Age-Old Teaching Strategies in the Era of Digital Youth

I really loved the New MacArthur Study reading. I was particularly intrigued by the connection drawn to the teachings of John Dewey and the tenets of progressive education.

My first reaction was to the notion that we have to (somehow) "protect" young people from the perils and pitfalls of new media. Will Richardson addresses the issue thusly, "Such learning differs fundamentally from traditional instruction and is often framed negatively by adults as a means of 'peer pressure.'" I think if not in a virtual world, this very same peer pressure will be taking place in the hallways, on the playgrounds, and in the classrooms of schools everywhere. Although real dangers do indeed exist in both realms, in my opinion we really should be careful about implementing too many restrictions on access to new media because we may be compromising young people's ability to benefit from their full potential in an attempt to safeguard them from dangers and risks that are inevitable in any context.

In other words, as the saying goes, we may be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I also liked Richardson's characterization that "New media allow for a degree of freedom and autonomy for youth that is less apparent in a classroom setting...Their efforts are largely self-directed, and the outcome emerges through exploration, in contrast to classroom learning that is oriented toward set, predefined goals." To me, this sounded exactly like Dewey's vision of progressive education and student-centered learning. I especially agreed with the comment from "terry," who argued that we couldn't and shouldn't believe we can find the "right set of rules (or filters)" that will "control the student experience." Terry mentions Dewey by name here, and reminds us that he argued at the beginning of the last century that "Students are not passive empty buckets that we fill. Instead they are active participants in their learning (and when they are not, I would argue they are not actually learning)."

I have always truly believed this, as well, and recognize that, as such, learning will not always be neat and tidy, and without its share of messiness. But it is through these trials and tribulations that kids, and teachers, learn. Richardson goes so far as to say, "Enough with the filtering already! The world is changing! I'm a professional. Give me access! NOW!" I tend to agree with this, and would echo the call for teachers to stand up for themselves in the face of "outspoken fanatic parents who don't get it, and who elect school board members who don't get it."

I think one concrete example we might cite as proof positive is the need for a new definition of functional literacy. We used to speak in terms of one's ability to read a newspaper or fill out a job application. Nowadays, most universities conduct their registration solely online, many college courses are offered only in the virtual realm, through podcasts and the like, and video conferencing has become the norm for communication in the workplace. It is absolutely necessary for kids to develop sufficient technical skills in these areas, and it is absolutely imperative that schools allow them to do so. From my perspective, and experiences watching kids struggle toward their mastery of classic literature, for example, perhaps it would help us gain perspective if we could simply see computer horseplay as the note-passing of today.

If I were to post my own comment to the weblogg on ed.com, I would only add one word to the discussion: democratic. Where "terry" cites Dewey and Richardson speaks of "freedom and autonomy," our class has taught me that the UDL potential in so many of these new technologies also makes them more democratic than many "traditional" instructional approaches. With this Dewey would also be pleased.

Jeff Kulick