Blog 6: And What[ever] About the Future?

1. These videos carry such intrinsic brilliance. The dichotomization of the videos creates the simulation of the difference between where technology in education is now (in incremental changes), and how it could be. After watching part 1, it hit me that even though we’ve progressed this far, the changes made to education (and the humanities) have a long way to go if those fields are going to succeed (and survive) in the coming century.
“The limits and restrictions are largely ones we place on ourselves,” mentioned Miller. My reaction will seem ambiguous, but what a simply profound statement! Time and time again, colleagues and fellow students attempt to persuade me that I am capable of something because I don’t believe I am. Or, as another example, the hardest part for injured athletes is not for their ailment to heal, but for their minds to believe the ailment has healed. We can accomplish so much more if we throw “can’t” out of our vocabulary. It sounds like a vapid and ideal expression, but why does that make it less true?
The author also stated that [he] “can’t imagine doing it himself, but it’s already being done”. I think that we are all waiting for the resources to come to us, instead of finding the resources to make Miller’s (and many others) idea happen. The only way we will have pedagogy like the kind described is if we embrace this resource as “a way to push ideas into our culture.” Our world is so large, diverse, and globalized, that this is the new way to spread ideas. To succeed to change, we must be the frontrunners of [r]evolutionary ideas.


2. The networked student provides legitimate reasons for future educators to realize that teachers will not become obsolete. They simply will be teaching in a different style. The motivation is the same: to empower students to ask their own questions and search for their own answers; to instill a love of learning; and to guide and coach students toward their successes in our world. Our world now has experienced much more globalization. My reaction in regard to my future classroom is one of excitement. Instead of presenting history lessons and telling the students why this history is important (or why I or the curriculum thinks it is important), I can use a networked classroom to ask them why they think it is important. This is a simple video, but it expounds the ongoing need for teachers and the need to network in this age.
This video also explains some positives of globalization. Obviously there are many negatives, debated over again and again through economic geographers and others who study social sciences. But I like this view of “the world getting smaller”. The connections we make with people around the world help us develop our own schemas. We will not know how to communicate in the 21st century if we do not embrace the possibilities.
I would deceive myself if I said that I was completely ready to be a teacher of a networked student. However, I am aware of the need to be ready, and I believe this class is an excellent starting point. Being an educator, to me, has always been about empowering and enriching student’s educational experiences and opportunities. That being said, it isn’t about the technology, per say, but technology is the best resource we have today to achieve that goal. I realize that there are many obstacles. If we are creative enough, I think we can overcome them.


3. I think that both Orwell and Huxley feared the future because they did not know what it would hold. Their pessimism is not central to only their times and places. We all fear the unknown. The quote "In the midst of a fabulous array of historically unprecedented and utterly mind-boggling stimuli... whatever," does not only describe today. It also describes yesterday and tomorrow. But it means something different for us today, because of the evolutions made in technology. I agree that we are a part of an “entitled” generation, [insert psychosocial schools of thought here] and that our feelings of entitlement have caused disengagement from and fragmentation of the community as a whole. It’s ambiguous though, because we are now connecting with people on a level that we have never seen. Michael Wesch expands on this ambiguity in two equations:

anonymity + physical distance + rare ephemeral dialogue= hatred as public performance
anonymity + physical distance + rare ephemeral dialogue= freedom to experience humanity without fear or anxiety

I think our expansive resources in communication are still clouded by that narcissism and disinterest. This reverts back to a comment in a previous post where I mentioned that Just because the internet is an infinite space does not necessarily mean that it should be filled up infinitely. The democracy inherent in communicating by this medium is unprescedented, but I have to reiterate a question of Wesch’s : “How can we use this to conquer the narcissistic disengagement we see today, in a culture still ruled by triviality?” I don’t have an answer, but it is critical to meditate on this question. If we connect this way, are we disconnecting in some other way?
I do agree with Wesch’s main point: identity is defined by relations to others; new media allows new ways to relate to others; new media therefore allows new understanding of the self. The collaborative side of globalization surely has its benefits. But to what extent are we truly collaborating? If communication is only heard, or only seen through video, it is harder to judge the true meaning of this form of conversation.