art ed + web 2.0 + [e]merging media blog

In relation to the last question on the quantity of information. I'm not sure if it's the quantity that is new, but it's the relative availability of it. My first thought is of people who have rare diseases. Searching the Internet can be helpful to bring up new treatment ideas. But, how does that person know that the information that s/he is finding is good and medically sound?

This is, in my opinion, the heart of critical thinking. Is it that we are the information gatekeepers for our students? How can we be expected to serve as the filter for all information? What would another approach to this be?

In the Horizon Report they mentioned GPS tracking through cell phones enabling officals to track traffic patterns. For some reason this idea really scares me. I don't like the idea of my location being randomly used as data without my knowledge.

I think that institutions prefer programs that they have to pay for because they want to reinforce the idea that education must be paid for. If they are using free programs, what are the students paying them for? I also think that they pay for programs because this offeres them more control, they can complain and be responded to with certainty because they have bought that right... maintaining the capitolist philosophy that the customer is always right.... maybe the free patron is sometimes wrong.

In reference to the Educational institutions question. I suspect that universities get hit by companies pushing their thech wears and do not fully research what is available at no cost on the web. Almost as though there is so much red tape to cut through they think it is easier to purchase what is being shown to them.

I'm not sure that there is really a huge increase in the amount of information. The same amount has always been in existence, it's just now presented in a different manner. Different people have access to the same information and therefore, it may or may not be, more readily accessible to a wider array of personalities. In the same sense, it is presented in more places and can be developed in a different sense and state of mind.

In saying this, humanity creates new answers to the same problems over and over again, but when, in fact will that stop? It's not really something that can necessarily be stopped... but I think if technological advances are controlled then the advancements we make will develop a clearer sense of understanding.

Education is based in understanding... so to add to the elements of our knowledge is not a hindrance... it will serve to be beneficial.

The hindrance develops in how we handle the situation and the knowledge. Some knowledge dissipates or evolves as new knowledge comes about.

It's like the cancelling of a cheque. Shouldn't that be a new way of considering the advancements and considering their benefits rather than them being a hindrance??

I am now scared that i will become obsolete. We seem to say in classes that we have to constantly admit to our students how we don't know everything , and they may know more than us. If this is the case, how long will they find us helpful or useful.

Technopoly: I really think Postman is a bit over dramatic in this area. The printing press did not create schools, it simply made them more accessible. I may be wrong but I believe ancient Greece, China, and India had schools long before the printing press. They may not be have been a public school system put they were formal systems of education. Things will change in the future but this is not a sign of educational apocalypse.

Pg.4 I feel they are choosing software over web base because they see the advantage of sharing with other classrooms, as well as there seems to be more validity in the packaged programs. The may be a fear of the web-based programs not being secure enough for children.

In answer to your first question about the Technopoly article, I think Postman is may have drawn a correct conclusion in a completely invalid way. I'm not sure how he can say that the printing press invented schoolteachers. What did he think Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato were doing? But it is worth thinking about the relationship between teaching and the written word, and what it's important for students to learn. I found the article on toys really fascinating, especially in light of the fact that the greater a child's "excecutive" functions, the greater his or her chances of succeeding in school. To go back to what I was saying, though, education may undergo a paradigm shift in which teachers take on different roles and perhaps become much less important, but I don't think this has as much to do with the diminished importance of the written word as he suggests. If we are in a period of information glut, how is that information being transmitted--mostly through language!

(pg 60) How does this increased amount of information help or hinder society? How do we sort through all of the information we encounter to determine what is worthwhile to pass on to our students?

I tended to side with Postman's stance that the problem with the increased amount of information present tends to encourage our apathy towards meaningful information. We have no static world view anymore. It's kind of scary. How do we search out what is meaningful information to teach? Are we limited to the sources that are presented through sites like Ning groups and social networking links. Will we have to rely on others to organize the data so that we can easily find it. Is'nt that defeating the creation o meaningful information?

I'm not sure that there is really a huge increase in the amount of information. The same amount has always been in existence, it's just now presented in a different manner. Different people have access to the same information and therefore, it may or may not be, more readily accessible to a wider array of personalities. In the same sense, it is presented in more places and can be developed in a different sense and state of mind.

In saying this, humanity creates new answers to the same problems over and over again, but when, in fact will that stop? It's not really something that can necessarily be stopped... but I think if technological advances are controlled then the advancements we make will develop a clearer sense of understanding.

Education is based in understanding... so to add to the elements of our knowledge is not a hindrance... it will serve to be beneficial.

The hindrance develops in how we handle the situation and the knowledge. Some knowledge dissipates or evolves as new knowledge comes about.

It's like the cancelling of a cheque. Shouldn't that be a new way of considering the advancements and considering their benefits rather than them being a hindrance??

(pg 60) How does this increased amount of information help or hinder society? How do we sort through all of the information we encounter to determine what is worthwhile to pass on to our students?

I tended to side with Postman's stance that the problem with the increased amount of information present tends to encourage our apathy towards meaningful information. We have no static world view anymore. It's kind of scary. How do we search out what is meaningful information to teach? Are we limited to the sources that are presented through sites like Ning groups and social networking links. Will we have to rely on others to organize the data so that we can easily find it. Is'nt that defeating the creation o meaningful information?