, teachers in these programs support children in adding text to the photographs to complete the students’ personal learning stories. During my visit, I also spoke with an educator who is working with 1 particular child to create a slide presentation on a classroom computer that illustrates the process the child went through in the writing, production and performance of an original play (enacted with self-made puppets)! This is an invaluable use of technologyin education that I had not previously considered!
After taking this course and reflecting on the role of technology in education over the last 7 weeks, it is clear that much can be done to enrich children’s educational experiences when educators invite opportunities to use technology as a vehicle for learning in their classrooms. Although I’ve argued before that early childhood education has a far way to go to incorporate meaningful uses of technology in the provision of play-based curriculum for young children, it is reassuring to see the way in which some educators have risen to the challenge in an effort to reap the benefits that technology has to offer in enriching the documentation process. To this end, it is especially inspiring to experience the manner in which technology has allowed children to take an active part in this process as well!
In Wednesday’s class, one of the presentations introduced the notions of computer literacy and computer fluency. To this end, the acquistion of skills related to technology was likened to the learning of a new language. Thus, in order to become proficient with various forms of technology, TIME to immerse oneself in technology is necessary. In addition, the need for teacher and child to engage in collaborative learning is essential. Sadly, it seems that these pre-requisites challenge dominant approaches to education in Western society. For instance, the re-conceptualization of the teacher/student dynamic to include opportunities for reciprocity of learning stands in stark contrast to the banking model of education that continues to permeate many formal systems of learning. Clearly it is difficult for many to resist the idea that children are empty vessels into which critically-thinking adults must pour knowledge deemed essential for lifelong success. In many cases, this so-called “essential education” rarely entails open-ended opportunities to use technology as a tool for learning. Since this is the case, how is it possible for teachers or students to acquire true computer fluency?
An example of this continued resistance to the place of technology in education for young children can be seen in the very recently revised Toronto Operating Criteria (made available to the public June 1st, 2009). As a supervisor of 5 preschool/kindergarten programs, it my professional obligation to ensure that we exceed criteria in all areas. Consequently, I went through the document systematically and highlighted areas I felt our programs could improve upon. During this process, my attention was drawn to Section 3, which focuses on Learning Areas. In this section, one of the measured criteria speaks directly to computer usage in the early childhood classroom. In order to score a “4″ (i.e. exceed expectations), programs with computers must ensure that a variety of educational games and computer programs are available to children. In addition, use of electronic games must be supervised and time should be limited. Given these restrictions, how is it possible for early childhood classrooms to support the type of computer fluency discussed in the articles presented in Wednesday’s class? In addition, does this position not contravene the very tenets of constructionism? In light of this situation (and as a response to numerous discussions had to date on the role of technology in education), it is clear that pre-service training for teachers and early childhood educators must make a more concerted effort to address the use of technology in classroom spaces for young children.
The notion of the digital divide has been a recurring theme throughout this course. In past blogs and in previous group discussions, the focus has been on issues of class. Tonight, however, gender differences in use and preference suggest that a stark contrast exists in the manner that males and females experience gaming. Consider, for instance, the You Tube clip selected in the first presentation, which documented testimonials of gamers who expressed their gaming preferences. In addition to the fact that males were disproportionately represented in the video clip, game theme preferences seemed divided along gendered lines. To this end, while males expressed an overwhelming fondness for shooting-themed games, the few females that were interviewed were partial to puzzle and strategy-type games.
As I undertake research for my final paper, it is clear that issues of gender are also relevant in consideration of the ways that males and females are portrayed in video games marketed to children of all ages. Ultimately, these portrayals reinforce a heteronormative understanding of gender. Underpinning this portrayal is a binary understanding of gender, through which the male expresses masculine and female expresses feminine dichotomy is reinforced as natural. This, in turns, yields negative repercussions for children whose expressed behavior challenges gendered norms.
After reflecting on tonight’s class discussion, I get the general impression that critics of video games for children focus heavily on the impact that a routine exposure to violence has on the wellbeing of “impressionable” children. To these individual I ask: Where is your concern for the daily unchallenged exposure to games that construct and reinforce normative understandings of gender? Is this phenomenon not equally problematic? What accountability should software designers and marketing strategists assume for breaking down these gender stereotypes? What role should educators play in inciting discussions among the children they teach with the purpose of “queering” the manner that children interpret portrayals of gender in video games and educational software?
This evening’s presentation on “edutainment” provided an interesting look at the way that play materials for children are designed to simultaneously educate and entertain. In my opinion, the push to legitimize play experiences by talking about their educational value is a widespread phenomenon in early childhood education. Although this is a trend that I think requires further examination (especially because the push to accelerate academic achievement during the early years seems indicative of the ‘hurried child syndrome), I also understand the necessity to articulate the learning that happens through play…especially because this helps substantiate the work of early childhood professionals.
In addition to this point of discussion, I also feel compelled to address the issue of class (which was also mentioned during tonight’s presentation) as it pertains to the use of technology in education. In many cases, an assumption is made that all families have access to or can afford to purchase the learning software/technology that is marketed to adults and educators as essential in supporting children’s development across the continuum. In many ways, the current cost of these mainstream efforts creates a new kind of marginalization, particularly for those families who already live in poverty. In addition to cost, issues of class are also evident in consideration of who the software is developed by. As Martha pointed out, even parent-generated software reflects class differences. Specifically, those who design educational programs for young children must have adequate knowledge to do so. Presumably, this knowledge is created when adults have ongoing access to it (and therefore have an in-depth understanding of how it works).
To my relief, Alexandra’s presentation on recent efforts to minimize the digital divide related to class seems promising. This includes (but is not limited to): the OLPC project; the increase availability of wireless internet; the widespread use of open sourcing and the building of software that operates on machines of all ages. In light of this assurance that all children and families have access to technology as a tool for education, it will be interesting to monitor its subsequent use in classroom spaces for young children.
To date, we have been introduced to various online programs that endeavour to support children’s learning. It is my understanding, however, that most of these have been developed by adults for children. In fact, Danny mentioned this evening that there are currently few online communities that are not corporately controlled. This is an unfortunate reality, particularly in light of my personal and professional commitment to constructivist learning. To this end, it is my feeling that more opportunities should exist for children to employ technology as a tool in support of their own learning. Specifically, children should be encouraged to experiment with technological tools in the interest of creating more meaningful and engaging educational opportunities.
The absence of technological tools/programs and online communities designed by kids for kids reflects the general tendency for Western culture to construct and reinforce binary understandings of identity. Sullivan (2003) suggests that binary oppositions are always hierarchical in nature, creating an “us” and “them” dichotomy that inevitably positions one as superior to the other (p. 43). In this case, the adult/child binary is such that the all-powerful, all-knowing adult has full power and authority to decide what children and how they learn it. Even adults with the best of intentions succumb to the occasional tendency to take full control over children’s learning in the interest of providing so-called optimal development. In fact, to do otherwise is to engage in a significant pedagological/philosophical shift, whereby educators (in this case), relinquish control of the classroom by affording children more opportunities to manage their own learning.
Another consequence of this phenomenon (especially as it relates to children, technology and play) is the assumption that all forms of technology must be educational. This is especially true when technology is used in classrooms for young children. Noticeably absent from this way of thinking is the idea that children should be provided with opportunities to play for the sheer enjoyment it elicits. This particular trend has been pervasive in the field of early childhood education since the publication of the Early Years Study in the late 1990’s. While the report did a great deal to substantiate the benefits of play to the development of children during their formative years (i.e. 0 – 5), it has also lead to a general pre-occupation with outcome-driven play experiences. In other words, many early childhood professionals working in classrooms for young children are now encouraged to create play-based learning opportunities with specific developmental domains and skills in mind. This practice has been further legitimized in Ontario with the recent publication of the Early Learning for Every Child Today (E.L.E.C.T.) curriculum framework, which offers a continuum of development for frontline staff to consider as they plan and implement experiences for children 0 – 8.
Having recently read the article that I am going to present (i.e. Nakamura’s Race In/For Cyberspace), I feel compelled to comment on the manner in which technology can shape who we are, how we see ourselves, and how others see us in return. Nakamura elaborates on the performative nature of identity with a focus on the features that online players in one particular virtual community (LambdaMOO) choose to ascribe to themselves. According to Nakamura, this rarely (if ever) includes attention to race. In fact, she states that “players who elect to describe themselves in racial terms,…or other members of oppressed and marginalized minorities, are often seen as engaging in a form of hostile performance, since they introduce what many consider a real life ‘divisive issue’ into the phantasmatic world of cybernetic textual interaction” (p. 712). The absence of race-related discourse in popular online communities is disturbing. One of the unfortunate repercussions is a false belief in a kind of cyber utopia in which race (and other aspects of identity) is rendered irrelevant. Moreover, difficult discussions that illuminate the oppressive treatment of marginalized groups are simultaneously silenced.
What I found most intriguing about Nakamura’s article, however, is not the lengthy attention to race on which the article is primarily based, but is her brief reflection on the notion of gender as it is dealt with in LambdaMOO. This is largely due to my personal research interest on the pervasive natura of heteronormativity in early childhood curriculum. Simply stated, heteronormativity refers to the
“normal” and “natural” status accorded to heterosexuality in Western society, routinely reinforced
through a societal preference for “all things straight”(Robinson, 2005, p. 20). Underpinning this discourse is the reiteration of a normative understanding of gender in which binary gender categories (male and female) are constructed and reinforced as absolute truth. Critics of this tendency argue that gender is merely a performance, through which gendered bodies either affirm the status quo, or risk alienation from mainstream society.
In Nakamura’s critique of LambaMOO, it is pointed out that it is a requirement that one choose a gender because “it is impossible to receive authorization to create a character without making this choice” (p. 713). Thus, gender is so imperative to the creation of characters on LambdaMOO that, without it, the character couldn’t exist at all. This argument is consistent with the position of queer theorists like Judith Butler, who argue that gender as we understand it today is an illusion. It is, like culture, a human production that is constantly created and re-created out of human interaction. According to Butler, this ongoing reiteration of norms is precisely what institutionalizes cultural notions of gender and the illusion that gender statuses are natural categories into which an individual is inevitably born. In other words, the cumulative effect of engaging in these performative acts is the production of what Butler argues is a false belief in the concrete nature of gender. To this end, Butler contends that because gender is not a fact, “the various acts of gender create the idea of gender and, without these acts, there would be no gender at all.
In conducting preliminary research on the construction of gender in video games for children, it is clear that the reinforcement of stereotypical representations of masculine and feminine behaviours is largely responsible for the manner in which these representations inform children’s views on gender. While it is true that many forms of media are responsible for this phenomenon, the increased popularity of gaming systems among children means that exposure to narrow understandings of gender is inescapable. This, in turn, yields important implications for educators in deciding how to most effectively use technology as a tool for learning in classrooms for young children.
The first presentation (“Shift Happened”) provided a chronology of the technological revolution that has taken place over the last half century. In retrospect, it’s almost hard to believe how far communication technology has come in such a relatively short period of time. That said, I also can’t imagine where the minds of innovators will take us next. What is clear, however, is that the knowledge necessary to advance our technological capabilities is the result of decades of experimentation. It is, as Randy Pausch argued, the invaluable experiences that one acquires through multiple successive failures that leads to the deeper level learning responsible for the rapid evolution in technology that was discussed `this evening. It is also the benefit reaped from a tendency toward risk-taking, as some of the most seemingly improbable technological achievements have made the impossible a living reality.
Many of the advancements in communication technology most notably began to influence my educational experiences while I was still in high school (i.e. in the early to mid 1990’s). As the second presentation pointed out, this would make me, in many ways, a digital immigrant. Examples of communication technology that had a direct impact on my learning during these years are many. There was, of course, the introduction of the internet to mainstream society that forever changed how I was able to communicate; who I was able to communicate with; and what I could knowledgeably communicate about. To this end, the advent of the worldwide web served as a catalyst for improving the quality of my research, enabling me to complete papers and assignments with improved substance and efficiency.
Prior to the routine use of the internet, a computer was brought into our home during the late 1980’s. What I appreciated most about this particular piece of technology was the ability to engage in attempts at word processing with ease and speed. Previous to this, my siblings and I painstakingly typed our assignments on the family’s electric type writer. Consequently, it was not uncommon to find ourselves forced to use weeks of our allowance to purchase rolls of correction tape (which never seemed to be in adequate supply). I suppose, too, that I was still growing into my fingers in those days, often accused by others as being “all thumbs”. Thus, it was expected that I, in particular, would wear out a roll of correction tape long before I could complete an assignment.
While it is true that these examples may seem trivial to the digital native, those of us who experienced life pre-Wii remember all too well the time and effort that was required of us in the interest of learning. Although I appreciate the skills honed in the absence of today’s technology , I wouldn’t go back to the days that pre-dated personal computers or the internet even if my iPod, Blackberry, or portable MAC lap top depended on it!
Tonight’s class focused on the notion of social media and the implications for community building. In particular, the emergence of new social practices as a response to the introduction of new technology is especially interesting. For instance, Wikipedia is a good example of the manner in which online social communities start influencing the content and the medium itself. This is done through the peer-to-peer regulation/validation of the very content posted on the site. In light of this, one might argue that Wikipedia has, in a very short span of time, become a reliable, online research database.
I also find it interesting that Wikipedia provides an opportunity for all to be heard. In this way, it is an online venue that gives a voice to those who might otherwise be silenced. To this end, few topics are “off-limits,” as long as the content itself is appropriate for viewership and meets established community guidelines. Wikipedia is, in many ways, the new “peer-reviewed journal.” Because social practices built around this site encourage the validation of information posted (for example, through referencing), much of Wikipedia’s content is as credible as other sources of information. For this reason, I am surprised that most teachers/professors working in our education system strongly discourage the use of Wikipedia for research purposes. Is this attitude justified, or does it merely serve as an example of blatant resistance to the impact of technology on educational practices at all levels?
The creation of wikis based on common interests clearly possesses great potential in the education of young children. They could, for instance, serve as invaluable tools for studying and research. This is especially likely if students themselves have full power and authority to author the posted content. To this end, one might argue that the building of wikis by students for students parallels the basic tenets of constructivist pedagogy. Consequently, it is a technological tool that I think requires more attention by those committed to teaching.
In addition to the creation of online communities that serve broader educational purposes, those that are more informal (and often used for social or entertainment purposes) are equally interesting. In this regard, we’ve begun to talk about folk culture and the push for populations to be active social participants in the creation of their own culture. This includes the desire to share, create and perform lived experiences and personal knowledge. You Tube is the most obvious example of the way in which technology is re-defining the sharing of this knowledge. To this end, it could be argued that You Tube is a virtual living library of authentic experiences, documented in a way that stands in stark contrast to the lavish productions that have been popular in the past. This emerging preference for authenticity is most evident in the numerous hits that home videos receive in comparison to bigger-budget productions.
I suppose, then, that the appeal of many forms of new social media is that it provides a continuous “eye on the world.” Furthermore, it allows individuals to transcend time and space with the intention of sharing REAL stories and experiences with those who have similar interests. This, in turn, stands as a powerful example of the role that technology can play in bringing people together to build formal/informal online communities and institutions.
“We don’t beat the reaper by living longer, we beat the reaper by living well and living fully…”
(Randy Pausch)
“It’s not the things we do in life that we regret on our death bed, it’s the things we do not.”
(Randy Pausch)
The videos assigned for viewing in preparation for Class 2 touched me on many levels. Clearly, Pausch’s words of wisdom were largely inspired by the fact that, at the time his speeches were given, he was suffering from a terminally ill disease. As such, he had a thirst for life and an appreciation for every moment afforded to him that is rarely seen today. In fact, one might argue that it is commonplace for individuals to take for granted the full range of learning opportunities encountered on a daily basis. This is particularly true for those experiences classified as “failures,” particularly when we are eager to forget moments when things do not go the way we intended them to. Yet, as Pausch argues, “experience is what you get when you don’t get what you wanted.” In other words, true learning happens when we do not succeed at various tasks that we take on. This is due, in part, to the fact that failure forces us to repeatedly question our actions in search for a deeper level understanding as we endeavour to ensure ultimate success through subsequent attempts to master tasks that previously proved difficult. Thus, repeated success that comes too easily stifles our growth as human beings as we rarely question things that do not challenge us on any level.
Central to Pausch’s advice for achieving one’s childhood dreams is the notion of “passion.” According to Pausch, passion cannot be found in material things (a common misunderstanding that pervades Western thinking). Rather, passion is fueled from within and is grounded in the people we meet and through the relationships we forge. In light of this belief, it could be argued that learning does not happen in a vacuum. It happens within and is mediated by the communities in which we live. As an educator of young children, these ideas are especially important as they force me to consider the impact that my actions (in and out of the classroom) have on the children under my instruction and care. For instance, I see it as my professional obligation to ensure that the curriculum content I plan and implement reflects the various passions that emerge among the group of children I teach. Moreover, it is essential to ensure that children are fully engaged in the learning process as this increases the authenticity of educational experiences and ensures greater success in learning.
Despite Pausch’s convincing position regarding the importance of failure to learning and the need to ensure that educational opportunities are meaningful for children, real world examples in education that stand in stark contrast to this view are rampant in Western culture. For instance, if it is understood that failure is imperative to coming to a deeper level understanding of any given task, why is it that the educational system is set up to reward success? Educational programs for young children rarely encourage the risk-taking necessary to maximize the full potential of individual children. Instead, one might argue that education is value laden and encourages conformity to the dominant group of the time. This arguably yields negative repercussions in the advancement of modern society, as it is clearly necessary for the great thinkers of our time (both present and future) to challenge boundaries in the interest of creating new knowledge that may ultimately be of benefit to all individuals. Such is certainly the case in consideration of Randy Pausch’s personal and professional achievements. Through his commitment to the field of computer sciences (fueled by a dedication to a lifelong passion for technology) Pausch’s curiosity and innovation have resulted in a legacy that will not soon be forgotten.
Tonight’s class gave me much to think about. In fact, the introductory discussion had pertaining to technology in education situated me out of my comfort zone for the first time in recent memory. It also served to remind me that those committed to teaching young children must, in effect, be committed to lifelong learning themselves. As I approach the end of my studies in the MECS program, my thinking has been challenged in numerous ways. To this end, I’ve grappled with various theoretical frameworks that seek to re-conceptualize education for young children. Many of these have subsequently had an enduring impact on the manner in which I now conceive of quality early learning and care. Still, no course has yet explored the role that technology plays in shaping children’s development. Consequently, I expect that this semester will be one that challenges me both personally and professionally.
Of the numerous concepts touched upon this evening, it was Alexandra’s explanation of virtual worlds that I found most intriguing. Having only a rudimentary understanding of this phenomenon, I conducted preliminary research of my own to gain further insight into the possibilities that virtual worlds have in supporting the healthy development of young children. What I find most interesting are the social opportunities that virtual worlds create for individuals who might otherwise find themselves ostracized from mainstream communities. For instance, as discussed in tonight’s class, virtual worlds have been used with children with physical disabilities as “safe spaces” in which these individuals can experience the full range of physical activity often taken for granted by their able-bodied counterparts. A child suffering from paralysis, for example, would be able to engage in an array of gross motor, “virtual world” activities with no constraints imposed upon them by their “real world” physical condition. As research attests, these individuals “benefit enormously from experiencing the mental and emotional freedom gained by temporarily leaving their disabilities behind and doing, through the medium of their avatars, things as seemingly simple as walking, running, dancing, sailing, fishing, swimming, surfing, flying, skiing, gardening, exploring and other physical activities which their illnesses or disabilities prevent them from doing in real life” (www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_worlds).
The possibilities that virtual worlds have in shaping the way that educational programs for young children are delivered is equally interesting. Consequently, this may be an avenue I explore in greater depth for the final paper. Still, it is hard to imagine an over-reliance on virtual worlds as a substitute for real-world interactions. The discussion we had on using this technology with children with autism spoke directly to this concern. Admittedly, there are dangers associated with immersing some children into virtual worlds who are already partially removed from reality. As such, I suspect that the use of virtual worlds under these circumstances is monitored (with caution) to ensure that the rewards gained from the implementation of this technology are not negated by the potential dangers that result from its misuse. Despite this rick, however, the use of virtual worlds in the education of young children remains a topic worthy of an in-depth investigation.
