Video Games in the Classroom

Okay everyone...you are going to have to convince me.  I read the Gee article...but am TOTALLY not convinced that I want to ever use video games in the classroom.

First of all, let me start off by saying that video games completely turn me off.  I do not see the point and I think that they are a problem among teenage boys.  Boys are spending so much time playing video games, instead of being face-to-face social or joining sports teams or clubs, etc.  I just feel that if we brought video games into the classroom, it would be non-stop video games 24/7 for some of our teenage boys.

And for girls, I don't have a huge interest in them.  And I don't know many girls who have a huge interest in them, either.  I have been known to play a little Mario Kart here and there, but I don't own a game console, and never have.  I just don't see the point.  I feel like you're frying your brain when you're playing video games.  I think we might have a really hard time engaging our girls.  I suppose you could have two activities...one video game, and one of something else so that students can choose which one they want to do? 

On page 5, Gee talks about how video games are, "a new form of learning and thinking."  I agree with him on that... but, I have never had the patience to sit and put 50-100 hours towards one task (Gee, 5).  I think that simulation games require your brain to work in ways that you have probably never used it before.  You are using real-life skills in a digital world.  I find that this may be difficult for some students and could cause a lot of frustration for everyone.  I also realize that this is Gee's introduction...but he doesn't say much about HOW to integrate video games into your classroom.  I guess I would have to read the rest of the book to find out. 

I'm totally lost...and can't see myself using video games in my classroom.  Hopefully our discussion tomorrow might change my mind.

How would you all use them in your classroom?

Lynn's Ning Post

I am taking a Film class that focuses on using media in connection with the school curriculum. My interest is in Foreign Films and hope to synthesize the films with reading material and writing prompts in a community college English setting. I am seeking any sources that I could use for both a paper and eventually in my own classes.

I didn't get much feedback, but Ryan suggested I join a secondary education group, which I plan to do. I believe this is a useful source but I need time to really go through and read all the posts.

Social Networking in the Classroom

I am creating my wiki chapter based on getting students to create their own media to enhance their own learning. Through my research I have found many different activities, and even used activities that I m doing in this class, and other classes of my own. These actives range from blogs, to glogs, to creating a song.

One problem I have ran into is the idea of using a social networking website in the classroom. First of all, I do not have Facebook. I believe it creates problems in relationship, and people share personal information that should absolutely not be on the internet. I recognize that it does have it upsides, but my obstacle s how to I rationalize using it when I do not favor it myself.

I have talked about using twitter, because you can follow writers, famous actors, and educators, but it is hard for me to too see a real benefit from using faceook.

How much die should the instructor have in the group is Facebook is used?

Would students have  a separate account for class, and if not how could the teacher control what the other "bad stuff" on their profile is?

Just a few thoughts to consider, I would love some feedback from someone who has any idea how to make this a successful task in the classroom!!

What is Disney telling our young girls?

What is Disney telling our young girls?

I am doing my Wiki project on gender roles and stereotypes found in Disney films.  When I first started researching the topic, I thought it was a bit ridiculous how far people were reading into this.  I mean, everyone I know has seen Disney films and no one I know claims that these films had an impact on their life as an adult.  Sure, every young girl dreams of becoming a Princess when she grows up, but then she grows up and wants something different.  Males see the characters in Disney films, but don't pay too much attention to them, because they are more interested in characters like G.I. Joe or Transformers.  I just felt that every article I read was making too big of a deal of the appearance and effect of Disney Princesses. 

But after I watched the documentary "Killing Us Softly" in class the other day, I realized that popular culture has a HUGE impact on who we are as people.  I began to see the validity in the claims that the people were making about the negative impact Disney films are having on young girls and boys. 

I also read this article, which was recommended to me on the MCPop ning:

What's Wrong with Cinderella?

Our world is so inundated with what it is to be a Princess, that young girls want to grow up faster and faster.  I remember a controversy a few years ago at the mega-retailer Abercrombie, when they began selling thong underwear for girls ages 7-12.  Parents were outraged!  But, if you look at it further, you are forced to realize that our society is forcing us to act like this.  The images we come across daily are sending us sub-conscious messages about who we should be and how we should act.

I really loved the discussion we had about advertisements the other day and was hoping to further the discussion. 

Does anyone feel that they are affected by these ads in their daily lives? 

I think we like to think that we are above the influence of ads, but we aren't.  I think that every single person has to be influenced in some way by advertisements, and that the influence can be positive too, it doesn't have to always be negative.

What do you think? 

John Green, Fahrenheit 451, and the Internet

 In a recent USA today article, John Green (a YA author and YouTube vlogger) announces the book club selection for a group called the Nerdfighters. He has chosen Fahrenheit 451 and looks forward to using the internet as a means to discuss literature. Green proves the point that the internet and social media outlets can enhance the study of literature if used correctly.   Here is an excerpt from the article (link below):

Green, whose novel about teens with cancer, The Fault in Our Stars, hit No. 4 on USA TODAY's Best-selling Books list in January, is looking forward to discussing Bradbury's themes — "the ways context and sustained engagement add meaning to human life in a place (the Internet) that is not exactly known for sustained intellectual engagement."

Social networks "are often home to precisely the kinds of factoids and half-truths that Bradbury worries about," he says. But while the Internet "contains a lot of videos of squirrels riding skateboards, it can also be a place that facilitates big conversations about books."

http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/story/2012-07-02/john-green-book-club/55989684/1


Side note:  I highly recommend incorporating any and all of John Green's books into your current/future classroom libraries.  Be sure to purchase them in hardcover; they will not stay on your shelves long, and students will devour them.   

If you teach The Great Gatsby or Catcher in the Rye-- he has videos on YouTube that teach teens literary critical analysis skills using both texts.  I have included one of the Gatsby videos.

The Fast and the Furious

I was listening to this week’s NPR program On the Media, during which there was a segment about the competition among news outlets to break a story first. This story comes in the wake of the gaffes by CNN and Fox when they reported that the Supreme Court struck down the healthcare reform law. Some of the most recent reporting mistakes include CNN stating that Hosni Mubarak was killed, CNN stating that 20 bodies were found in a Texas home, and NPR stating that Gabrielle Giffords died during the Arizona shooting. Jerry Schwartz, the news feature editor for the Associated Press, explained that this competition among news sources has been taking place for a long time. Schwartz remembers when reporters would disconnect payphones to prevent other reporters from calling in the news. What I find really interesting is that none of this really matters. Schwartz even admits that in the grand scheme of things, it never mattered who broke the news first or last. Being the first to break news was simply a matter of pride to feed the reporters’ insatiable egos. It was just one big game for them. However, in today’s digital age, news outlets survive on how many people view their online content because this affects advertising dollars. Therefore, it doesn’t pay for news outlets to sit on their hands and wait to verify information. As long as people go to their web pages, incorrect news is just as good as accurate news. If they jump the gun and report something that’s not entirely or not at all true, they simply have to post another story correcting the facts. This might make sense financially for news corporations, but it’s negatively affecting the readers. Personally, I think this deceptively reckless behavior is leading to the public’s distrust of the news. I know I question the legitimacy of news stories all the time because I hear contradictory or questionable statements. Brooke Gladstone compares the media to a flock of birds flying from one electrical wire to the next, willing to be shocked every now and then for landing on a bad story. Well, if this analogy is true, then we, as the masses, are the birdseed because our shallow consumption habits are feeding and perpetuating this behavior.

http://www.onthemedia.org/2012/jul/06/

A Huxleyan Future?

 

I'm glad I read Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death as my supplementary text. It was a slow slog, very dense in a philosophical sense, but unquestionably worth the time. It provided a helpful contrast to what we've been discussing in class. Postman was highly skeptical about the usefulness of TV and digital media on both public discourse and education in America. Actually, highly skeptical is a bit of an understatement: he genuinely perceived the transition to image-based information transmission as a step into a dystopian Huxleyan future. One passage from the conclusion of Postman's study stood out to me, and I thought I'd post it as a counterpoint to what's been discussed so far on the blog. As his study draws to a close, he boldly opines, "In the Huxleyan prophecy, Big Brother does not watch us, by his choice. We watch him, by ours. There is no need for wardens or gates or Ministries of Truth. When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; culture-death is a clear possibility" (155-56).

This kind of statement may seem hyperbolic at first; however, after careful consideration, we all have to admit that we can think of plenty of examples to support his conclusions. Still, Postman seems a bit extreme on this point. Is this some kind of Luddite evangelism, some kind of paranoid prophesying, or was he expressing legitimate fears?

Having read his study, I find his warnings warranted. Regardless of your feelings on that point, though, I think we can agree with his central contention that trends in TV and digital media have an enormous impact on public discourse and education and that these trends are, for various reasons, often contrary to the needs of the public.

Another point I think we can all agree on is Postman's assertion that educators need to play a forcefully proactive role in making sure that entertainment and media don't influence education, but rather that education informs entertainment and media. He notes, "it is an acknowledged task of the schools to assist the young in learning how to interpret the symbols of their culture. That this task should now require that they learn how to distance themselves from their forms of information is not so bizarre an enterprise that we cannot hope for its inclusion in the curriculum; even hope that it will be placed at the center of education" (163).

As we begin to develop and rework lessons to incorporate media, I think we need to keep Postman's prophecies in mind. Whenever we implement film or news or any other type of media, our intent should be to produce critical consumers of media, not the type of passive partisan puppets that are fueling the pseudonews polluting the airwaves right now.

Are we headed for a Huxleyan future? That might be a bit of a stretch. Still, it's best to err on the side of caution, right?