Yesterday was a good day in Tampa, Florida. The keynote (New Literacy) was well received, and I had the opportunity to talk about the issues of literacy and the changing shape of information during two breakout sessions after the keynote. One thing you can say about school board members is that they ask questions — and the expect their questions to be answered.
Although I wouldn’t call it push back, there was some disbelief about Web 2.0, at least in my characterization of it — as an information environment that our children treat as their play ground. One very nice, polite, and enthusiastic woman said that she didn’t disagree, but that her own teenage children were digital natives (my words), and they were not making machinimas and probably didn’t know what Web 2.0 was. Another asked what percentage of teenagers were doing these things, and I arbitrarily said, “Ten percent?” Curses for not remembering the Internet and American Life Project study that found that 57% of U.S. teenagers have produced original digital content and published it on the Internet.
When I suggested that her children probably knew what machinima was and that they had downloaded machinima from the Net, she interrupted me and said, “My children do not download from the Internet.” Well, that’s another issue. But it’s like someone said a while back. It’s not Web 2.0 to these kids, because a participatory Web is the only Web they’ve known.
Coincidentally, while scanning my embarassingly neglected e-mail on my phone last night, while taxying up to gate 79 at the Kansas City Airport, I ran across a message from an acquaintance, Scott Mooney. He’s involved in instructional design for online learning in Maryland. Scott said in his e-mail,
I was invited into (Dr. Stan Bennett’s) class today to talk about the “real-world” and discuss my experiences in terms of integrating technology and training teachers to do the same. In the room were 20 or so 19-20 year-olds, most with their own laptops, mobile phones, iPods, living in the world that we talk about all the time. During my talk I brought up the present and future of modern tools, such as Web 2.0 and virtual worlds. I thought their eyes would light up, like I was now talking their language. In reality, you could hear a pin drop in that room. I was confused, so I asked if anyone in the room had blogged. No one. I asked if anyone knew what a wiki was. No one. I asked if anyone knew what Second Life was. No one.
I suspect that some people might look at us as wild-eyed profits from the wilderness, spouting off about a new coming. Or, perhaps worse, as opportunists creating a hazy condition, so that we can charge large sums for our expertise.
But change is like this. Today’s change is fast. I suspect, aside from great cataclysms, faster than any at time before. But it’s not so fast that it really stirs up the wind. As we were taxiing in last night, I noticed, painted on the wing of a nearby jet, “AA.com,” and I thought about how odd that would have seemed, how odd URLs on the sides of trucks did seem on a little more than ten years ago. Yet we take the web so much for granted today.
I think that our understanding of our information landscape is changing, not so fast that most people are interested in labeling or classifying it, but we are becoming far more intimate with our information experience than we’ve been since the time of Gutenberg, and that information experience is far more rich than it’s ever been before. ..and I believe that this new information environment has profound implications for teaching and learning. Because it makes both, teaching and learning, an active engagement in conversation about our world, ways that our world affects us, and ways that we affect it.
This is just too good to not kick up some wind about!
2¢ Worth
What was the class that Mr. Mooney visited? I’m a little skeptical – 20 undergrads and not a single one has ever had a blog in their life? When asked if they knew what a wiki was, not a single one said “Is that like Wikipedia”? …but I’m always skeptical 🙂
I think the numbers are meaningless.
To say ” created and posted content online” means nothing because it should ask how many students REGULARLY post content..there is a great difference.
I have seen many instances of kids posting something online once, and then never going back to it, much like teachers who create a blog in a workshop but never keep it up to date.
I also think that the numbers are skewed towards the middle class and upper middle class students and away from economically disadvantaged and minority populations.
The woman may be correct David, she may have just articulated it incorrectly.
Dave – The classroom I spoke at was at the University of Maryland. The class was titled “Designing Multimedia Computer Environments for Learners” and was being delivered to students in the early childhood education program. I wondered if their niche, early childhood, had something to do with it. My wife taught in that field for years and technology was not something that was looked to with admiration or even contempt, it was simply overlooked as not being appropriate for young learners. It would have been interesting if I had had 1/2 early childhood majors and 1/2 secondary ed. majors. I wonder how their reactions would have been different.