Comments on: Let’s clean out that textbook room.

By: Sunny Williams

Sunny Williams — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 12:12:30 +0000

Regardless of the tone of the article, I have to say that I too am concerned about what we are doing or not doing in school reform to address the changing needs of students. Did you see the recent article in TIME about bringing our schools into the 21st Century? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1568480,00.html
We are still doing things the way we have done them for years and years, but the students we serve and the lives we are preparing them have gone through several generations of change…I face the challenge of being in a school where our students do fairly well and become good citizens so we are struggling through the “we are good why change” attitudes of some.

Yes, professional learning communities, professional learning opportunities, and adminsitrator modeling are all ways to go about bringing change, but none of those are totally successful with ever teacher in a building. Sometimes it feels like I am hitting my head against the wall.

By: Dean Shareski

Dean Shareski — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 06:47:06 +0000

Thanks Kelly that does clarify your position for me.

I would agree that his not being a teacher may reduce his credibility and perhaps the lack of research stated in this article could be questioned. As far as stating all kids are enraged, I think it is a strong term but in his defense, he places students in 3 groups at the beginning and only speaks to one group that he considers enraged.

I suppose I tend to overlook some of these points to simply focus on the general idea that we need to be more engaging. You’ve chosen to focus on some details which I think can be argued but I’m choosing to overlook them somewhat…..I think I’m satisfied with our positions.

Thanks again….this is why this process is so important, we are able to communication, criticize and learn from each other.

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:59:07 +0000

I personally think “enraged” is too strong of a word, but “engage me or enrage me” sure sounds catchy, and I bet it gets a lot of publicity in the mainstream media outlets, which in turn will sell more books.

By: kwhobbes

kwhobbes — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:01:08 +0000

Dean,
I am insulted by the fact that a) his article suggests that he is a teacher. Unless I’m mistaken, he doesn’t teach anymore. He may have taught but now he has another profession. b) He has the answer. Teaching, as we all know, is a much more complicated than what he suggests. It’s too simplistic. “Just do this and the kids will be engaged” c) I, personally, believe he is not helping. I believe he is perpetuating the myth that there is a gap we don’t understand. I’ve not found his definitions useful in the least.
At present we have so many experts telling us how to change schools and make them better and that we are not doing a good job. You and others may find nothing wrong with what he says and that is fine. I’m not going tell you that you should be insulted or upset or anything else.
I may agree with the common held belief that we need to change how schools and teachers are functioning and that we need to adjust how we use technologies. I may agree with the idea that teachers need to explore the use of different teaching strategies and instructional methods, become more familiar with authentic assessment and look at a continuous assessment/feedback cycle to assist students in learning and understanding.
I DON”T agree with how Prensky’s article has the voice of a teacher speaking to teachers.
I DON’T agree with the superiority tone that comes through.
And I DON’T like the way “facts” are used to uphold his beliefs.
“And believe me, they’re enraged. But today, all kids do. And there it is so boring that the kids, used to this other life, just can’t stand it. What’s more, the games deliver on these promises. The fact is that even if you are the most engaging old-style teacher in the world, you are not going to capture most of our students’ attention the old way. All of these are not facts – they are his beliefs.
Would you accept this as a source if a student used it? I wouldn’t because it is an opinion paper using annecdotal comments from various tv interviews to substantiate his view.
As I try to teach students, use of words like “All, Most, None, Never, …” are to be avoided when writing unless you have the data to substantiate what you say.
I don’t believe ALL kids are ENRAGED. That’s not my experience. So, Dean, that is why I say I am insulted. You don’t have to agree. I accept that there may be few who do. But, I think, we are entitled to our opinions on this subject and I have my reasons, of which I have stated here, for my opinion.
I’m not asking anyone to change their view but I am, I guess, asking that I be given the same latitude to speak my dissent as Prensky seems to be given to state his.
Kelly

By: Dean Shareski

Dean Shareski — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 04:08:06 +0000

I’m sorry Kelly but you lost me at:

As a learning professional, I’m insulted by the article and that is why I object to it. I really don’t find Prensky to be a “futurist”. Personally, I see him as an opportunist.

I don’t see what’s insulting. Is it the fact that he’s asking teachers to address the lack of engagement? How we are to engage them?

I recognize that his “schtick” is the whole video games for learning and may over use the concept but I believe his point can’t be dismissed.
Everything you write seems to be agreeing with him until the second last paragraph. I just don’t grasp your objection.

I reread both the main article and your previous post. The only thing I can derive from your other post is the idea that Prensky is advocating for the curriculum to be designed by students and that they may not know best. Again, if that’s your argument I don’t see it in the article.

My simple take on the article is we need to be more relevant and engage students using the tools they are already using and need to be using. Maybe I missed something.