My initial impression of these articles is that the author overstates his case. He comes across as an educational games salesperson who is engaging in hard sell tactics to line his own pockets. He speaks of Digital Natives as if they are a different species. I am a new teacher so I can't really speak to whether students have changed. However, I don't see much change in my nieces and nephews. They are very similar to how I was at their age. These articles seem directed at convincing older teachers to embrace technology. While I believe that there are many good reasons to incorporate technology into the classroom, I didn't find the author's pseudo science approach particularly convincing. Instead, I found it rather insulting to teachers which is counterproductive.
The part of the articles that I do agree with is utilizing technology in education. I think games can be excellent learning tools. Of course they have to be well designed and teachers have to evaluate their effectiveness. With math instruction, I think computers and calculators help students learn more. I agree with the author's statement that "[p]ractice - time spent on learning- works. Kids don't like to practice. Games capture their attention and make it happen."
The part of the article that I am most skeptical about is the theory that the brains of Digital Natives are significantly different. While some kids today do spend more time watching television and playing video games, many kids today also spend significant amounts of time on other activities and sports. I don't believe that Digital Natives are better at multitasking and recent studies have called those assumptions into question. How many lives will be destroyed because Digital Natives think they can text and drive. Also, I disagree with the author's notion of "Legacy" and "Future Content."
No comments:
Post a Comment