Audio Response

The Fire

The ANIMOTO software was fairly simple to use, and I think I had a pretty clear idea of how I wanted to frame my story in the first place. I knew what song I wanted playing, and I also knew what words I wanted to flash, so that was all pretty simple. The only problem occurred in getting words as images. To do this, I created a power point and then captured the image of the screen. Also, I didn't like how I couldn't control how long the images flashed on the screen, so I had to tweak with which images I wanted to 'spotlight.'

At first, I hated the scrapbook website. I didn't like how I couldn't control the music, and I also didn't like how there was no movement within the slides. However, this forced me to rethink my story. I liked it because I had to get creative in order to make my project fun and exciting. In the end, I enjoyed this one the most.

The Voicethread Version.

The Voicethread was fun because I got to tell the 'backstory' to the main story. I also liked how I could add video comments and side notes. It was like being in the director's chair and pointing out what I wanted to convey. I think this would be extremely valuable to an English class, not only for creative story telling purposes, but for peer editing in general.

Hikikomori

I think the internet's impact on kids is immense, but to me I see it as just another part of life, as I am sure many other kids also do. I think the Internet is so ingrained in our lives that we take for granted how much progress it has made within the last few decades. 

In the Frontline special Growing Up Online , there was a great deal of talk about social networking websites, such as myspace and facebook. They mentioned how kids try on different personae, which allows them to portray alternate lifestyles and beliefs that they may not necessarily believe in. One teen mentioned how relieving it is to know that there are other kids out there who are just as frustrated with their lives and who they are- that they are all searching for some sort of closure in regards to their identities. I think it's great that kids find some sort of escape with internet socializing. I think it's safe, as long as they don't relieve anything too personal to a complete stranger, and relieving. Who's to say how we release stress? Some of us run, some get an instrument and rock out, and some like to talk online. I think that online talk is almost as liberating as fiction; kids are creating narratives about where they have come from, what they have experienced, and who they are trying to become. Why dampen that? 

However, I also recognize how some kids take this to the extreme, as in cases of hikikomori, which is an instance of extreme social withdrawal. I suppose my view is that while the Internet is liberating, it also should not replace any sort of real relationships. I found the English teacher's plight close to heart; she was trying to make the kids appreciate thinking, appreciate taking time to reflect. The one problem I have with the Internet is its ability to appear to give a satisfactory answer, when it may indeed leave out personal opinions and feelings.

"Trying to make ends meet, You're a slave to the money then you die"

Several other students all reviewed the following article (found here), which talks about paying students for earning good grades. 

Jessica Lee took a strong stance against the act, stating that "...the student is being encouraged to work hard at something only when it benefits them extrinsically (materially) rather than intrinsically, which builds true character." I think this argument is probably the strongest one against the program because it focuses on the most important aspect of the teaching/ learning process. Teachers want to help students better themselves not only in a specific subject, but also in life. 

Sam S. also disagreed with the program. I thought that this point of hers was very interesting: "... if these plans were to be implemented nation wide, they can create even more educational disparity. Suburban students with lots of resources to aid their achievement are going to recieve more money than lower-income students who lack educational resources. Thus, the rich get richer and the poor stay where they are." Sam also agreed with Jessica's view of the intrinsic accomplishment that is lost when money is added to the educational process. Also, she mentioned that students would think some classes were worth more- or less. Thus, a student could think certain classes aren't worth their time.

However, not everyone thought the program was completely bad. Megan Shaw thought that the program could be beneficial for high school students. She says, "Students will work for better grades because there is an added incentive. The problem I see with this program is the lack of sustainability. These kids will not be getting the same incentive if they enroll in college." I think Megan makes a good point- why not reward the students? Besides, how much intrinsic sense of learning do you think most high schoolers feel?  I don't think I even thought about why I learn and go to school until I got to college- where I was forced to rethink my education. Thus, I agree with Megan that the program means well, but will not replace deeper thinking and values. 

The Times They Are A-Changin'

The first video (seen above) did not surprise me much. I have seen it before in EPS 201, and simply thought to myself, "Yeah? So what's the point?" I suppose my lack of reflection was somewhat juvenile, but I believe I learned something this time around. All those students claimed to have a lackluster approach to education, yet I assume that most of them will be moderately successful in life. The question that stuck out to me is this: how much can education- that is pure education in the sense of critical thinking and creativity- really do for a person if the person does not want to succeed? And more so, how can we measure that a person has learned anything at all? Because they go on to found a multimillion  dollar business? Or they become a renown artist? The entire question seems arbitrary and difficult to arrive at any sort of conclusive answer. 

The second video (above) got me to focus more on how I will personally push my students to become aquatinted with technology and innovation. I don't know what kind of school I'll be teaching in, but I suppose that the economic status of the students will vary greatly, and that will affect what methods I can integrate into my lessons. If possible, I would want students to respond to each other's writing through digital means. I think this practice would be great for students to learn how to peer review without any of the anxieties a face-to-face critique can create. Also, I think it's important that I should not try to limit students by telling them they need to neglect what really interests them. If anything, it's my job to find out how to integrate their interests into my lessons. I think that's how I'll be an agent of change within the classroom. 

In  Samantha Stachowiak's review of Sir Ken Robinson's speech, she completely agrees with his assertion that schools do not foster creativity. Instead, they stifle and destroy it. She recounts her own experience at a tutoring center where "The majority of the parents' goal in signing their children up for such intense tutoring was... to make sure their children were at least a grade level ahead by the end of summer," (Sam S.). Parent's lack of trust in the creative mind, and their emphasis on 'practicality,' seriously injures children's ability to critically think and develop original ideas of worth. 

In Clarice Butacan's blog, she also agrees with Robinson's view. She recalls how her math and science classes would reinforce ideas of structure and logic, and downplay the role of creativity. I don't think math and science should be the subjects were creativity is given the least support though. If it weren't for curiosity and guesses, there would be no science or math to even study. Clarice also noticed how she only felt comfortable "... stepping out of the rigid box of curriculum when guided by a teacher who respected my potential to grow and learn in my own way," (Calrice B.). I believe this is the way many children feel because they're so afraid to do something wrong and get a bad grade.

I really enjoyed Jennifer Laidlaw's blog because it discussed how the arts are secondary to any other subject, and also how students almost despise being asked to be creative. As Jen put it: "With English classes, they [students] had to actually create their own original ideas and then have those ideas graded. It was not concrete, and thus didn't know what was expected of them." (Jen L.) It seems that whenever teachers call on students to be creative, students shut down before they even give the matter any thought. It's this lack of thought that creates a world-view that is static, and creates problems when old methods don't solve new problems. 

All the kids are right

With the ever increasing amount of technology that is available to us, I feel it is of the utmost importance that teachers stay up to date and capable of operating various technologies. If a teacher isn't able to display what tools are available to students, then how are the students going to relate anything they learn to their lives? For example, if a teacher didn't know how to operate a computer, then how are they going to say a student didn't format a word document correctly? The student could plead ignorance to the formatting capabilities of Word, and the teacher would just have to accept the assignment and tell the student to learn how to format from someone else. As you can clearly see, it's situations like these that teachers could easily avoid by taking some time out of their lives to play around with various technologies and programs.