hendron’sdigest

Tonight while looking at several MIT online courses, I came across one by Mitchel Resnick. Of course, he was behind a project I’m real fond of, Scratch, which is a simple programming environment that is appropriate for elementary and middle school learners. (I personally think Scratch can be introduced a grade 3, but it will likely become limited after 3 years of use, i.e., use at grades 3-5, 4-6, or 5-7).

I also came across a reading he lists, from the Alliance for Childood, their Tech Tonic. The brief is highly suspicious of corporate entities (read: Intel, Apple) and some organizations like CoSN and ISTE.

Some points are valid questions. They are opting for less screen time and more people time. In today’s American culture, I don’t think anyone would argue that “quality” time from/with caring adults could ever be in excess, harming a child. Instead, we often identify problems with children in situations where parents are too busy, missing, or abusing.

In a section of the report centered on “Developmental Guidelines” (see page 79-82), they suggest middle school age children just might be introduced to educational uses of television after they understand how TVs work. And suggest high school students be able to perform research on the Web, at the same time that they become involved participants in community-based ethical norm setting to help them deal with both the obvious and hidden aspects of using technology.

I’m all for helping develop literacy, ethics, and technology fluency in schools. But, to suggest that we deal with the ethical issues only at the high school level, or research at the middle school level, is rather novel. Naive, perhaps, too. Parents who aren’t card-carrying members of the Alliance may not have TVs or Internet at home, and certainly don’t give their children cell phones. But what about those misguided parents who do have broadband Internet, have 2nd graders who can load DVD players, and a copious pile of cell phones at the ready in the home?

I feel this “tonic” assumes that the only technology students have access to is in school. And it is highly suspicious about most of it. The premise, assumed, is: “It can’t be good if its good hasn’t yet been proven. For the sake of Mother Earth, technology is of course assumed suspect!”

The reality in many communities is that students and their families are quite fluent with the use of a variety of technologies. And the effects of assuming a digital lifestyle aren’t always traditional, healthy, or advantageous. Yet, we push forward, for a variety of reasons–reasons that schools are inadequate to significantly influence. Instead, as some have called for, we might turn to the “tools in their pockets” as a new means to educate them.

I felt that this report gave some valid concerns about current-day society, without fully accepting what society has become. It’s far too late to turn Luddite and think we can make our digital reality go away. Their call for “giv[ing] our children and youth the full opportunity to get to know themselves through play, the arts, and hands-on learning, so that the have a solid sense of self–and confidence in their own creativity and competence–before tackling the major issues of the world” need not be exclusive of a world that communicates, emotes, sings, dances, solves problems, and sees itself with digital technology.

This entry was posted on Saturday, May 10th, 2008 at 10:28 pm and is filed under Interesting, Reflection. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.