Filed under: Web 2.0, collaborative learning, participatory media, pedagogy
Yesterday, I submitted a post detailing the need to shift classroom control from teacher to student in an effort to encourage in our youth a greater sense of ownership over the knowledge that they actively gain versus passively retain. Today, I received a response to that article from Tracy Rosen, whose words inspired me to jot down the following thoughts.
Great post, Kevin. Thanks for reminding me about Wesley Fryer. It’s about time I payed his blog a visit and his podcasts a listen.
Who do I look for when I’m seeking guidance and inspiration? My students. Definitely. and also my fellow bloggers who plug at it each day, asking difficult questions and sharing their experiences.
Am I a Web 2.0 teacher? I don’t know about that. I feel I am a teacher because a teacher works with students to help them create products that reflect their knowledge and their growth. Regardless of the media in which they do this. I personally use Web 2.0 ’stuff’ because it is authentic to how my students live and learn…and because I think it’s way cool! But I also have them use other technologies – like book-making and tactile arts because they are pretty cool too and because they still play a role in their lives.
Like I wrote at the beginning of this lengthy comment – great post!
cheers,
tracyComment by Tracy 08.06.07
In her comment to me, Tracy stated that she uses Web 2.0 technology as part of her teacher tool bag because it is “authentic to how [her] students live and learn.” But she reminded me that it is also important to use “tactile arts” – a category in which I typically include bookmaking (as Tracy does in her class), painting, ceramics, screen printing, and the like. This brings up a very important point, and one that bears a tiny bit of fleshing out.
What I hear Tracy stating is that we need not abandon traditionally accepted creative tools in favor of all things “Webby.” If you will remember from my Giving Up the Ghost article, I stated that Web 2.0 is as much a creative philosophy as it is a collection of technologies. Tracy is absolutely correct. I mean, think about it. Some of humankind’s most stunning innovations reference at least one landmark iteration that came before them. Throughout our history on this planet, one style or school of thought has built upon another, sometimes leaving the former behind – sometimes incorporating it into something familiar,yet altogether new. We have only to look at the Renaissance to find an example of this. The very word means “new birth,” and the period itself is wrought with artists, sculptors, and architects responsible for some of the world’s most famous creations who accomplished greatness by looking at the Classical past. From a technological perspective we can ask ourselves: How many wooden plows were made and refined before John Deere crafted the world’s first successful steel version?
How many of us have been in a school for more than a couple of years and have had to experience a new “flavor of the month” teaching methodology or system of tools for each of those years? I would urge us to remember Tracy’s point as we embrace the Web 2.0 philosophy. Move forward with blogs, wikis, podcasting, and screencasting with reckless abandon, but do take a moment to pull out a few trusty non-Webby tools should they prove useful in supplementing some of your ‘wired’ activities.
Closing Thoughts…
What do you think? Is there value in looking back to past teaching styles or methods? In what ways can you think to integrate classic or traditional creative practices with Web 2.0 technology? As you ponder your answer, take a look at Tracy’s Understanding the Machine post, which relays how she used a combination of traditional and Web 2.0 teaching methods to reach students no one else thought were reachable! Great work, Tracy. And thanks again for your comment.
Technorati Tags: web 2.0, applied arts, fine arts, creativity
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
No Comments so far
Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
