I think the main point that Jerkin is making is—why ban something from the classroom that is obviously growing with our communities and that has the potential to do great things. Why ban social networking sites, Wikipedia and Youtube when it offers so much towards a learning environment. I believe that this can be connected to what Weinberger believes that web 2.0 is miscellaneous, that information doesn’t have a set place anymore it is everywhere, that the web context can also be used for the same endless criteria. Web 2.0 allows multiple people to control what is going out into the digital world and what is not, in other words, who the “boss” is. This freedom can allow a child in school to create and market anything they want including tools and statements regarding classroom appropriate material.
As I can see the problem with allowing more freedom in the digital world in schools the more I think it is necessary to have it being taught. If this is apart of our culture and is apart of the world then it should be introduced to students to better have them prepared when they encounter it. Weinberger talks about how anyone can publish content on the internet and how information can reach anyone at anytime. I think this notion that “the average Joe” can in theory be heard is enlightening! I agree with Jerkin’s that this social networking should be allowed in schools. If for nothing more than the message it sends to kids. You can be heard and make a difference. I don’t understand why would exclude our youth from a valuable skill and a mind set that anyone’s voice is worth being heard.
We have to remember that kids will be kids... They could use social networks and sites similar to distract from other learnings. Saying this I do think it is important we, as adults and teachers, have to help them understand the importance of these sites as well as show them how to be used appropriately.
ReplyDeleteI get the sense here that you watched the movie but didn't do the reading, as he doesn't say anything about this in the reading. It's sort of something he comes up with after the fact (in the lecture you saw). Anyone, interesting connections with Weinberger, but I wish you had talked about the reading and the key terms from it (because they're not quite the same as the ones from the lecture). Thanks.
ReplyDelete