Most educators would agree that motivation (intrinsic or extrinsic) is critical in helping students acquire knowledge; moreover, motivation is the key in inviting learners to apply and retain that aforementioned knowledge.
I don't believe Prensky is serious about his "two part" school year. Consolidating two semesters of materials and testing into one semester would not only require streamlining but also some divine help.
Conversely, his idea that students would work harder and cooperatively if given the incentive of future technology, learning how to use cool gadgets and having famous instructors is well received.
I believe technology's ability to facilitate learning is promoted in Prensky's article. Instead of creating a dichotomy of the "necessary stuff" and the "fun stuff," educators can fuse the two semesters by using the incentives as the tools for learning the necessary stuff.
I-Pods, via pod casting can be used for presentations, virtual lectures over the Internet can allow scientist and professors to present information to a science or math class. Building robots can be considered a interdisciplinary unit, where various subject teachers can guide the process.
In Prensky's challenge the abovementioned is promoted by presenting an extreme. Maybe Prensky's extreme is prompting teachers and curriculum writers to ask, "why not?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I do believe Prensky is serious about his "two part" school year. It would require divine intervention to accomplish a whole year's worth of curriculum into one short semester. Technology and traditional curriculum can be joined; perhaps we should be looking into combining the two as you refer to in your post.
I think he strongly believes that technology is the key to education. But he doesn't mention what tools, if any, the students will be able to use to complete the first half of the year. He also doesn't mention the different levels of students that will be in the class. If they are different levels of proficiency, will they be expected to keep up with the best of them?
I did not take his message the same as you. I took him seriously. But you do have a good point. Maybe he was just being over the top to get teachers attention. But if the message is more incentives then I say no. We need more sticks not carrots.
I agree with you and do not think that Prensky is serious with his "two part" school year. I think his idea about motivating students is completely true and is necessary. I also feel that students would be encouraged to help their classmates out with difficult work if they knew there was a fun activity that would follow. However, I also think that extrinsic motivators are not always a positive thing. If students begin to rely on extrinsic motivators, they will stop working for good grades for themselves, and will always be looking for the prize.
I think there is a fine line between motivators. We attempt to motivate our students by telling them that "this will be important when"
a) You get to (middle school, high school, college)
b) You go to work
c) When you are in the real world
For most kids, that is delayed gratification that has to be put off 5-10 years.
How hard would most of us work for a payoff in 5-10 years?
I think there needs to be a combination of short term and long term motivators.
I think putting Prensky's approach into effect would require even more than devine intervention--assuming it is applied in the way it is described.
Fusing technology and traditional instruction from the outset seems more appropriate and may offer a more meaningful educational and learning experience for all students--particularly those who learn using methods that technology alone may not always target.
While kids enjoy technology and are often more adept at using it than adults, motivation often comes from having the experience of doing things well and feeling competent. People tend to like what they're good.
Teachers need to find a way to enable kids to feel successful using technology while taking in to account how they learn as individuals.
I took the article as a serious article until I read your comment. I didnt think of the article as a way to provoke teachers into thinking of using technology in all areas of the classroom curriculum. I also think that if a study or vote was done that the females of the class would not be into giving up the second semester to work on tech. My son's would love it but my daughter would not think that was a great second half of a school year. I am curious if he has done any gender studies on this.
I agree that the Prensky challenge might be an alternative way to offer lessons, we have to be realistic. I do not believe that we can offer it to all students. At first, we need to limit the sample set to certain over achievers, see the results, and if favorable, open the sample to a larger population, but again,controlling the population.
I read another blog that stated that it should be offered as a college type course structure, which is an excellent idea. This would accomplish two things: prepare the student for college courses, as well as determine if Prensky is on to something.
I do think there is merit in the notion that students must be taught how to deal with stress and how to pay attention. I am skeptical whether we can implement such ideas in a high school setting. Rather, I think they must begin on the early elementary level and follow those initial students up through 12th grade. We neglect to teach them the proper way to study or outline or take notes, but still demand that they meet certain standards in those areas as well. The greatest value that this article had for me was the reminder that we can't take anything for granted. Students need to be taught even the most fundamental, common sense things.
Post a Comment